Thursday, September 27, 2012

Emotion, logic, and dishonesty

Over the course of the discussion of female solipsism, the distinction between dialectic and rhetoric, and between logic and emotion, has repeatedly come up.  Two things have become obvious as a result, which is that 1) men have no choice but to accept the observable female inclination for solipsism, rhetoric, and emotion, and 2) women have to accept that those men who strongly prefer objective perspectives, dialectic, and logic are never going to look favorably upon women's rejection of those things even if they accept the fact of the female disinclination.

The problem is that emotion and rhetoric are both more or less dishonest in discourse, the former intrinsically and the latter practically.  This is not to say that emotions are negative, only that because they are dynamic and the truth is static,(1) emotion-based reasoning is guaranteed to be false at least part of the time.  Rhetoric, on the other hand, does not have to be dishonest, but because it is designed to manipulate and convince those who, as Aristotle pointed out in Rhetoric, "cannot take in at a glance a complicated argument, or follow a long chain of reasoning", it usually has to be at least somewhat in variance with the complete truth because it is primarily designed to appeal to the emotions rather than reason.

Consider the NYT editorial written by a nurse advocating gun control.  Note that I'm not at all interested in a discussion of the pros and cons of gun control here, so don't get distracted by that, but rather considering whether the argument being presented is dialectical or rhetorical in nature.

With the hope of presenting the issue of guns in America in a novel way, I’m going to look at it from an unusual vantage point: the eyes of a nurse. By that I mean looking at guns in America in terms of the suffering they cause, because to really understand the human cost of guns in the United States we need to focus on gun-related pain and death....

[W]e need to stop talking about gun rights in America as if they have no wrenching real-world effects when every day 80 Americans, their friends, families and loved ones, learn they obviously and tragically do.Many victims never stand a chance against a dangerously armed assailant, and there’s scant evidence that being armed themselves would help....

A trauma nurse I know told me she always looked at people’s shoes when they lay on gurneys in the emergency department. It struck her that life had still been normal when that patient put them on in the morning. Whether they laced up Nikes, pulled on snow boots or slid feet into stiletto heels, the shoes became a relic of the ordinariness of the patient’s life, before it turned savage.

So I have a request for proponents of unlimited access to guns. Spend some time in a trauma center and see the victims of gun violence — the lucky survivors — as they come in bloody and terrified. Understand that our country’s blind embrace of gun rights made this violent tableau possible, and that it’s playing out each day in hospitals and morgues all over the country.  Before leaving, make sure to look at the patients’ shoes. Remember that at the start of the day, before being attacked by a person with a gun, that patient lying on a stretcher writhing helplessly in pain was still whole.
The entire piece is nothing but rhetoric and emotion from start to finish.  It is also profoundly dishonest and manipulative.  Let's consider a few of the salient points from the dialectical perspective:
  1. The writer is looking at the issue from the eyes of a nurse.  Why?  What can a nurse say about a macrosocietal issue that a statistician cannot?  Nothing, except for an appeal to emotional authority, which in this case turns out to be a false appeal because the woman isn't even a trauma nurse!  She has little more experience of gunshot victims in trauma rooms than anyone else, moreover, her emotional authority as a nurse has nothing to do with the many victims who are dead at the scene and never go to the hospital.
  2. Who on either side of the debate talks "about gun rights in America as if they have no wrenching real-world effects"?  No one.  In fact, the relatively small number of daily deaths attributed by gun deaths are about the only ones that are ever discussed in terms of their effects on the survivors.  Her point would be much more applicable to daily deaths by falls in the bathroom, traffic deaths or lethal attacks by meerkats.
  3. Contra her baseless assertion, there is considerable evidence that being armed often helps people avoid being victimized by assailants, armed or otherwise, and ironically, the only way for the average individual to have any chance against dangerously armed opponent is to embrace the very concept she is attacking.
  4. She spends three out of 13 paragraphs talking about shoes and then makes a personal request of the reader.  Why?  Because she has constructed a naked appeal to female solipsism.  She is attempting to get the reader to imagine an emotional connection between the gunshot victim writhing helplessly in pain and themselves, and to encourage them to use that connection as a basis for the leap to the irrational conclusion that gun control could somehow prevent them from ever experiencing that pain.  The rhetorical message is "support gun control or you will find yourself in the trauma room".
Now, it would be easy to respond by going methodically through the entire editorial and highlighting all of the logical errors, factual omissions, and material falsehoods in order to try changing the minds of those who found the piece to be credible and convincing.  This is, indeed, how most male gun advocates tend to respond to such pieces.  But, as both the discussion of solipsism and Aristotle have taught us, this is unlikely to be very effective.  One should never make the mistake of utilizing dialectic when faced with a rhetorical audience; ironically, that is a logical error.  Consider an alternative response utilizing a rhetorical perspective.
  1. The response is written from the perspective of a rape victim.  Her emotional authority is considerably greater, and more solipsistically powerful, than that of a nurse who doesn't even see the trauma victims about whom she is writing.
  2. The writer describes how powerless she was to defend herself from her unarmed attacker, her terror and outrage at her violation, and how afraid for her life she was when she was being victimized.   She describes how awful it was to realize that the police were not there to protect her, and how long it took before she saw a single officer.  She talks about the fear she still feels, every day, when going to the gym or the grocery store.
  3. She then describes how she went to a gun range and how powerful and confident she felt when she was firing the gun, and how she doesn't feel afraid anymore as long as she has her gun in her purse.  She regurgitates some statistics about how many times guns are used to scare off rapists and home invaders.
  4. She spends three paragraphs about how she has a whole new social circle at the gun range, how much fun it is to make new friends there, and mentions how she is involved with a handsome man she met there, complete with a sly remark about what a big gun he has.  The rhetorical message is "oppose gun control, buy a gun, and you will meet handsome men, because if you don't, you will be raped and murdered at the grocery store".
Now, consider which of the two responses, the dialectic response or the rhetorical one, you think would be more likely to convince the sort of individual who was convinced by the original editorial?  The need to correctly engage the audience at its preferred level of discourse doesn't only hold true for political or intellectual dispute, but for everyday discussion as well.

(1) Comparatively static relative to emotional fluctuations, if you wish to be more precise.  Don't even think about bringing up quantum mechanics or Heisenberg; if you're tempted to do that, then you're perfectly capable of following the argument without being a pedantic ass about it.

223 comments:

1 – 200 of 223   Newer›   Newest»
LP 999/Eliza said...

Hence, women writing op-ed pieces is usually a disaster unless its a skilled professional female writer.

(In a shorter more irritated note, this post serves as a fine example of emo-henhouse logic. All this false authority wrapped up in their little jobs, all this high and holy emotionalism is waste of ink.)

SarahsDaughter said...

Most would be more convinced by the rhetorical response before the dialectic.

I don't think the nurse that wrote it would change her mind no matter the response, it was that ridiculous.

The abortion debate is akin to this except solipsism is much more powerful in the female brain than appeals to emotion. The pro lifers can plaster images of aborted babies on every billboard, they can show videos of the babies being murdered and have heartfelt confessions by women who confess the consequences. Nothing is going to get through "My Body, My Choice."

Kickass said...

Well done. Now how do you size up your audience? Do you do it based strictly on gender or do you have some devices one could use to determine which way to go in both one on one an then in a larger crowd? Thanks.

Jim said...

So, SD, what rhetorical device can penetrate the "my body, my choice" embattlement.

Cryan Ryan said...

Hitler discussed this issue at length in Mein Kampf. He tailored his speeches to include three levels, from the dumbasses to the average to the more intelligent.

Repetition was his best friend.

I think he could have convinced the woman that guns were important and everyone should own one.

Of course, once he left the room, she would flip flop. (this tendency to go back to one's original belief was one of his biggest pet peeves, next to Jewish bankers)

Rock Throwing Peasant said...

Nothing is going to get through "My Body, My Choice."

This.

My ex is Catholic and doesn't blink when saying her abortion at 18 was "the right thing." She won't tell her mother or brother, but by gummit, it was the right thing.

LP 999/Eliza said...

No, as the generations change feminism has to fade away. "My body, my choice" is quickly becoming "I belong to the state, open the ovens & send in the drones."

revrogers said...

Vox,
I'm in the midst of teaching a sermon preparation and preaching course to young preachers, laypersons, anyone who will show up. I know, of course, that we must preach the Word, but included with that is the mode, manner, means of communicating the ideas. Do you have any adaptation/alteration counsel if the subject is regarding Scripture?

Also, if this is too off topic, you, of course, have the right to delete, excoriate, etc.

SarahsDaughter said...

"So, SD, what rhetorical device can penetrate the "my body, my choice" embattlement." - Jim

I don't know.

Just as in the example given, if the reader or the writer is a woman steeped in rhetoric whose emotional authority is solipsistically powerful (she's had a loved one killed by gun violence)she will not be persuaded by rhetoric no matter how much emotional authority her persuader has. Her solipsism determines that her experience wins the authority comparison and therefore her rhetoric wins.

Heh said...

"women writing op-ed pieces is usually a disaster unless its a skilled professional female writer"

Yes, just consider the awesome logical power of Peggy Noonan or Maureen Dowd... oh wait, never mind, women writing op ed pieces is ALWAYS a disaster.

SarahsDaughter said...

I especially don't know today when I see this video and realize that some pro abortion types have co-opted the one rhetorical argument I had that seemed to make some headway, "if you are pro abortion, you are racist and are for the slaughter of black babies."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fhep2QOzM2s&feature=g-u-u
The beligerant black woman says: "You want to make abortion illegal. That don't make sense mother f***er, what we gonna have all these ugly ass nappy headed kids runnin round here hungry and f***, that don't even sound attractive. Why would you get rid of...come on Mitt Romney, you need your ass whipped."

tz said...

I would say emotion and rhetoric are not dishonest as much as irrational. Crazy. Not the fine and brilliant psychosis of a serial killer, but of someone spending hours screaming their head off in a corner somewhere.

The "Nurse" often appears in equivalent argument against repealing Motorcycle Helmet laws, but this year Michigan is now a free state. And there has been no statistically significant increase in injuries or fatalities.

The response emotivator argument gives me a worry concerning rights. Consider two: suffrage and the right to bear arms. I don't know which is fundamentally a greater threat. PMS and CCW might be a volatile if not lethal combination. (I also remember the rare stories of mothers drowning their children, but never fathers).

Perhaps a better emotive myth given this venue would be one where she is always in the company of a well armed male.

the bandit said...

re: "My body, my choice"

Sonograms are effective (statistically), and the greater emotional appeal belongs to the women who've experienced the mental/physical trauma of abortion and share their stories of how the choice ruined their lives (and how they felt that they were lied to while making the choice).

Also remember that the typical woman in the midst of an abortion decision is scared and in need of knowing there's comfort and support and/or safety (from boyfriend, family, etc.). Appeal to those emotions, too.

Daniel said...

A rhetorical argument against abortion is:

"Your body. Your choice. Choose wrong and someone dies. You have the POWER!!!"

Make women feel like mother earth.

But that doesn't help the political side of things - after all a woman convinced to keep her baby isn't the same as a woman convinced to uphold laws against infanticide.

Therefore, a rhetorical argument for politics is "Little girls in cages. Our male politicians have worse than that in mind for our gender. You can save them. Vote no to abortion, the sexist lie. End the worldwide genocide of women."

You can still go with racism. "100 years ago, men laughed when black people were lynched in the streets. Now, we do it in our hospitals. Abortion: White Man's Solution for the Black Woman Problem."

The beligerent woman in the video is no different than Sally Hemings. Paint her as an Uncle Tom serving her white lord's interest, and you start winning hearts and minds.

Life conservation is logical. Death swallowers are rhetorical. It doesn't make any sense to be as gentle as doves without being as subtle as serpents.

Athor Pel said...

"Rock Throwing Peasant said...
...
My ex is Catholic and doesn't blink when saying her abortion at 18 was "the right thing." She won't tell her mother or brother, but by gummit, it was the right thing.
September 27, 2012 5:45 AM "



Congratulate her on becoming a murderer and not having to go to jail or be sentenced to the death penalty, like every other convicted murdering bastard on the planet. I mean she is a self-confessed murderer. She should be lauded for her achievement, loudly, in public. If it's so right she shouldn't have a problem with it.




"I killed my baby.
It was the right thing to do."


That should be on the t-shirt you buy for her.



Murdering bitch.

VD said...

Do you have any adaptation/alteration counsel if the subject is regarding Scripture?

Not at the moment. I'll think about it. I think you want to be very, very careful with the rhetoric there, however.

Anonymous said...

So, SD, what rhetorical device can penetrate the "my body, my choice" embattlement.

"Your abortion, your breast cancer."

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/index/
http://www.lifenews.com/2010/09/21/nat-6718/
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/2009_study_confirms_abortion-breast_cancer_link/

If solipsism is all about them, then make it really about them.

Jimmy said...

Having been in the losing side of many rhetorical arguments in the internet and with women, I agree that arguing logic is using the wrong tools. Yet at the same time, we shouldn't take for granted that absolutely no facts are being used. We should use those facts and call them as distortions. Or at least say their factual use lead them to the wrong conclusion.

"Many victims never stand a chance against a dangerously armed assailant"

True statement if the victim is unarmed. Why not arm them?

"[W]e need to stop talking about gun rights in America as if they have no wrenching real-world effects... "

Factually untrue statement. No one has done this.

"A trauma nurse I know told me she always looked at people’s shoes "

Has she been in those shoes? She knows nothing of their situation. Lets bring in stories of real victims and their stories of being survivors.

"Spend some time in a trauma center and see the victims of gun violence"

Likewise, request she spend some time knowing gun owners and visiting shooting ranges. Find out what is actually happening in places with more liberal gun rights.

Conclude by appealing to emotion. Why are you defending the rights of criminals to keep their guns? Gun control laws will never stop them. They will keep killing. Have you no shame?

Rock Throwing Peasant said...

Athor,
If I felt it would make a difference, I would. When she told me, I was floored. She knows that I am pro-life to a committed level.

Now, consider which of the two responses, the dialectic response or the rhetorical one, you think would be more likely to convince the sort of individual who was convinced by the original editorial?

Vox,
You know what this made me think about?

The pro-life spot filmed by that woman who was an abortion survivor, Melissa Ohden.

The reaction to that demonstrates how such appeals will be received by opposition. I do not know the reaction to unaligned ot those in waffle territory.

SarahsDaughter said...

"I don't want to see anyone go back to the days when abortion was illegal and WOMEN LIKE ME ALMOST DIED because we couldn't get safe and legal abortions" - Gloria Alred

Said to Rebecca Kiessling - abortion survivor (http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/index.html).

Solipsism.

Anonymous said...

Awesome article man, perfect example of the differences in approach you should take between the 2 audiences you talked about. I'm definitely going to use this approach more in my personal life; i.e. instead of immediately launching into dialectic i will analyze the intended audience and choose my prose accordingly, a la thank you for smoking.

Btw its my hypothesis that women dislike rational analysis like this and game in general because it allows the more nerdy & smart males to emulate emotional dominance using their rationality instead of from winning competitions. If women then find out the male merely used his mental capabilities to exude the confidence a "winner" has they feel cheated because they can't empathize with the average rational male.

Maybe that's also who most nerdy men have this antipathy against game; they want a woman to empathize with them while theyre being rational and very few women are going to be capable of that, which means that if these males are honest (like women want them to) they will never get the kind of mutual empathy that constitutes an emotional connection.


Snoeperd

SarahsDaughter said...

Thank you Daniel and Anon, I'm archiving all of that for the next go around I have with a pro choicer.

Denton said...

Slightly off topic - an excellent essay but the footnote made my day. Thank you.

rycamor said...

What about flipping the rhetorical script via qualification? Something like "I see what you're saying, but if you want to convince me, you'll have to explain why my widowed aunt who lives alone shouldn't have a way to protect herself if a violent man comes crashing through her door. Do you really think the police can get there in time to make a difference? So you're saying my Aunt Sue should just accept that she has no way to stop some big man with a knife who wants into her house? How would that make you feel if you were in that position, especially if you knew the statistics on home invasion? Oh, you don't know those statistics!?!?" (Throw up arms, roll eyes, and sit back in an expression of long-suffering contempt)

Ted D said...

"Maybe that's also who most nerdy men have this antipathy against game; they want a woman to empathize with them while theyre being rational and very few women are going to be capable of that, which means that if these males are honest (like women want them to) they will never get the kind of mutual empathy that constitutes an emotional connection"

Pure gold.

There are a few women that can and do empathize with reason and logic, but IME they are few and far between.

Heh said...

one rhetorical argument I had that seemed to make some headway, "if you are pro abortion, you are racist and are for the slaughter of black babies."

[Uh oh... starting to feel pro-choice now... must resist...]

Anonymous said...

What about flipping the rhetorical script via qualification? Something like "I see what you're saying, but if you want to convince me, you'll have to explain why my widowed aunt who lives alone shouldn't have a way to protect herself if a violent man comes crashing through her door. Do you really think the police can get there in time to make a difference? So you're saying my Aunt Sue should just accept that she has no way to stop some big man with a knife who wants into her house? How would that make you feel if you were in that position, especially if you knew the statistics on home invasion? Oh, you don't know those statistics!?!?" (Throw up arms, roll eyes, and sit back in an expression of long-suffering contempt)

And if the she still doesn't get it, well, you can always just rape her and tell her afterwards that you agree with her completely and are also glad she didn't have a gun to protect herself.

/s

Anonymous said...

This is only valid if you accept that the ends justify the means, which it is apparent that you do. That is really the source of your own evil.

The true purpose of dialectic is to enlighten, the political purpose is to achieve an end, which is why politics is always rhetorical.

There are analogies here to game: women demand the appearance of success to be seduced without concerning themselves about the reality of it. What they need is to be informed about the divisions between them. Instead what he have is men using game 'rhetorically' to bed them, but losing authenticity in the process.

Accepting that the ends justify the means is really making a deal with the devil. He gives you the tools to succeed but takes the truth and your soul in the process.

LP 999/Eliza said...

Besides it being a great article is the (1). That is hilariously and beautifully stated.

Grit said...

The rape analogy sucks. The argument is still rooted in logic and not centered on emotion. "What logically is worse than trauma victims. Hmm. I got it! Rape! Now, how can i make a rape situation sound positive with guns. I know! Meet a strong guy!"

If you look closely at the trauma story, the emotion is steadily presented: horror, death, trauma, terror, blindness, fear. Compare that to your story: you go through terror and fear, then switch to power and confidence, then switch to entertaining and funny.

In this trauma story, the message is clear: accept the premise of gun control and the negative emotions will stop.

In order to fight that, I think that a similarly congruent set of emotions is necessary, but centered on power and not fear. Maybe a Navy SEAL could write his story.

"I trained night and day with my gun. I came to see it as a tool: a tool to protect my life. I could do my job because I was confident that I trained well. I want to come home to my wife and kids, and my weapon is the last line of defense that I have to bring me home. Wouldn't you want your own brother, sister, or friend to have that same confidence?"

Remember: you only need to make gun=good. Because the only content of the opposing argument is gun=bad.

rycamor said...

Ted D said...

"Maybe that's also who most nerdy men have this antipathy against game; they want a woman to empathize with them while theyre being rational and very few women are going to be capable of that, which means that if these males are honest (like women want them to) they will never get the kind of mutual empathy that constitutes an emotional connection"

Pure gold.

There are a few women that can and do empathize with reason and logic, but IME they are few and far between.


Women can love a man's logic when they have already made their choice. In other words, they can provide the validation the nerd is seeking, but only after they have been won over by his personality and rhetoric.

Ted D said...

"Accepting that the ends justify the means is really making a deal with the devil. He gives you the tools to succeed but takes the truth and your soul in the process."

This should be cut and pasted into the comments on the last post. This is exactly my point about succumbing to rhetoric to "get the job done". Sure, it may work, but at what cost to your moral and ethical beliefs?

Jehu said...

The abortion issue is a sticky one. It is likely to be ultimately 'settled' in the Mir sense of peace in the US by means of violence. Were the population to have it's will, most likely we'd see abortion legal in only the 1st trimester in most of the US. Perhaps future historians will argue about the causes of the 2nd US Civil war and try to use abortion as a means to whitewash a conflict that was fundamentally about racial and crony spoils and who...whom.

Ted D said...

Rycamor - "Women can love a man's logic when they have already made their choice. In other words, they can provide the validation the nerd is seeking, but only after they have been won over by his personality and rhetoric"

My wife can empathize with the emotional anguish I sometimes feel when making a tough decision, but she cannot actually understand WHY I still make the decision as I do, but she trusts me enough to have faith that I am doing the right thing.

I really have difficulty understanding how someone must use emotion to decide on what is right and wrong. Emotion is far too easily swayed (as demonstrated in this post) to be relied upon for anything important. Yet most of the population does exactly that. And we wonder how we got into this mess in the Western World.

Vox said...

This is only valid if you accept that the ends justify the means, which it is apparent that you do. That is really the source of your own evil.

Very well. How do you recommend instructing those who cannot grasp dialectic, then? Do you use rhetoric or do you simply write them off altogether?

Maybe a Navy SEAL could write his story.

You claim the rape rhetoric sucks and then propose replacing it with Navy SEAL rhetoric? Yeah, that will really work with women....

This is exactly my point about succumbing to rhetoric to "get the job done". Sure, it may work, but at what cost to your moral and ethical beliefs?

Again, what do you recommend? You have two choices: use rhetoric or do not communicate with them. Sticking with dialectic is the equivalent of an American tourist in Europe speaking English louder and slower in the hopes that the natives who don't speak English will understand him.

Daniel said...

Ted D
I really have difficulty understanding how someone must use emotion to decide on what is right and wrong. Emotion is far too easily swayed (as demonstrated in this post) to be relied upon for anything important. Yet most of the population does exactly that. And we wonder how we got into this mess in the Western World.

Why the Western World? This is new to you? It wasn't to the ancients. The world has always been dominated by the rhetorical and the political. You act as if this is some new thing that could be magically cured by an introduction of Hari Seldon's Psychohistory or something, or a return to a mystical golden age when logic ruled the day.

That's not logical thinking. That's magical thinking.

Ted D said...

VD - "Again, what do you recommend? You have two choices: use rhetoric or do not communicate with them. "

Well personally I've chosen option 2. I avoid "people" for exactly this reason in fact. I have no desire to engage in rhetorical debates with the masses. I'll throw my support behind someone that does, but it won't be me.

I've never claimed that I wanted to be the person to do so. I am very aware that I am not the right person for that job.

My methods wouldn't be very will accepted by the masses, because they lean far more dictatorship than democratic. I'm completely OK following the rules even if I don't like them, provided the rules make logical sense. I would simply set policy and expect everyone to follow it.

If I had a third solution, you can damn well believe I'd be pushing it. I'm actually hoping that someone much smarter than I am can figure it out, because I'm at a loss.

Anonymous said...

Very well. How do you recommend instructing those who cannot grasp dialectic, then? Do you use rhetoric or do you simply write them off altogether?

What do you with a child that throws a tantrum? Do you promise him something even bigger? He needs to learn a lesson, not be manipulated into compliance.

The stakes with women are larger and the issues more important, but what that asks of us is more fortitude, not more skill in expediency.

Daniel said...

I've never claimed that I wanted to be the person to do so. I am very aware that I am not the right person for that job.

Except that you claim to have the skills to save people from their ignorant behavior, but, because of how it makes you feel to save them in the wrong way, you choose not to.

Disengaging due to your emotions is obviously your priority. But stop complaining about the ignorant masses when you are choosing to abdicate your opportunity to lead them.

I doubt very much you'd be pushing a third solution if it was as emotionally traumatizing to you as the simple use of rhetoric (option 2) is.

Ted D said...

Daniel - "Why the Western World? This is new to you? It wasn't to the ancients."

No sir. But I've not lived anywhere but the U.S. so I don't presume to make assumptions about other societies and their moral stance. I can tell you what *I* think of those societies, but as an outsider I question my own ability to make rational decisions on them.

Also, I'll be honest here. I'm not one of the educated elite. I was born into a family of mill workers and coal miners. I'm the very first of my immediate family to even get a college education, let alone reading "the ancients". To be frank, much of this IS new to me because prior to my divorce and finding the "red pill" I didn't give a moments thought to what was "normal" human behavior and what that meant about my own. I don't like "people" and until it dawned on me just how dependant my family and I are on "the masses", I didn't care enough to actually look at human naturein any capacity.

In many ways I am a complete newbie when it comes to this stuff, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Since it seems most people are overly involved in how they feel, it makes perfect sense to me that I remained in the dark. I didn't understand what all the fuss was about, and now I find myself a bit amazed by what I see around me.

Vox said...

I'm the very first of my immediate family to even get a college education, let alone reading "the ancients". To be frank, much of this IS new to me because prior to my divorce and finding the "red pill" I didn't give a moments thought to what was "normal" human behavior and what that meant about my own.

Start with some Marcus Aurelius. Easily digestible... and will rapidly dispel any remaining notions that there is anything new under the sun. His stoicism should appeal to you in some regards.

What do you with a child that throws a tantrum? Do you promise him something even bigger? He needs to learn a lesson, not be manipulated into compliance.

You didn't answer the question. You can't simply spank an adult, much less spank them into reason.

Daniel said...

Question for Ted D - Can someone make the right decision for purely emotional, non-logical reasons?

Anonymous said...

You didn't answer the question. You can't simply spank an adult, much less spank them into reason.

Spanking doesn't teach the child what he needs to learn either.

Ted D said...

Daniel - "Except that you claim to have the skills to save people from their ignorant behavior, but, because of how it makes you feel to save them in the wrong way, you choose not to."

Just because I can kill someone with a single gunshot doesn't mean I should. Why is it that because I CAN do something you think I SHOULD?

"Disengaging due to your emotions is obviously your priority. But stop complaining about the ignorant masses when you are choosing to abdicate your opportunity to lead them."

I never asked to lead anyone, and I don't want to lead them. I have no desire to be responsible for anyone other than myself and my family, and I go to great lengths to try and minimze my influence on my family. I want to teach them how to come to their own conclusions, not how to follow someone else's.

"I doubt very much you'd be pushing a third solution if it was as emotionally traumatizing to you as the simple use of rhetoric (option 2) is"

I don't understand why you think rhetoric is "emotionally traumatizing" to me. Is it emotionally traumatizing for a Christian to abstain from using God's name in vain? To not murder, or cheat, or steal? If so then I can't understand how they function, because to me it never gets to the point that I am forced to make an emotional decsions about it. Rhetoric is immoral, immoral things are wrong, therfor I don't use rhetoric. There is no emotional componant to that decision.

How about this. I tend to use logic and reason so that I do not HAVE to rely on emotion to make my decisions. I don't want to find myself in a critical situation afraid to make a choice because I'm scared. So, the "fix" for me is to do my best to exclude emotion from my decision making. On occasion my decision may cause an emotional backlash in that I feel terrible having to force something on someone else, but I do it regardless IF I believe it is the right thing to do. I do my best not to place myself in that position over others, but it cannot be helped when it comes to family.

Most people trust how they feel. I trust how I think, and always view how I feel with a skeptical eye.

Ted D said...

Daniel - "Question for Ted D - Can someone make the right decision for purely emotional, non-logical reasons?"

Sure. I simply feel that doing so is leaving a lot to chance.

Ted D said...

"You didn't answer the question. You can't simply spank an adult, much less spank them into reason.

Spanking doesn't teach the child what he needs to learn either"

IMO the answer is simple: we need to start teaching our children how to critically think for themselves. Right now our public education is much more about making children conform to "the standard" as well as memorization and regurgitation of information. It is useless to KNOW a thing if you cannot APPLY what you know to good use. We are filling our children with facts and figures and giving them NO idea how to properly use those facts and figures to good ends.

We are creating a society of blind followers.

Anonymous said...

What do you with a child that throws a tantrum? Do you promise him something even bigger? He needs to learn a lesson, not be manipulated into compliance.

This is a person who OBVIOUSLY has never raised children.

Yes, you manipulate them into compliance. You distract them with something else, or you offer them two choices, (1) obedience and a reward, or (2) something unpalatable (e.g., "you can eat your veggies and then get dessert, or go to your room and go to sleep right now").

Anacaona said...

Ted
Sorry but the way you are expressing your argument looks like you would sit in a high throne while Rome burns and don't get a bucket of water to help because is beneath you. That is not logical "I want the world to be more like me (better) but someone else has to do it because I'm too good to do it myself" That sounds like lazy elitism, IMO.

Daniel said...

What do you mean "we" kemosabe?

Don't say the answer is simple when implementing the overhaul of society via a broken public education system it already fundamentally endorses that just happens to be leaking its best and brightest to better alternatives is anything but simple.

Really? You won't deign to use rhetoric to convince someone to do or learn the right thing because it makes you feel icky, but instead you propose a socialist overhaul of the public education system to better reflect your logical values?

Please tell me you see the (albeit entertaining) folly in that.

"Question for Ted D - Can someone make the right decision for purely emotional, non-logical reasons?"

Ted D: Sure.


Then why on earth would you not employ rhetoric to help someone prone to making decisions based on rhetoric or emotion to make the logically sound choice?

It's not like it is terribly difficult to do it: you've said you are quite an accomplished rhetorician. Why not simply engage those poor rhetoric-only people in your life in assisting them to make choices that benefit society?

Instead you want the schools to take care of it? They are the ones causing, in part, the problem!

Ted D said...

"Yes, you manipulate them into compliance"

No I don't. I demand they adhere to my rules, or suffer the consequences. I don't play games with my children. I tell them what I expect, and let them know what will happen if they don't meet those expectations. There is no room for debate.

I actually have a chart of sorts. Get a bad grade? Grounded for a week. Get a really bad grade? Grounded for an entire grading period. Let your room become a mess? Lose all TV priviledges until it is clean.

For the most part this works just fine. If they get a bad grade, I don't even have to "bring the boom down" because they already know whats coming. If they let their laundry pile up, they know they will run out of clean clothes because I won't be washing them.

You don't have to manipulate your children if you set clear rules and consequences for breaking them. There is no manipulation involved.

Cail Corishev said...

Rhetoric doesn't have to include lies. In the nurse's editorial that Vox quoted, she makes several claims that are untrue or misleading, but that's not required. You can present the truth in an emotional context, as people did above with the rape analogies and so on. There's no moral problem with that.

I really have difficulty understanding how someone must use emotion to decide on what is right and wrong. Emotion is far too easily swayed (as demonstrated in this post) to be relied upon for anything important. Yet most of the population does exactly that.

And most of the time they don't choose too badly, so you need to check your assumptions. Now, I'm not saying people don't make a lot of bad choices -- voting for corrupt idiots, borrowing money to buy luxuries, sending their kids to bad schools, watching awful TV shows, etc. -- so it's true that when media and government and big business get together and spend billions to pull our emotional strings, it has a significant effect.

And yet....we still manage to elect a few decent politicians here and there who slow the slide. Most people manage to get food into their kids and clothes onto them and get them to the bus stop on time every day. They remember each other's birthdays and anniversaries, make it to work and get tasks done, and keep their bills paid and food in the fridge. They make dozens of decisions every day, all day long, and most of those decisions are based on emotion -- any logic that comes into it is rationalization that follows the split second instinctive decision.

So I wouldn't be quite so hard on people who go through their day without applying logic to anything they do. Our subconscious minds can actually suss out most situations very quickly and send us the right direction, and they use emotions to do that, so most of the time we don't need anything more. People who function that way aren't really the randomly-darting animals you seem to think.

If we could just cut back the ability for the powers that be to manipulate the emotions of the masses so skillfully, I think we'd be fine. Emotions would still rule, but they couldn't be used against so many people so easily, and logic would be more prominent. Not sure how you get there from here, though, short of a catastrophe like nuclear war or a major solar flare that wipes out electronics.

Anonymous said...



This is a person who OBVIOUSLY has never raised children.

Yes, you manipulate them into compliance. You distract them with something else, or you offer them two choices, (1) obedience and a reward, or (2) something unpalatable (e.g., "you can eat your veggies and then get dessert, or go to your room and go to sleep right now").


Sounds like your son's going to turn out gay.

Daniel said...

Right, Annie. Because punishing a child turns them gay.

Yohami said...

Loved this. Good job.

Yohami said...

"my body, my choice"

the baby is not her body

Ted D said...

Ana - "Sorry but the way you are expressing your argument looks like you would sit in a high throne while Rome burns and don't get a bucket of water to help because is beneath you. That is not logical "I want the world to be more like me (better) but someone else has to do it because I'm too good to do it myself" That sounds like lazy elitism, IMO."

To me it is more like not killing another person on the belief that it is wrong in order to save 100 people. If I truly held the belief that killing another human is wrong, would you fault me for allowing one to live and he went on to kill thousands? If given the chance, would you go back in time and kill Hilter before he took power? I woudln't for a number of reasons, and one of them is that I don't feel it would be my place to do so, even if I could.

Daniel - "Don't say the answer is simple when implementing the overhaul of society via a broken public education system it already fundamentally endorses that just happens to be leaking its best and brightest to better alternatives is anything but simple."

I believe that answer is simple. Putting that answer into application IS indeed not simple, but I never claimed making the changes necessary would be simple.

"Really? You won't deign to use rhetoric to convince someone to do or learn the right thing because it makes you feel icky, but instead you propose a socialist overhaul of the public education system to better reflect your logical values?"

Good grief. What makes you think I'd be the right person to use rhetoric to teach someone anything? Knowing how I feel about it, do you honestly believe it would be a good idea for me to do such a thing? I don't propose a socialist overhaul of anything. I'm simply pointing out that IF the concept behind education is to create a society of thinking people, we are failing miserably. I'm all ears if anyone has a better idea on how to accomplish it, but so far I haven't heard anything that compels me to change my opinion.

"It's not like it is terribly difficult to do it: you've said you are quite an accomplished rhetorician. Why not simply engage those poor rhetoric-only people in your life in assisting them to make choices that benefit society?"

For the same reason a pacifist might opt-out of active duty even if drafted: because I take moral offense to emotional manipulation. It is on principle that I choose not to use rhetoric. And, even if I did and it worked, I still wouldn't have taught them how to think for themselves in the process. So the battle may be won, but the war will continue on the same as it has.

"Instead you want the schools to take care of it? They are the ones causing, in part, the problem!"

Well at least we agree on something! It isn't just the schools though, we as a society set the standards for our children's education. So "we" (as in everyone in our society) are indeed responsible for this mess. "We" will have to fix it. I don't cherish being part of "we" any more than you seem to, but unless I move out into the wilderness, I have to admit that I'm part of the problem. I'm trying to figure out how to become part of the fix without sacrificing my moral and ethical beliefs, and I'm finding it damn hard in a society hell bent on destroying any sense of morality.

Anonymous said...

Right, Annie. Because punishing a child turns them gay.

Punishing is fine when a child does something wrong deliberately, but you don't do that when they're wailing cause they want something. That will just teach them to suppress, which creates a deviant faggot. God, you're dense.

Anacaona said...

I observed that in the manosphere (and the real world maybe) there are three types of people.

*The types that want to win the argument by any means necessary regardless if the outcome of winning gets the job done. They are here to confirm once more how smart superior they are.

*The ones that are in it for the results they don't care for credits or winning but to get the job done.

*The ones in for the method. They care more about how things are said and done, if the method gets the work done: good if not at least the method was correct regardless.
Of course I could be wrong but this is I think a big difference among the members, probably the one that keep them discussing this issues instead of trying to join forces, YMMV.

Daniel said...

You don't have to manipulate your children if you set clear rules and consequences for breaking them. There is no manipulation involved.

Your method is wholly manipulative: that's what discipline is - shaping a child's behavior into what you want. There is no logic involved in associating failure in school with having no ability to leave the house. Those two things are unrelated.

They don't magically learn the material that they failed to understand, after all - they only learn that failure has a bad consequence implemented by a parent.

Discipline is pure, definitional manipulation, and rightly so. I have very similar structure - it is understandable to my kids...but it is rhetoric.

A dialectical approach would be for me to address a failure with the child, and reason with them until they understood options they could take to make the perceived wrong a right.

Reward and punishment? That's nothing but good old fashioned rhetoric. Cause and effect in discipline charts are arbitrary, not natural underlying truths. No parent in his right mind would ever rely (solely, or even in large part) on the dialectic to discipline his children on a day-to-day basis. It would take forever.

Few kids can instantly grasp large chains of reason, none can do it all the time, and I've never met one who can apply it skillfully right away. Discipline is a blessed manipulation.

Daniel said...

Professor Annie, I'd love to see your research on this topic. It sounds fascinating.

Ted D said...

"Punishing is fine when a child does something wrong deliberately, but you don't do that when they're wailing cause they want something. That will just teach them to suppress, which creates a deviant faggot. God, you're dense"

If they are "wailing" because they want something, then they are deliberately misbehaving with the intent on getting their way. As such, I would be delinquent in my parenting task if I didn't teach them why their behavior is wrong, and what methods would be proper for achieving their goals instead of their current bad behavior.

Put another way, I'd punish them for acting up, NOT for wanting something. I tell my children it is fine for them to be angry, or sad, or happy. But it is ON THEM to ensure that how they respond to their feelings is proper for the environment. They can be angry at me for punishing them without shouting at me. They can be sad for the loss of a pet without crying at full volume. They can be overjoyed at getting a new toy without jumping around the house like we live in a gymnasium.

It is completely OK to "feel" whatever you feel. It is not OK to act out in anti-social manners because of how you feel. Call it surpression if you want, I call it being responsibel for your own behavior.

Daniel said...

I'm simply pointing out that IF the concept behind education is to create a society of thinking people, we are failing miserably.

That is NOT the concept behind education, and certainly not public education.

Public education is actually quite effective at achieving its stated aims: socialization, manipulation of the labor force and erosion of the family unit. It isn't broke - why would any of its proponents want it fixed?

Cryan Ryan said...

Anacaona,

Re: 3 types of people...

a) those who watch what happens
b) those who MAKE things happen
c) those who wonder WHAT happened.

Robert Ringer

Anonymous said...

Professor Annie, I'd love to see your research on this topic. It sounds fascinating.

Some people seem to need tomes of statistics to prove the easily discerned, simply because it contradicts their ignorance. The grown-ass ignorant should strive to enlighten themselves.

Anonymous said...

God I'm glad I'm not Ted's kid.

Ted FAIL said...

If they are "wailing" because they want something, then they are deliberately misbehaving with the intent on getting their way. As such, I would be delinquent in my parenting task if I didn't teach them why their behavior is wrong, and what methods would be proper for achieving their goals instead of their current bad behavior.

All this teaching and explaining works just fine if the kid is old enough to understand it.

In which case, they should not be having a wailing tantrum.

Logic and reason do not work on toddlers... who are the only ones who have wailing tantrums.

Ted D said...

Daniel - "Reward and punishment? That's nothing but good old fashioned rhetoric. Cause and effect in discipline charts are arbitrary, not natural underlying truths."

Cause and effect is rhetoric?!

If you say so.

Call it what you will. I see it as simply setting guidelines and expecting them to be met. I actually do try my best to "rely (solely, or even in large part) on the dialectic to discipline his children on a day-to-day basis." I guess I'm not in my right mind. It does take forever, but I'm seeing glimmers of hope in my 13 year old that it is starting to pay off. My oldest is 18, and she has been rather logical and reasonable from an early age. With her this was relatively easy. My son has been a different story. It has been a long and slow uphill climb, but he is now starting to see and understand reason. He is past thinking that I'm being mean to him when he gets grounded and beginning to realize that it is in fact my JOB to ground him when he does badly in school. He understand that I have no desire to punish him, but if I didn't I would be neglegent in my parenting duties. He is beginning to take responsibility for his own actions, which is one of my primary goals in taking this long, slow path to adulthood.

But I never claimed to be in my "right mind" anyway.

"A dialectical approach would be for me to address a failure with the child, and reason with them until they understood options they could take to make the perceived wrong a right."

What exactly do you think I do with them while they are grounded? I've spent hours sitting with and explaining such things with my children. How else will they figure out how to do better in school if I don't show them where they are failing and point them towards solutions? The punishment isn't the cure, it is the result of bad behavior. The cure is an entirely different process that often is slow and methodical.

Anonymous said...

Punishing is fine when a child does something wrong deliberately, but you don't do that when they're wailing cause they want something. That will just teach them to suppress, which creates a deviant faggot.

Teaching a toddler to get themselves under control does not create a faggot, dumbass.

Daniel said...

Walk me through the logic, Annie-girl. How does discipline cause homosexuality?

Are you seriously suggesting that less than 3% of the U.S. population was disciplined as children?

Ted D said...

"Logic and reason do not work on toddlers... who are the only ones who have wailing tantrums."

The solution is to remove the toddler from the situation and wait them out. No you cannot reason with an infant. All you can do is change their environment, or at least remove them from an environment where other people have to endure their emotional outbursts.

"God I'm glad I'm not Ted's kid."

And I'm pleased to not be responsible for you.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm not a single parent. So my children get two different perspectives on everything. Mine tends to be the rational one, my wife provides the emotional one. I don't see the point in trying to fill a role I'm ill equipped for.

Cail Corishev said...

'Right now our public education is much more about making children conform to "the standard" as well as memorization and regurgitation of information.'

It is? Ask anyone in the education racket about that, and he'll tell you that they teach far more critical thinking skills than they used to, back in the bad old days of rote memorization and being whacked with a ruler when you didn't know something. All the changes since the 60s have been attempts to spend less time on rote learning and more on teaching kids to think -- New Math, replacing phonics and grammar with whole language studies, replacing history's names and dates with Social Studies (so you can more directly teach the popular ideological positions of the day). It's all been about teaching them to think -- to think only approved thoughts, of course, but to think nevertheless. Self-esteem training and social promotion (graduating kids who failed to the next class so they won't get down on themselves) are additional ways they try to get kids to magically learn without being taught facts.

It hasn't worked, but not for lack of trying. I think they forgot that you can't really think until you know some facts to think about. And that being drilled in algebra or a structured language like Latin will actually teach you to think logically much better than wading through some fluff and getting a gold star whether you understood it or not.

But there I go making a faulty assumption again -- the goal isn't to teach them to think logically, it's to teach them to think instinctively or emotionally, to release their inner brilliance (or inner divinity, for the New Agers, who have a lot of influence in this stuff), and to follow their own path to the truth instead of building a road to it with bricks someone else provided.

I've drifted a bit off-topic here, so to pull it back: you've made a judgment about the schools that you probably thought was perfectly logical, and I'm saying it's hogwash and that you're probably reacting emotionally to something about the school system that you don't like, and that you assume it's a logical position because you're a logical guy. And I think my rebuttal is based on logic (although I'm aware that my hatred of attending school plays into it). We can't both be right, and probably we're both full of crap. All of us -- and I've been accused of more than one ex of being an "unemotional robot," so I know where you're coming from -- are way more emotion-driven than we think.

Ted D said...

"who are the only ones who have wailing tantrums."

You obviously haven't spent much time out in public with kids. Spend a Saturday afternoon at Chuck-E-Cheese or any average shopping mall and tell me if it is only toddlers throwing tantrums.

I've witnessed teenaged children throwing fits because they don't get their way. Far too often in fact.

Anacaona said...

If given the chance, would you go back in time and kill Hilter before he took power?

I would actually convince his art teacher to tell him he is a great artist with great future and he shouldn't ever give up so he wouldn't enter politics. :)

I woudln't for a number of reasons, and one of them is that I don't feel it would be my place to do so, even if I could.

You are placing your "feelings" as the top of everything again, that is not rational, is emotional. You are less rational than you think Ted.

Anonymous said...

Walk me through the logic, Annie-girl. How does discipline cause homosexuality?

Are you seriously suggesting that less than 3% of the U.S. population was disciplined as children?


I already did, and since you apparently aren't aware I'll also mention that "if" does not also mean "if and only if".

Stickwick said...

I demand they adhere to my rules, or suffer the consequences. I don't play games with my children. I tell them what I expect, and let them know what will happen if they don't meet those expectations. There is no room for debate.

There is a big difference between being authoritative and authoritarian. You are the latter, Ted, and I doubt very much it's getting you the end result that you think it is.

My father quite often allowed negotiation when we were kids. If we could make a good case, he'd sometimes change his mind. Even if he didn't change his mind (which was most of the time), he would commend the argument if it was a good one, and he usually explained why he was rejecting it. When he said no at this point, we knew it meant no and we accepted it. If there was a punishment involved, we knew exactly why it was happening. He never, ever struggled with us. He was always in control, he was always the final authority. However, he believed that encouraging the ability to make a good argument was more important to our intellectual and emotional development than simply exerting his will. He was authoritative.

The result? As a grown woman, I'm probably at least one SD above the average woman in terms of my ability to reason and put emotion aside. I got several years of training with my father during my formative years, and no experience in the world can surpass that. It sounds as though your children are receiving no training in this regard. "My way or the highway" is not going to help them develop an ability to reason and use logic.

Daniel said...

Ted D - You aren't reading me correctly: Grounding itself is not a dialectic. The fact that you then supplement the rhetorical lesson of "do this - earn this effect" with a separate dialectical approach does not make the rhetorical grounding into a dialectical lesson! In fact, the supplementation proves otherwise!

You don't understand the distinction between rhetoric and dialectic if you can't see that:

"You're in trouble. You are grounded." is the rhetorical wing of teaching. After all, in adulthood, will they ground themselves when they

No! Grounding is a riding crop, not a race track! You want them to learn to navigate the race track (dialectic - reasoning - higher order thought) but you implement tools to emphasize the skills necessary to run it(rhetoric - reward/punishment - expectations).

And I never wrote "cause and effect is rhetoric." You didn't comprehend that sentence one bit. Might be on me, might be on you, but read it again.

My point is that you happily use rhetoric all the time, to improve your children's reasoning, to cut to the chase, to provide guidelines and tools that you then supplement with the dialectic, that you've worked hard to instill in them.

It isn't this foreign horrorshow that you paint it out to be. You are willing to use it on your kids, but not on others.

Just because your non-enthymemic "Do this - earn that" system is rhetoric, doesn't mean that it is illogical, merely that it doesn't rely on logic to achieve your stated aims (behavior manipulation.)

Ted D said...

Cail Corishev - "It is? Ask anyone in the education racket about that, and he'll tell you that they teach far more critical thinking skills than they used to, back in the bad old days of rote memorization and being whacked with a ruler when you didn't know something. "

Thats funny, because every year my children spend at least a few weeks studying for, are you ready for this? The PSSA tests given in PA that are supposed to determine if our children are learning. Yeah, they spend weeks MEMORIZING the answer to a test that is supposed to figure out if they are learning the material.

How exactly is that teaching them to think?

"But there I go making a faulty assumption again -- the goal isn't to teach them to think logically, it's to teach them to think instinctively or emotionally, to release their inner brilliance (or inner divinity, for the New Agers, who have a lot of influence in this stuff), and to follow their own path to the truth instead of building a road to it with bricks someone else provided."

I agree with this statement, and will admit that my use of "think logically" was misplaced. I don't care HOW they go about thinking, as long as they actually THINK for themselves. Perhaps my real issue with emotional thinking isn't that using emotion is less reliable, but simply that most people simply aren't taught to think and most people are also more emotional than logical. I can see how I would interpret that to mean that using emotion for decision making is bad, when in fact it isn't the emotion, but the faulty thinking process at the heart of it. I'll have to give this some thought.

"We can't both be right, and probably we're both full of crap. All of us -- and I've been accused of more than one ex of being an "unemotional robot," so I know where you're coming from -- are way more emotion-driven than we think."

I am realizing this more by the day, and of course you are correct. I haven't said it here yet, but I've never claimed to be perfect or right all the time, and fully admit that I am most likely full of shit. I also realize that I am influenced by emotion, but I really do my best to minimize that influence when possible. I simply don't trust my emotions because I know beyond all doubt that they are much easier to influence than rational thought. You can change my mind, but you can't change the facts. So it makes perfect sense to use fact as the basis for all decisions when possible, and perhaps include some facet of emotion when necessary. I do my best, but as you pointed out we are all influenced by emotions. (Except perhaps the true sociopath. Although I speculate that even they are influenced by their own emotions. Those emotions are simply not tied to reality outside of their own thinking. But what do I know about milking ducks?)

Daniel said...

Annie, you may want to check with your boyfriend, because I'm going to use a big word, but "Discipline causes gayness" is a causal statement.

Therefore, the threshold for the number of people disciplined (and therefore turned gay) in the world is no higher than the estimated 2% of the population that is gay.

Or is there some magical anti-disciplining technique that parents can implement to ungay their kids?

Anonymous said...



My father quite often allowed negotiation when we were kids. If we could make a good case, he'd sometimes change his mind. Even if he didn't change his mind (which was most of the time), he would commend the argument if it was a good one, and he usually explained why he was rejecting it. When he said no at this point, we knew it meant no and we accepted it. If there was a punishment involved, we knew exactly why it was happening. He never, ever struggled with us. He was always in control, he was always the final authority. However, he believed that encouraging the ability to make a good argument was more important to our intellectual and emotional development than simply exerting his will. He was authoritative.


This is good. So you grew up to an extent and understood things more as an adult. What would've happened if he'd assumed that as a child you would never be able to learn to see things as an adult and had just persisted to treat you as an imbecile, i.e to cater to your emotions - the rhetorical method.

Women are not incapable of reason. Just because it might be more effective temporarily to treat them as if they were doesn't mean you should.

Anonymous said...

Daniel - I didn't say "Discipline causes gayness", stupid, read it again.

Stingray said...

Women are not incapable of reason. Just because it might be more effective temporarily to treat them as if they were doesn't mean you should.

Some of us need the rhetorical to be lead to the logical. I'm no super genius and can't always grasp the logical without some rhetoric leading me there. Is it wrong for me to learn in this way?

Anonymous said...

Some of us need the rhetorical to be lead to the logical. I'm no super genius and can't always grasp the logical without some rhetoric leading me there. Is it wrong for me to learn in this way?

That's fine I think, as long as the ultimate goal is to enlighten the subject, not just corral their behavior.

Vox said...

That will just teach them to suppress, which creates a deviant faggot. God, you're dense.

Thank you, Mr. Science. Tune in next week, when Mr. Science will tackle the root causes of masturbation.

I can see how I would interpret that to mean that using emotion for decision making is bad, when in fact it isn't the emotion, but the faulty thinking process at the heart of it. I'll have to give this some thought.

Read the first two chapters of Rhetoric while you're at it. That should help you correctly grasp what Daniel is talking about. Because he's right, discipline is manipulation at its purest, there is no logic involved at all.

Vox said...

Some of us need the rhetorical to be lead to the logical. I'm no super genius and can't always grasp the logical without some rhetoric leading me there. Is it wrong for me to learn in this way?

Not in the slightest. If you can't, you can't, so do it how you can. The important thing is to be instructed. And as I pointed out in the post, rhetoric is not intrinsically dishonest. It is merely that the dishonest rely heavily upon it.

A lower form of instruction is still instruction, after all.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Mr. Science. Tune in next week, when Mr. Science will tackle the root causes of masturbation.

You're implying homosexuality is a biological urge, like the sexual impulse is. Presumably you don't condemn masturbation, do you condemn homosexuality? You can condemn both, which would be condemning the expression of a "natural" impulse, or you can accept both.

Stingray said...

If you can't, you can't, so do it how you can.

My apologies. I agree and that was the point I was trying to make. It is being argued that rhetoric is immoral and that the ends don't justify the means. Rhetoric is a powerful tool and teacher. It can lead far more people to the truth,and to the logic than dialect alone. There is nothing immoral about it as a tool to teach. It is only immoral when used to hide or cover the truth or only give one fraction of a truth therefore obscuring the rest of it.

Daniel said...

Sorry to be the grammar police, Annie, but you are inferring that homosexuality is a biological urge.

He's merely implying that you are functionally retarded.

Ted D said...

Ana –“ You are placing your "feelings" as the top of everything again, that is not rational, is emotional. You are less rational than you think Ted.”

If recognizing that I am not God is “feeling”, then you are correct I suppose. I choose not to make decisions like this because I am not omnipotent. No one elected me savior of the universe, so I’d much prefer that they figure out how to make those decisions on their own. I’ll be more than happy to help them figure out how to make those decisions, but I want to leave the choice to them when possible.

However, if that is not possible, then the only solution I see is to offer no choice at all. Which do you think is the lesser of two evils?

Stickwick – “My father quite often allowed negotiation when we were kids. If we could make a good case, he'd sometimes change his mind. Even if he didn't change his mind (which was most of the time), he would commend the argument if it was a good one, and he usually explained why he was rejecting it. When he said no at this point, we knew it meant no and we accepted it. If there was a punishment involved, we knew exactly why it was happening. He never, ever struggled with us. He was always in control, he was always the final authority. However, he believed that encouraging the ability to make a good argument was more important to our intellectual and emotional development than simply exerting his will. He was authoritative.”

Perhaps I’m misrepresenting myself, but this is almost exactly how I interact with my children now. Not so much when they were younger, because as pointed out above, you cannot reason with toddlers.

There are certain things that are not open for discussion, grades being one of them. We set expectations about what we consider a good grade and expect those to be met. If they aren’t, there is no discussion about why they shouldn’t be punished. Now, if they want to do something out of the ordinary and I am against it, I will indeed listen to their argument and make a judgment based on it. Once that decision is made it is final, and I do make it a point to not only indicate why I did not find “for” their case, but also to acknowledge when the argument was thought and presented well. As they get older, I need less authoritarian and more authoritative methods. Which is precisely what I had hoped for. They are learning the difference, and becoming appreciative of the change in my “technique”, so to speak. They are beginning to understand that IF they want any consideration from me in regards to their wishes, they will need to be intelligent and thoughtful in how they present them to me.

Daniel – “My point is that you happily use rhetoric all the time, to improve your children's reasoning, to cut to the chase, to provide guidelines and tools that you then supplement with the dialectic, that you've worked hard to instill in them.

It isn't this foreign horrorshow that you paint it out to be. You are willing to use it on your kids, but not on others.”

Wow, yeah I was totally missing your point, but I think this drove it home.

My answer is this: it is my JOB to “use it on my kids”. They are minors, and in my care. Other adults are NOT in my care, and it is not my JOB to treat them as such. Until someone appoints me as their moral and logical advisor, I have no intention of taking the job on myself.

And I will concede this point: Perhaps my real beef with rhetoric is how it is most commonly used. If as pointed out above rhetoric can be used without subversion or out and out lies, then it may have merit. I’ve simply never managed it. Any time I’ve had to use rhetoric it has been and “ends justifies the means” situation. (as in writing crap I didn’t believe in to get a grade.) I will have to honestly think about how one would use rhetoric without resorting to subversive tactics and/or lying.

And even if I manage that, emotion still seems to be much less static than fact. No amount of rhetoric will change this.

Daniel said...

Right on Stingray. That's exactly it. It isn't as if the likes of Aristotle, Cicero, even Confucius etc. were teaching us an immoral practice for the sake of the public bad!

Ted D said...

VD - thanks for the suggested reading. It goes to the top of my list.

Stingray - "Some of us need the rhetorical to be lead to the logical. I'm no super genius and can't always grasp the logical without some rhetoric leading me there. Is it wrong for me to learn in this way?"

IMO not at all. But I would not be the right person to instruct you if this is indeed true.

By the way, it doesn't take a super genius to grasp any concept. In fact, in many cases I think the smarter a person is, the more likely they are to miss simple solutions and/or make simple mistakes. I certainly am no genius, but I am often too smart for my own good. This conversation is a fine example of it in fact. I will need to dig deeper into this with Vox's suggested reading as my opinion of rhetoric is obviously biased by my own experiences with it. I've been emotionally manipulated in the past, and as a result I completely wrote rhetoric off as a useful tool because of it.

The conept if moral rhetoric is intriguing to me. Part of the reason I left the Church is because "preaching" is largely rhetorical. When I lost all faith in rhetoric as a moral tool, I lost my trust for those that practiced it. I immediately see anyone appealing to my emotions as subversive and sneaky.

Good stuff all around. Several of you here have me thinking very hard. Thanks for the motivation!

Anonymous said...

Sorry to be the grammar police, Annie, but you are inferring that homosexuality is a biological urge.

He's merely implying that you are functionally retarded.


Err, no, wrong again (lol). He's intending to imply that I'm functionally retarded by implying that I don't know what I'm talking about. If my statement was wrong we can infer some things, either

a) It is caused by other environmental factory, which ones? If you don't know, why dismiss my contention out of hand?

b) It is biologically driven. If so my earlier statement follows.

Mrs. Pilgrim said...

Punishing is fine when a child does something wrong deliberately, but you don't do that when they're wailing cause they want something. That will just teach them to suppress, which creates a deviant faggot

So a guy who restrains himself or fails to express everything on his mind...is gay?

You read too much yaoi manga.

Anonymous said...

factors, not factory

Oh, and c) daniel needs a course in logic.

Curious George said...

Question: if a woman reads the article and recognizes the blatant appeal to emotion with no supporting facts AND has a negative response to that type of argument, where does she fall on the solipsitic scale?

Anonymous said...

So a guy who restrains himself or fails to express everything on his mind...is gay?

You read too much yaoi manga.


Sounds like you're the type of person who needs rhetoric instead of dialectic.

Daniel said...

My answer is this: it is my JOB to “use it on my kids”. They are minors, and in my care. Other adults are NOT in my care, and it is not my JOB to treat them as such. Until someone appoints me as their moral and logical advisor, I have no intention of taking the job on myself.

That actually clears it up quite a bit for me. Thanks.

The only thing I would add is that using rhetoric to help other people (besides your kids) understand the truth is not simply one of benevolence - it can serve your social interests very well. Withholding rhetoric from others because they are not worth your time is perfectly sensible, but you may be missing out on an opportunity to improve your own, or your family's lot by refusing to implement the tool of rhetoric.

Anacaona said...

However, if that is not possible, then the only solution I see is to offer no choice at all. Which do you think is the lesser of two evils?

Is not about the choice but WHY. You didn't said "logically speaking killing Hitler might cause more problems I would have to study the ramifications further", You said "I wouldn't feel is my place" we are talking about your choice process it was not logical but emotional, capisce?

Mrs. Pilgrim said...

a) It is caused by other environmental factory, which ones? If you don't know, why dismiss my contention out of hand?

Because it doesn't account for the 98% who met with discipline in some form and DIDN'T take up sodomy.

Stickwick said...

What would've happened if he'd assumed that as a child you would never be able to learn to see things as an adult and had just persisted to treat you as an imbecile, i.e to cater to your emotions - the rhetorical method.

Too many Anons here. Well, whoever you are, it is true that Dad did not cater to our emotions. However, you mistakenly believe that because he encouraged us to reason instead of whine that his method was not ultimately an emotional manipulation. It was, in fact, a very clever and subtle manipulation to get what he wanted from us (a particular behavior in the short-term, and an ability to reason in the long-term). He was laser-focused on getting that outcome with the least amount of conflict, and his method was extremely effective.

Now that I'm about to become a parent, myself, he's been explaining this method to me, and I realized that there was only the illusion of dialectic in what he did. He always had his mind made up prior to the negotiation. On the rare occasions in which he "changed his mind" after we made a case, it was a calculated maneuver to keep us in the game, much the same way casinos allow the occasional win to keep people pumping money into the slots. It was a very clever manipulation on his part, but we were better off for it, and that's what counts.

Ted D said...

Ana - "Is not about the choice but WHY. You didn't said "logically speaking killing Hitler might cause more problems I would have to study the ramifications further", You said "I wouldn't feel is my place" we are talking about your choice process it was not logical but emotional, capisce?"

OK, my laziness at work. The reason I don't "feel" it is my place is rather complex, so as a short cut I passed the details up. It has much more to do with the morality of deciding myself what is better for others. I believe in my own morality, but I don't want to force it on others. That being said, I sincerly hope that IF my morality is right and just, other people would come to agree with it given the same information.

Does that make any sense? I don't WANT to be a dictator. I'd much prefer everyone come to their own conclusions, and ideally they would be pretty similar to mine. If not, then I would need to question my own judgment and adjust accordingly.

Mrs. Pilgrim said...

Sounds like you're the type of person who needs rhetoric instead of dialectic.

My learning style is relevant to your inability to do more than make unfounded assertions and then get mad because people don't instantly agree.

Joseph Gill said...

"You're implying homosexuality is a biological urge, like the sexual impulse is. Presumably you don't condemn masturbation, do you condemn homosexuality? You can condemn both, which would be condemning the expression of a "natural" impulse, or you can accept both."

Outside of marriage, any sexual indulgence is referred to as fornication. It's a natural impulse to want sex with a beautiful woman who is not your wife. It's also a natural impulse to lie when the truth is easier. Those natural impulses are not the problem. You sin when you give in to them.

Anacaona said...

Now that I'm about to become a parent, myself, he's been explaining this method to me, and I realized that there was only the illusion of dialectic in what he did. He always had his mind made up prior to the negotiation

I have to comment that your father did a good job in this. My husband and his brother are incapable of negotiation in real life because their mom decided to be a "No is no" parent and they never actually learned to try and change her mind and in their adult lives it reflects. She regrets this choice of parenting now that she sees that her kids can't do it, and even though they are doing okay she thinks they would be a lot better if she would had allowed them room to learn how to persuade and negotiate. This skill is also learned in big families I'm not very good at negotiating but the bits I learned was with my brothers trying to gain access to their toys or get him to do favors for me.
Just my two cents.

Mrs. Pilgrim said...

The reason I don't "feel" it is my place is rather complex

Gentle suggestion: Don't use "feel" when you mean "think" or "believe". No matter how hard the idiots of the world try to convince you that they're synonyms, they're really not. It'll save you some misunderstandings.

Ted D said...

Daniel - "The only thing I would add is that using rhetoric to help other people (besides your kids) understand the truth is not simply one of benevolence - it can serve your social interests very well. Withholding rhetoric from others because they are not worth your time is perfectly sensible, but you may be missing out on an opportunity to improve your own, or your family's lot by refusing to implement the tool of rhetoric."

Well, as I said above, I need to do some thinking on this anyway as my experiences with rhetoric have obviously biased my opinion of it across the board. And it isn't so much that I strive to be benevolant as much as that I recognize that although I believe I am right, I am human and imperfect. I want people to believe as I do, but I want them to come to that belief on their own, without my manipulation. If that happens, it justifies my belief. If it doesn't, then perhaps I need to reflect and adjust.

I believe in God, but I respect others right to not believe. I think they are wrong, but I'm not about to convince them otherwise. If they ask me about my belief, I'll share it with them. And they can then decide if my points are compelling enough to change their opinion. This is another area where I digress from my Catholic roots. I do NOT see it as my job to "witness" anyone into belief. I'll be more than happy to share my beliefs, but it is not my job to force them onto others.

To me it just seems that the truth cannot be denied. The problem is, more often than not in debate the truth is hidden behind rhetoric. My desire to remove rhetoric is to simply expose the truth so a decision can be made without bias. Wishful thinking, right?

Anacaona said...

Now that I'm about to become a parent, myself,

Oh I didn't notice this Congratulations! In the same boat right now. Couldn't be more excited or terrified...excirrified?
Good luck!

Anacaona said...

Does that make any sense? I don't WANT to be a dictator. I'd much prefer everyone come to their own conclusions, and ideally they would be pretty similar to mine. If not, then I would need to question my own judgment and adjust accordingly.

But you want to live under a DICTATOR as per your comment at HUS...So you are still in congruent you support methods you wouldn't implement yourself. I don't mind that you are not the first neither the last but this was not a logical choice. Because if your personal truth is that a dictator is needed to make the world a better place, not wanting to be one, is a denial of that truth and if truth is objective then you are picking not to follow it because....? It seems that is your feelings getting on the way of the truth and that is not logical isn't it?

Josh said...

Punishing is fine when a child does something wrong deliberately, but you don't do that when they're wailing cause they want something. That will just teach them to suppress, which creates a deviant faggot

Best...comment...ever...

I'm not grasping the logic here, could you elaborate?

Josh said...

Outside of marriage, any sexual indulgence is referred to as fornication.

Yeah...the Bible doesn't actually say that about masturbation...

Ted D said...

Ana - "But you want to live under a DICTATOR as per your comment at HUS...So you are still in congruent you support methods you wouldn't implement yourself."

Not at all. What I meant regardless of what I said is:

A dictatorship CAN be an ideal form of government provided that leader actually cares about his people and makes his decisions in their best interest. Truly there would be no debate, no arguing, and no quesiton about the law or processes. Unfortunately humans are not naturally altruistic, and the chances of a truly benevolant leader are slim to none.

I much prefer to live in a free society. However if we cannot be responsible IN a free society, then an authoritarian regime would be a solution. (note I didn't say the best solution.)

And I never once said *I* wanted to live in a dictatorship. My preference is always for freedom.

On another note: if by some cosmic twist of fate I found myself the leader of a country, I would do my best to be fair and just. I don't want to lead because I don't want to be responsible for others. I am in the position I am in my career because I dislike managing people. But, if I had to I would do it, and hate it the entire time.

That being said, I've always thought that the best leaders are people that truly do not want to lead. They don't strive for power or money, and lead because they must. Anyone that wants to lead is suspect to me, since the desire to lead also implies the desire for power and influence, which are NOT the right reasons to be in charge IMO.

Yohami said...

"That being said, I've always thought that the best leaders are people that truly do not want to lead."

Ted, the opposite is true

Ted D said...

Yohami - "Ted, the opposite is true"

Who would you trust more:

Person A who is a life long politician that has been in several offices and knows people in "high places"

Person B that has NO desire for power, no "connections", and no experience 'working the system'?

I'll take person B hands down every time. I honestly don't want to be "lead" by people that enjoy the power of office. I want to be led by someone that does it because it needs to be done, and that they are the only person to GET it done.

People that seek power for power's sake do not have "the people's" best intersts at heart. Ever. The quest for more power is always first and foremost. Perhaps the people may come in second place, but that is being awfully optimistic.

How do you see a "career" leader as a better option?

Yohami said...

Ted,

Yeah, but Politics is not about leading, and seeking power is different than wanting to lead.

And then its not about who I would trust more but who makes a better leader.

"I've always thought that the best leaders are people that truly do not want to lead."

Replace lead/leading with any other activity and you´ll see it.

The core of politics and power are corrupted. But the reason is not related to leadership. It's about greed and resources.

Anonymous said...

how do you overcome, "my body, my choice"?

well, i think one should answer a fool according to [her] folly by humoring them.

when a woman says this, reply that you agree. state as a question what right does a man, or even a woman, have to tell another woman what she can do with her body?! why should men, or even women be able to prohibit another woman from doing what she wants with her body? pause...let her talk. then tell her this is why prostitution should be legalized.

of course they'll reply that it's immoral. then call them on their BS. if killing an unborn child is NOT immoral, then how can making money through the use of one's body be? one's body, one's choice. no one is harmed after all.

then argue the benefits of prostitution. it would allow more women to earn an income. this means more women with jobs. this would decrease unemployment. tell them that it would allow women to get out of debt and pay their way through college and then get better paying job with all of their degrees. state that women making a living off of prostitution would free up more jobs in the private sector, thus allowing more women and men access to those jobs because prostitution has freed up those jobs by removing women competitors for those jobs.

argue that it would possibly decrease the number rape accusations against men because men would be able to show a receipt (maybe) for the service provided, or expected, and that her claim is a breach of contract. tell them that their freshman daughters could make a killing at frat houses during their first year in college. no more need to get her drunk! just pay her what she wants.

fewer claims means a much less crowded court system. she'll argue against this of course.

tell her that paying for sex in no way hurts a woman's sociosexual status. after all, he may be butt ugly, but he had to pay good money to get access to her poontang.

finish her off by asking, "which woman is worse, morally: 1) a woman who gets paid to have sex for a living to make ends meet; or 2) or woman who just freely has sex with anyone and receives no compensation for it, except that she may be left holding the bag?"

a feminist would likely get angry, because deep down, she knows that legalizing prostitution would remove women's monopoly on pussy. and that would strip them of much, if not all, of their power.

so i say...just humor them.

Frenchy

Vox said...

IMO not at all. But I would not be the right person to instruct you if this is indeed true.

You're dancing perilously close to male solipsism here. We already know that people have different capacities for dialectic.

By the way, it doesn't take a super genius to grasp any concept.

True. It takes super genius to conceive original and useful concepts.

The conept if moral rhetoric is intriguing to me. Part of the reason I left the Church is because "preaching" is largely rhetorical. When I lost all faith in rhetoric as a moral tool, I lost my trust for those that practiced it. I immediately see anyone appealing to my emotions as subversive and sneaky.

It might help if you think of dialectic and rhetoric as languages. Per esempio, parlo italiano, ma se scrivo qua in italiano, tanti non capiscono perche non leggono la lingua bella. Non sarebbe corretto per dire una lingua o l'altra e' piu giusta nel senso della moralita', solo che farebbe piu senso per scrivere in inglese.

See what I mean?

Joseph Gill said...

"Yeah...the Bible doesn't actually say that about masturbation..."

The bible also doesn't use the word hypergamy....

BC said...

@Frenchy:

Beautiful. Turning around their justification (My body, my choice) to justify something that they absolutely cannot accept (prostitution, etc.). In fact, you can even extend it to minors, since minors can get abortions and, in many cases, do not even need to tell their parents.

Mike C said...

Essentially you've got to always be running "Game" and seducing. Not just romantically/sexually, but also to persuade women of intellectual positions. I think I just took the very last bit of the red pill.

Res Ipsa said...

VOX,

I think your appeal to an alternative rhetorical perspective would still fail for one reason that you hit on when going over the "nurse" story.

"She spends three out of 13 paragraphs talking about shoes"

For a lot of women that's the cincher, shoes that or kittens and unicorns. Some women just don't have that part of the brain that allows them to see facts for facts. Why waste time on them? If they feel it, that is all there is in the world and nothing you say will change it.

Duke of Earl said...

"The bible also doesn't use the word hypergamy"

Because it didn't have to. The masculinity modelled in the Bible is one of strong leadership leading to success, and weakness leading to failure. One of the indictments of Solomon is that he listened to his wives and worshipped foreign gods. The judge Deborah even tells the champion chosen to free Israel from bondage that because he wanted her, a woman, along, the victory he sought would go to a woman.

Hypergamy is a modern word for an ancient concept. Women are attracted to men with strong dominant personalities. They desire the highest apple on the tree.

H said...

revrogers: You preach logically following the scripture verse by verse, keeping the context clear. The descent into rhetoric to please the women is what has watered down the message. Remember 1Cor14:35. If a woman doesn't understand the message, she is to ask her husband about it at home.

Stickwick said...

Congratulations! In the same boat right now. Couldn't be more excited or terrified...excirrified?

Thanks, and congrats to you, too. I'm hovering somewhere between excitement and mild terror, so right there with ya.

I hope VP and AG are still around when my kid is a teenager, because they will be required reading.

Anacaona said...

Thanks, and congrats to you, too. I'm hovering somewhere between excitement and mild terror, so right there with ya.

Not sure if your are a male or a female are you carrying it or is your SO job? Boy or girl? how long before it becomes a reality.
I'm obviously female, due in a few weeks and I'm carrying a boy.

I hope VP and AG are still around when my kid is a teenager, because they will be required reading.

I'm actually trusting my husband to do that part. He is not a red piller but I wouldn't consider him a blue piller more like a purple piller he was raised by a feminist so he assumes all women are good, but he is not afraid to call out a bitch on her crap when he sees one, so I think that is the right combo. Hope for the best prepare for the worst.

Anonymous said...

"Essentially you've got to always be running "Game" and seducing. Not just romantically/sexually, but also to persuade women of intellectual positions. I think I just took the very last bit of the red pill."

You're on to something there, Mike C.


Jon

Recruit said...

@Duke of Earl

I know that Duke. I was making a point that while the Bible doesn't use the word masturbation, it does include that concept in fornication. Just like the concept of hypergamy is in the Bible without the word being used.

Stickwick said...

@ Anacaona

I'm a woman, 3.5 months along, don't know the sex yet. Hubby is totally relaxed about the whole thing, I'm mildly freaking out. It still seems pretty surreal at this point, esp. when I see the little thing kicking and squirming in the sonogram. If I wasn't already a believer, this would definitely have me believing in God, because the whole process just seems miraculous.

A few more weeks for you, eh? Well, best wishes and Happy Pushing. :^)

Anacaona said...

I'm a woman, 3.5 months along, don't know the sex yet. Hubby is totally relaxed about the whole thing, I'm mildly freaking out. It still seems pretty surreal at this point, esp. when I see the little thing kicking and squirming in the sonogram. If I wasn't already a believer, this would definitely have me believing in God, because the whole process just seems miraculous.

We are the opposite hubby is freaking out I'm relaxed aside from the terrified about actual parenting but then I come from a big family so as soon as I noticed that I was doing my pregnancy like my mom (who never had a miscarriage or any issues) I was like "Oh yeah this will be easy" Hubby is agnostic I'm a believer...Now I need to ask him if this change anything about his position.

A few more weeks for you, eh? Well, best wishes and Happy Pushing. :^)

Weeks days or hours all my mom's babies were early so I'm pretty much in a "watch for labor at any moment"
Thanks again :)

BC said...

Essentially you've got to always be running "Game" and seducing. Not just romantically/sexually, but also to persuade women of intellectual positions. I think I just took the very last bit of the red pill.

The final step from Game/PUA to MGTOW. Note that MGTOW in this case does not mean celibacy or making an effort to avoid women, it just means not giving a damn about them any more. If pussy comes along, fine. If not, fine. If you need to convince a woman of something or get her to do something for you (or stop doing something), you push the necessary buttons; if not, then you don't give a shit about them or what they think.

True enlightenment, just not caring any more except where it affects you personally.

VD said...

True enlightenment, just not caring any more except where it affects you personally.

Didn't the Buddha say something just like that?

Wendy said...

Totally OT to Stickwick and Anacaona:
Red Raspberry leaf tea, 1 T loose leaves steeped for 2 hours, drank once a day until the ninth month and then twice a day in the ninth month. I highly recommend. It helps tone the uterus and supplies lots of vitamins and minerals (hence the long steeping). Check it out online or ask a local midwife. For during the ninth month and after (till its used up - it helps with milk supply and recovery), there is also an herb mix tincture called Gentle Birth and Evening Primrose oil. I took all three of them and recommend them, but especially the Red Raspberry leaf tea. It's inexpensive especially if you can find a place that has loose leaves rather than teabags. My midwife works at the local health food store, so she made sure it was in stock and it was $1.50 for a month supply.

VD said...

I cannot believe people are discussing UTERAL TONING here.

Bane wept.

Cail Corishev said...

"Essentially you've got to always be running "Game" and seducing."

That's probably the essential divide in the Game world today, and the hangup that a lot of Christian men run into when first learning about it: Is Game something you do or something you are? Is it a list of actions that you can take to attract women, which implies a certain amount of manipulation? Or is it an attitude that you internalize, which makes you naturally more attractive? And just to muddy the waters, could it be that doing the former can lead to the latter, and does being the latter look like the former?

For instance: like most boys with sisters, I grew up teasing them. I "negged" my sisters on a regular basis, and never once worried about whether they'd like me for it. (They seem to like me fine now as adults, so I don't think it hurt too much.) But once I went out into the world and started meeting women I wanted to sleep with, I turned off the teasing because everyone said girls were scary, unpredictable creatures that had to be handled with kid gloves.

So if I retrain myself and give myself permission to start teasing women again, am I "running Game"? Or am I just being myself -- my real self, not the self guys try to be when told to be themselves? Is one wrong and the other right?

Ted D said...

VD - Slightly off topic, but related to your reading suggestions.

If rhetoric and dialectic are opposite methods of debate, why is it that rhetoric is more common? Is it because most people are far more emotional than logical, or is it because rhetoric is simply the easier of the two?

I ask because to me, the purpose of debate is not necessarily to convince other people that I'm right. In many cases I debate simply to put my own ideas and theories to the test. Put another way, I like to bounce my ideas off of others, and I generally do that by debating.

In most cases, even though I start from the dialectic approach, the conversation quickly goes rhetorical, and at that point my intended purpose is lost. I never understood why, but looking at it from an emotion vs. logic slant explains it to an extent. But I still don't fully understand why emotion seems to be more prevalent, which in turn makes rhetorical debate more common.

Lad said...

No matter which persuasion tactic you use, identifying both the source of conflict and shared morality can be very helpful.

In the case of abortion, dialectic vs. rhetorical persuasion often doesn't matter because the core conflict is essentially not resolvable. When both sides have unmovable beliefs about when life begins, neither facts and logic or emotional appeals will solve the inherent conflict involved in an unwanted pregnancy. There are no shared morals within the context of the core disagreement.

In Vox's example, it's not too hard to tease out a whole pile of shared moral foundations: Gun violence is bad. Fear of gun violence is bad. Other violence is also bad. Being powerless is bad. Feeling powerless is bad. Self-defense is good. Each story emphasizes different, but shared beliefs. While there's obvious safety-vs-freedom conflict, unlike the abortion issue there's lots of room for persuasion on both sides.

Lad said...

Ted D:

I think for many people, rhetorical techniques and emotional appeals are far easier and more efficient. But I do think a lot of people just don't care and simply approach debate with different goals. They get more satisfaction from pushing buttons and winning the argument than from learning anything new. Obviously, rhetorical techniques would be favored by those people.

Daniel said...

Ted D
If rhetoric and dialectic are opposite methods of debate, why is it that rhetoric is more common? Is it because most people are far more emotional than logical, or is it because rhetoric is simply the easier of the two?

Rhetoric and dialectic are not opposite methods. Dialectic is of a higher order - the complex logic chains necessary for substantiating truth. Dialectic is something that most people simply don't have the capacity for: they are too stupid. This is evident all around you, but sometimes quite difficult for people possessing the minimum IQ required to consistently (and quickly) grasp complex dialectic.

Think of it this way: if you were teaching a mentally retarded man how to do a complex (but doable) task, would you ever use the dialectic? No. That would be counterproductive: he wants to do the task to earn money to live, he doesn't have the capacity to understand why or how the task exists, or its intricacies.

In short: he would be unable to perform the proper task if you use a dialectic that he can't possibly be expected to understand.

Therefore, you use rhetoric: "Step 1 - Take the raw material from this bucket. Step 2 - Assemble it like so. Step 3 - Send it over to this guy here."

Rhetoric is not at odds with the dialectic. After all, one of the three elements of rhetoric is the appeal to logic, and, although the unscrupulous can abuse such an appeal, as it is not necessarily an exercise in logic, the fact is that illogic masquerading as an appeal to logic will fail as rhetoric more often than true logic that contributes to the appeal to logic.

Lad
I think for many people, rhetorical techniques and emotional appeals are far easier and more efficient. But I do think a lot of people just don't care and simply approach debate with different goals. They get more satisfaction from pushing buttons and winning the argument than from learning anything new. Obviously, rhetorical techniques would be favored by those people.

Laziness can certainly be a factor, but general dumbness, I think, is far, far more significant. Any time you receive that "blank stare, deer in the headlights look" after a dialectically-delivered concept, that's someone who is capable of rhetoric-only.

It can be situational though: sometimes the hearer is tired (or lazy) or distracted or just not into it for whatever reason. But it is important to really get the concept that some people (a lot of people) simply are of insufficient skill to accept and follow the dialectic.

Think of people as coders: some of them can create and synthesize code in a holistic way. Others are cut-and-paste artists almost exclusively: if they had to write original code, it wouldn't work, and no matter how much good training they receive, they will never have the capacity to comprehend the logic underlying the code that they nonetheless cobble together into something that "works".

Go to any meeting of people to discuss a relatively complex issue: there will be "graspers" who apprehend the underlying meaning and inner workings of the issue quickly - then there will be the rest of the people - the ones who begin to understand the issue by trial and error.

Speak with the dialectic and the graspers will understand. Speak with rhetoric and everyone will understand (make sure it is sound though, or the graspers will go off on dialectical rabbit trails to try to "fix" the rhetoric into the image of the dialectic.)

Daniel said...

In other words, there are people in the world who will never ever comprehend that 0 means OFF and 1 means ON. It does not compute. They have to learn to behave under the computer parameters formed by that concept (and can be quite successful at it) without ever grasping the "why."

Think about that for a minute. If you didn't have the capacity to connect on that concept, how could you ever grasp the dialectic?

Answer: you can't.

Wendy said...

I cannot believe people are discussing UTERAL TONING here.

Bane wept.


Women ruin everything.

Ted D said...

Daniel - "Think of it this way: if you were teaching a mentally retarded man how to do a complex (but doable) task, would you ever use the dialectic? No. That would be counterproductive: he wants to do the task to earn money to live, he doesn't have the capacity to understand why or how the task exists, or its intricacies."

I can understand this from previous work. I spent a great deal of my early IT career working Help Desk type tasks. I had to create technical documentation as well as "manuals" intended for the common computer user. Of course I had to "dumb it down" for the common user, but I understood this as my knowledge of computers is specialized, and it isn't something that everyone would know.

However, to me "thinking" is something everyone does, so I find it hard to believe that there are people in the world that simply cannot grasp the concept of logical thinking. I'm no genius, and compared to some of the mental firepower here I am likely closer to a handgun along side a cannon. But what I think you are saying is that IQ doesn't tell the entire story. IQ provides the capacity, but other skills turn it into something useful, and those skills are specialized?

Is critical, logical, reasonable thinking really a matter of genetics as well as environment? I've spent the majority of my life believing that most people were just too lazy or unmotivated to try to be "smarter". (for lack of a better term) I figured if I can form a logical thought, anyone can.

The other thing that I find at odds here is the concept of "special snowflake". If dialectic thinking is indeed genetic, it tends to support the concept that some people truly are special in some way. I can get on board with this thinking, but it seems very self-serving and New Age. (in the same sense that "everyone gets a trophy for showing up" and "you are a unique person, just like everyone else")

Is thinking really a specialized trait?

VD said...

If rhetoric and dialectic are opposite methods of debate, why is it that rhetoric is more common? Is it because most people are far more emotional than logical, or is it because rhetoric is simply the easier of the two?

Because it is easier and more accessible. But they're not opposites. They are complementary. I'll post on this tomorrow.

Cail Corishev said...

"I still don't fully understand why emotion seems to be more prevalent."

Emotions are sort of a short-cut for the mind. If you see a tiger running your way, you don't have time to sort logically through the facts of how big it is, how far away it is, whether it's looking at you or the guy next to you, etc., and then decide what to do about it. So your unconscious mind throws all that together very quickly and simply floods your conscious mind with fear, which sends you up a tree before you really know what's going on. It works so well that most people come to trust it -- even more than they trust logical thinking, in many cases.

Like you, I'm in the 99th percentile of logical people, which sometimes pays off in social settings, oddly enough. I do tend to stand there while the tiger is running at me, trying to figure out what's going on, which other people can see as calm and confident. I may be just as scared as everyone else on the inside, but it doesn't show because my emotions are still trying to break past the logical wheels that are turning.

Works great -- as long as I don't get eaten.

VD said...

However, to me "thinking" is something everyone does, so I find it hard to believe that there are people in the world that simply cannot grasp the concept of logical thinking. I'm no genius, and compared to some of the mental firepower here I am likely closer to a handgun along side a cannon.

That's your problem, Ted. You're smart enough to utilize logic, but not so smart that you are capable of fully realizing just how stupid people can be. If your IQ is as far from normal as normal is from Down's Syndrome, it is much easier to see intellectual capability as a gradient.

You can walk someone through every step of a correct logical argument in the Socratic manner, with them agreeing with every step along the way, only to have them deny the conclusion with "but, I just don't think that's right".

Anacaona said...

You can walk someone through every step of a correct logical argument in the Socratic manner, with them agreeing with every step along the way, only to have them deny the conclusion with "but, I just don't think that's right".

I hate when that happens. Also when you do that and they still won't do any changes to incorporate the knew knowlegde no matter how much they say "I want something better"...Can that be called stupidity?

Ted D said...

"Can that be called stupidity?"

I see it as willful ignorance. But maybe I'm an arrogant ass.

Daniel said...

You are mistaking will for nature, Ted.

Some people really are that stupid. It is a handicap - brain damage, if you will. They truly are incapable of following a logical chain of arguments to the proper conclusion.

After all, you surely don't expect a paraplegic to get up and walk, do you? Why then do you expect the intellectually challenged to achieve the highest order of thought? Just because they can move around doesn't mean they are capable of running a marathon on two feet.

No wonder you are so pissed off at everyone. You think they are being idiots on purpose!

Cail Corishev said...

You can walk someone through every step of a correct logical argument in the Socratic manner, with them agreeing with every step along the way, only to have them deny the conclusion with "but, I just don't think that's right".

Other popular responses:

"I just can't believe that."
"Nothing's that simple."
"There are two sides to every story."
"Why do you hate [insert group here]?"
"I can't disprove anything you're saying, but it just feels wrong."

That last one's my favorite; you truly know you've been wasting your breath when you get that one.

Daniel's right on, except I don't think you have to be particularly stupid to be ruled by your feelings. It's human nature, bolstered by our society. It takes training and work to do otherwise, even if you're fortunate enough to start with a foundation of intelligence.

SarahsDaughter said...

"If your IQ is as far from normal as normal is from Down's Syndrome, it is much easier to see intellectual capability as a gradient." - VD

It is easier when you're in the middle of the bell curve. The IQ tests I've taken have all scored between 115-120. My husband is off the chart. I listen to him talk about physics and sit in fascination. I can't comprehend anything he's saying to me but I look interested in it because I'm truly in awe of what his brain comprehends and retains. Along with many many commenters on VP. Stickwick completely blows me away. (I try to read every word, and Stickwick, you do put things in to as close to "short bus" vernacular as I think is possible - the information just hovers in a cloud in my brain...nowhere to go.)

My husband knows I'm at an above normal IQ and never acts upset about what I simply can't comprehend however other people at my IQ level and below all meld together to him.

I, on the other hand, can recognize when someone is around that 90-100 pt range. My frustration with them gives me a window into his frustration with the populous.

BC said...

The curse of genius is the ability to see something clearly combined with the inability to understand why others do not.

also:
http://twitter.com/GSElevator/status/249154011352145920
"I know I've won the argument when she says, 'You can't argue with how I feel.' That's also when I know I've lost the argument."

Anacaona said...

Now I have a question can a solipsistic person being right about something that a logical person wouldn't? Can an average person win an argument legitimately against a smarter person?

Yohami said...

"Can an average person win an argument legitimately against a smarter person?"

Of course. It depends on who is right / who has the more fit argument. The smarter person can have a smarter argument, but it can still be wrong.

Yohami said...

"Now I have a question can a solipsistic person being right about something that a logical person wouldn't?"

Logic doesnt mean or say anything about anything. Logic is a process. The process relies on data. The data is still subjected to biases, ignorace, etc.

But, can a solipistic person ellaborate a logical argument better than a logical person? no.

Still, not related to being right or wrong.

BC said...

can a solipsistic person being right about something that a logical person wouldn't? Can an average person win an argument legitimately against a smarter person?

Yes, because some ideas are so dumb that only a truly intelligent person can do the mental gymnastics and rationalizations needed to believe them. In that sense, possibly one of the most dangerous types of person is an intelligent solipsist, because they will not only logically convince themselves that they are right, but many of those around them as well.

That is to say, common sense trumps brains.

Anacaona said...

That is to say, common sense trumps brains.

And Common Sense Is the Least Common of All the Senses...
Thanks for the answers! :)

Cail Corishev said...

"Can an average person win an argument legitimately against a smarter person?

Of course. One of my favorite quotes is from Richard Hoste: "A high IQ person can accept silly ideologies that your average Joe can’t even understand." Everyone has blind spots and biases, and intelligence doesn't automatically trump those. If it's applied in service to them, a smart person can go further off the rails than most people would.

David DeAngelo talked about an article or study where stock brokerage companies discovered that hiring really smart people was dangerous, because really smart people are used to being right all the time. When they'd pick a stock and it'd go down, they'd hang onto it a lot longer than other brokers would, because they were convinced they had to be right.

That's not to say the smarter ones wouldn't win more often over time. But they'd have some big losses, while "dumber" brokers would tend to operate on a more even keel, which might be more important to a firm than overall output.

Intelligence helps with pretty much everything (except rhythm, according to Sailer), including common sense. Being good at reasoning your way to answers is very useful in any aspect of life. But that doesn't mean smart people can't be fooled, even by themselves. And when they are, it can be a doozy.

Ted D said...

Daniel – “No wonder you are so pissed off at everyone. You think they are being idiots on purpose!”

Well not all of them. But yeah, I really find it hard to believe that the difference between an IQ of 100 and an IQ of around 118 is that drastic. I guess I’m wrong. :p

SarahsDaughter – “I, on the other hand, can recognize when someone is around that 90-100 pt range. My frustration with them gives me a window into his frustration with the populous.”

So to my point above, the difference between 100 and 120 IS that major? It just doesn’t seem like such a far stretch. I don’t know much about IQ testing, but I never realized that a difference of 15 to 20 points was so drastic. Good Lord I feel a bit stupid right now. So people with an IQ at/around 100 may very well not be “smart” enough to follow the stuff we are discussing right now?!

Ana – “And Common Sense Is the Least Common of All the Senses...”

My grandfather used to say it like this: “Common sense isn’t.” I guess I never realized just how true that is, or at least I never understood why. I honestly and truly believed it was lack of education that generated so many people without what I consider to be basic trouble-shooting/analytical skills. I know so many people capable of it, that I simply didn’t realize it isn’t common at all.

Cail Corishev said...

"So to my point above, the difference between 100 and 120 IS that major? It just doesn’t seem like such a far stretch. I don’t know much about IQ testing, but I never realized that a difference of 15 to 20 points was so drastic. Good Lord I feel a bit stupid right now. So people with an IQ at/around 100 may very well not be “smart” enough to follow the stuff we are discussing right now?!"

In a word, yes.

My dad had four genius to sooper-genius kids. He's easily a genius himself, but didn't go to college, so he never considered himself that smart. Whenever we'd do something stupid, he'd say we were book-smart and common-sense-stupid. If we were struggling with something like opening a box, he'd say that you have to be smarter than the box. He made sure we didn't think being smart was, in itself, a meal ticket to anything beyond school.

But it does make a big difference in the kinds of concepts you're able to grasp. [Obligatory disclaimer: that doesn't mean lower-IQ people are less valuable, any more than short people are less valuable than tall people because they can't reach the top shelf.]

Cail Corishev said...

"I know so many people capable of [trouble-shooting/analytical skill], that I simply didn’t realize it isn’t common at all."

One thing about IQ is that it's strongly assortive, meaning that people tend to sort themselves into groups by IQ, so that smart people hang out with equally smart people, average with average, etc. Work and school do a lot of that -- if you work or study in a field requiring a high IQ, so do your co-workers or classmates. If you engage in intellectual hobbies, so do your fellow hobbyists, and so on. It even shows up in mating -- people tend to marry people with IQs much closer to their own than could be explained by chance, even when they don't know their own IQs or anything about it. We just tend to be drawn to people who think at our own level and speed.

So if you're smart and surrounded by smarts, it's easy to forget how many people out there aren't and what they're capable of (and not). You can read statistics about it, or watch Jay Leno going out into the street finding people who can't answer the simplest questions in the world, but that's remote. It hits home when you try to tutor someone with a sub-100 IQ, or when you talk to someone outside your social circle who's never read a book. Then try to explain to that person something that all your close acquaintances can handle just fine, and see the difference.

Ted D said...

Cail - "So if you're smart and surrounded by smarts, it's easy to forget how many people out there aren't and what they're capable of (and not). You can read statistics about it, or watch Jay Leno going out into the street finding people who can't answer the simplest questions in the world, but that's remote. It hits home when you try to tutor someone with a sub-100 IQ, or when you talk to someone outside your social circle who's never read a book. Then try to explain to that person something that all your close acquaintances can handle just fine, and see the difference."

I'm in IT, so selection bias is likely. My wife is in medical, so the same with her circle of friends.

To be honest, I figured those "on the street" spots were setup so that they only showed the very worst people they found. It never occurred to me that it didn't take that long for them to find enough people without a clue to fill a 15 minute segment. I always imagined them having to sit outside for hours to get that many.

And I've never, ever tutored anyone. I don't have the patience for that kind of hand-holding, and having to repeat myself sends me over the edge.

This is an eye opener for me, and frankly just a little bit scary. I don't mean to sound condescending, but it is a bit frightening to think that the vast majority aren't even as capable as I am in many respects, especially when I don't consider myself to be anything particularly special.

Wait. Are there really people out there that don't read books? I don't tear up the pages anymore because work and life seems to eat all my "reading time" often, but I try to knock at least a few out a year if at all possible. And that doesn't count the hours of time I spend online reading blogs and news.

HanSolo said...

@Ted D

Yes, there are a lot of people out there that don't read books, and many that are using their reading time for 50 Shades of Grey (women) or porn (men). lol

Check out my comment to you on the "A Graceful Concession Thread."

BTW, are you a football fan? I'm a Raiders fan and watching them yesterday was very painful! But if you're a Steelers fan then I'm sure you're not too sad about the Raiders woes. lol

Ted D said...

HanSolo - "BTW, are you a football fan? I'm a Raiders fan and watching them yesterday was very painful! But if you're a Steelers fan then I'm sure you're not too sad about the Raiders woes. lol"

GO STEELERS!

Actually I'm not much of a sports fan at all. Other than IT and lately Game related blogging, I spend most of my free time reading and creating/recording/jamming music and getting my children to whatever activity is on the schedule for the day. (band, sports, lessons, etc.) I watch football sometimes, but I really don't care enough to even know how the Steelers do from week to week. And I really just don't watch much TV to be honest. My wife watches shows, but I usually sit there with iPad in hand reading something, and occasionally laughing or making a comment on something from the TV that caught my attention.

HanSolo said...

That's cool Ted. I think you get more out of your time reading than I do watching sports, especially when they stink it up so bad and I'm left feeling shitty (like our tribe just got decimated) and wasted that time watching it. lol I do usually read or do something on the computer while watching like editing my hiking photos or such.

Cail Corishev said...

"Are there really people out there that don't read books?"

Yes, I know a few people who have never read a book from start to finish unless it was required in school (and I doubt they really did in that case). They aren't stupid; they hold down middle class jobs and have families. They just aren't, let's say, intellectually curious. They know the things they need to know, like how to do their jobs and hobbies -- which they learned from other people, not from books -- and they aren't particularly interested in other topics. They'd think sitting and writing like this about abstract topics was the most boring thing in the world.

I'm sure Jay Leno does cherry pick the worst examples for the show. But I doubt it takes all that long to find enough of them. A Rand study asked people ages 51-56 these questions (the third question was only asked if they got the first two correct):

1. If the chance of getting a disease is 10%, how many people out of 1,000 would be expected to get the disease?

2. If 5 people all have the winning number in the lottery and the prize is 2 million dollars, how much will each of them get?

3. Let's say you have $200 in a savings account. The account earns 10% interest per year. How much would you have in the account at the end of two years?

The correct responses were given by, respectively, 83.5%, 55.9%, and 17.8% of respondents. So fewer than 1/5 of people nearing retirement age can reliably do sixth-grade math.

Ted D said...

Cail - "The correct responses were given by, respectively, 83.5%, 55.9%, and 17.8% of respondents. So fewer than 1/5 of people nearing retirement age can reliably do sixth-grade math."

I'm getting the same sinking feeling I got when I first found the 'sphere and the Red Pill. As if the Matrix wasn't bad enough in terms of my views on women, I'm now finding that my views of many things were false as well.

And I don't think I've lead a particulary sheltered life. I simply don't like "people" and don't socialize much. In fact, I don't socialize at all with anyone that can't have the type of conversations we have here. I simply don't have anything to say to them.

Cail Corishev said...

Ted, it sounds like you're starting to realize that there is more than one Red Pill. In addition to male/female interaction, there are Red Pills for nutrition, government, economics, history (several different pills there), education, IQ, immigration, environment . . . basically, most of what you've ever been taught, perhaps excepting any fields that you've studied and worked in first-hand, was wrong. And once you take one Red Pill, you can't ever trust the conventional wisdom the same way you did before, and you start discovering others.

Occasionally you run into someone who's fully swallowed the Red Pill in one area, but managed to avoid it in another. In The Vegetarian Myth, Lierre Kieth skewers everything people think they know about the history and the health and societal effects of meat eating. Yet she includes feminist rants against the patriarchy that make it clear she hasn't encountered that particular Red Pill yet. But now that she's absorbed one, I wouldn't be surprised to see her release a book about wifely submission someday. Once you start down that rabbit hole, it's hard to stop, and it's a long way down.

Mike C said...

Ted, it sounds like you're starting to realize that there is more than one Red Pill. In addition to male/female interaction, there are Red Pills for nutrition, government, economics, history (several different pills there), education, IQ, immigration, environment . . . basically, most of what you've ever been taught, perhaps excepting any fields that you've studied and worked in first-hand, was wrong. And once you take one Red Pill, you can't ever trust the conventional wisdom the same way you did before, and you start discovering others.

Cail,

Great comment. IMO, somewhere between 85-95% of conventional wisdom is complete horseshit. Morpheus was right about how deep the Red Pill goes and it certainly extends to a number of topics well beyond just intergender dynamics.

History is just His Story written by the victors, and you have to do some deep digging sometimes to uncover the real truth that isn't inside high school history books.



Anonymous said...

Why visitors still make use of to read news papers
when in this technological world everything is accessible on
net?

Also visit my page - sleeplessouldesigns.com

Anonymous said...

Wе ѕtumbled oνer here by a diffeгent wеb adԁreѕs аnԁ
thought I may as well checκ thіngs out.
I like ωhat ӏ see sο now i'm following you. Look forward to finding out about your web page yet again. speedyconnections.net
My web page :: speedyconnections.net

Anonymous said...

Ηello! I could have sωorn I've been to this blog before but after browsing through some of the post I realized it'ѕ new
to me. Nonеtheless, Ι'm definitely glad I found it and I'll be book-maгκing and checking back frequentlу!
http://www.tinnitus411.com/remedy-for-ringing-in-the-ears/

Anonymous said...

Hello everybody, I be familiar with YouTube video carries less
bytes of memory due to that its quality is poor, however this
YouTube video has impressive picture features.

Also visit my weblog; website
my web page - www.mylahelps.com

Anonymous said...

Hi there I like your post

My site; www.tarheelfaces.com

Anonymous said...

For most up-to-date news you have to pay a visit internet and on world-wide-web I found
this web site as a best website for most up-to-date updates.



Here is my weblog; tplace.eu

Anonymous said...

good good…this post deserves nothing …hahaha just joking :P …nice post
:P

My web-site - http://www.opinionxchange.com

Anonymous said...

Hello friends, nice post and nice urging commented at
this place, I am in fact enjoying by these.

Also visit my webpage ... http://www.gulfians.com/link/6490

Anonymous said...

When I saw this web site having amazing featured YouTube
videos, I decided to watch out these all videos.


My web-site - http://www.medicalnewsexperts.com/

Anonymous said...

Super-Duper site! I am loving it!! Will come back again - taking you feeds also,
Thanks.

Here is my web blog; http://outdoorshoppingguide.com/fire-pits
Also see my website > http://outdoorshoppingguide.com/fire-pits/

Anonymous said...

This piece of writing offers clear idea designed for the new users of blogging,
that genuinely how to do blogging and site-building.



My homepage - social

Anonymous said...

To start earning money with your blog, initially use Google Adsense
but gradually as your traffic increases, keep adding more and more money making programs to
your site.

Also visit my web site :: social
Also see my page - social

Anonymous said...

Ηi this іs kinda of off topic but I waѕ wanting to κnоw if blogs use WYSӏWYG edіtors oг if you
haνe tο manuаlly code with ΗTML.

I'm starting a blog soon but have no coding experience so I wanted to get advice from someone with experience. Any help would be greatly appreciated! mouse click the next site
my webpage: mouse click the next site

Anonymous said...

Buying Tips For Basement DehumidifiersA humidifier or a
dehumidifier should be placed in the room with the piano,
but not directly beside it. Amcor MD250 is a mini dehumidifier for closets, pantries, under sink, shoe closets and small bedrooms.


my blog post householdshopping.org
My webpage > householdshopping.org

Anonymous said...

Мy spouse and I absolutely love yоur blog and fіnd the majorіtу оf your post's to be just what I'm looking for.
can уou offer guest wгiteгs to write сontent in
your cаѕe? I wouldn't mind creating a post or elaborating on a few of the subjects you write with regards to here. Again, awesome website! www.tinnitus411.Com
My site: www.tinnitus411.Com

Anonymous said...

All You'll Want To Understand About DehumidifierPortability: If you are after to move your dehumidifier through room to room, look for a device that is compact, light, and includes a holding handle or going casters. On the other hand, too much humidity can be a problem too.

My site ... householdshopping.org

Anonymous said...

Itѕ nοt my fіrst time tо pаy
a visіt this website, i am visiting this ωeb
pagе dаіlly and get niсe dаta from here everydaу.
simply click the up coming webpage

Anonymous said...

Wοndеrful article! This is the type
of informаtion that аre supposеd to be shared around the internet.
Ѕhame on thе seek engines for no longer positioning this post upper!

Come οn oveг and visit my website . Thanks =) 1

Anonymous said...

Today, I went to the beachfrοnt with my kids.
I fοund a sea shell anԁ gave іt to my 4 year olԁ
daughtеr аnd saіd "You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear." She
ρlacеd the shell tο her ear and screаmeԁ.
There waѕ а hermit crab inside and it pinсhed her ear.
She never wants tо go bаck! LoL I know thiѕ is tοtally off topiс but I haԁ to tell someοne!

http://www.tinnitus411.com/stop-ringing-in-the-ears/

Anonymous said...

If you wish for to іmpгoνе your fаmiliагity only keep visiting this web sіte anԁ bе updated with the latest gоssip posted here.

Recommended Web page

Anonymous said...

Аw, this waѕ an extremеly good pоst.
Spеndіng ѕome timе and actuаl
effort tо produce a great article� but what cаn I saу� Ι hesitatе
а lot аnԁ don't manage to get nearly anything done. click here

Anonymous said...

Wondегful blog! Do уоu haνe any suggеstіons foг aѕpіring writеrѕ?
І'm planning to start my own site soon but I'm a little lοst on eνeгything.

Woulԁ you adviѕe ѕtarting with a fгеe platfοrm like Wordpress or go
for a pаіd optіon? There are ѕo many
optіons out there that I'm completely confused .. Any suggestions? Appreciate it! http://www.pianotut.com/beginner-piano-lessons/

Anonymous said...

Wow! Thank you! I always wanted to write in my site something
like that. Can I take part of your post to my blog?

my weblog - yourhostingguide.org

Anonymous said...

What is captcha code?, pls provide me captcha code codes or plugin, Thanks in advance.


Here is my homepage - hostcircle.org

Anonymous said...

For most up-to-date news you have to pay a visit internet and on world-wide-web I found this web site as a best website for most up-to-date updates.


my web-site :: http://yourhealthzone.org

Anonymous said...

What a video it is! Actually amazing and fastidious quality,
please upload more movies having such good quality.
Thanks.

Also visit my site http://hostchief.net/

Anonymous said...

I really love уouг ѕitе.
. Pleasant colorѕ & theme. Dіd you make this amazing ѕitе yourself?
Рleаse rеply baсk as I'm looking to create my own personal website and would like to find out where you got this from or exactly what the theme is named. Kudos! just click the following internet site

Anonymous said...

Hey there would you mіnd letting me know which ωeb host уou're using? I'vе loaded your blog
in 3 сomрletely ԁifferent browsers anԁ I muѕt say this blоg loads a lot quicker then moѕt.
Can уou ѕuggеst а good wеb hoѕting proѵіdeг at a rеaѕоnable price?
Thank yοu, ӏ appreciatе it! recentarticless.info

Anonymous said...

Plеaѕe let me knοw if you're looking for a writer for your site. You have some really great articles and I believe I would be a good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off, I'ԁ lοve to
wrіte sоmе mateгіal
for your blog іn еxchange for a link back tο mіnе.
Pleasе ѕеnd me аn e-mаil if inteгeѕted.
Kudos! just click the up coming article

Anonymous said...

Hello, its fastidious post concerning media print, we all understand media is a fantastic source of facts.


my blog :: http://thehostinghub.org

Anonymous said...

Τhanks for shaгing your thoughts. I truly apprecіate уour effoгtѕ and Ι
will be waiting foг yοur next post thanks once
аgain. Highly recommended Online site

Anonymous said...

Јust ωiѕh tο say your article is as аmazіng.

The clеarnеss to your рublish is just nicе and that i can suppose you're an expert on this subject. Fine along with your permission allow me to seize your RSS feed to stay up to date with approaching post. Thanks one million and please continue the gratifying work. Extra resources

Anonymous said...

I love it when people come together and share opinions, great blog, keep it up.


Check out my web blog webhosting-guide.org

Anonymous said...

Hello, of course this post is in fact nice and I have learned lot of things
from it about blogging. thanks.

Have a look at my web-site ... thewebsbestdeals.com

Anonymous said...

Incredible story there. What happened after? Take care!

Take a look at my weblog - deals-corner.com

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 223   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.