Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux - PMS Girlfriend! Twitter/X Space

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 7, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:48:27

PMS Girlfriend! Twitter/X Space

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening, everybody.
	Sephem Olenew from Free Domain, 6th of August, 2025.
	I hope you're doing magnificently, having yourself a wonderful afternoon, slash, evening, snash, morning, snash, wherever you are in September in Australian time.
	And I'm happy to take your questions, comments, just your challenges, problems, whatever's on your mind.
	And one of the questions, I was going to actually, I was going to do the answers to a bunch of questions I asked back in July.
	I said, you know, give me the AMA if you can't make the live streams.
	And I had a bunch of questions.
	And I was, I really, honestly, I was just imminently about to do them.
	But, but, of course, what happened was my daughter came in and said, hey, it's mom's birthday soon.
	Let's go shopping.
	And so we did.
	So I've done nothing with regards to those AMAs.
	On the plus side, I remember my wife's birthday.
	So there's minuses.
	And of course, there are pluses.
	But one of the questions was the good old meaning, oh life.
	What is the meaning of life?
	Now, the meaning of life is to reproduce.
	That's really the only meaning that most life forms get.
	Eat, poop, sex, breed.
	That's all.
	Wait, was that a book?
	Was that a book about a woman's travels to India?
	Eat, breed, sex, food?
	Something like that.
	Anyway, it'll come to me.
	So the meaning of life has to have something to do with meaning, and it has to have something specifically to do with humanity as a whole, the meaning of human life.
	Now, good and evil are only possible in the framework of the human mind and specifically really of human actions, since thoughts cannot be evil, but actions can be evil.
	Now, of course, thoughts are related to actions.
	We don't act unless we have epilepsy or Tourette's without thinking beforehand.
	But thoughts themselves cannot be evil.
	It is only the actions that count as good or evil.
	So it is the actions of good and evil that most define us as human beings.
	Now, evil, the initiation of the use of force, the claim of universality for behaviors that is only specific to a ruling class and specifically denied to everyone else.
	I can hunt on your lands, you can't hunt on my lands, I can tax you, you can't tax me, all of the non-reciprocal social contract bullshit that passes for politics and has always passed through politics, but hopefully not forever and ever.
	Our men will always pass for politics.
	The meaning of life has to be related to that which is most human and that which is most good.
	So the meaning of life is to thwart evil and promote virtue.
	It's really not that complicated.
	The meaning of life is to thwart evil and to promote virtue.
	And I'll give you an example.
	So let's look at something like free speech, a particularly important virtue and value for me as a whole.
	To think, to progress, to advance is always to harm the interests of entrenched power.
	I mean, simple examples like the car came along and all of the horse and buggy manufacturers and the shit shovelers and the horse sellers and the horse stall and bridle and stirrup and horse seat manufacturers all got it in the shortened curlies because the old car came along and then it was the oil people.
	Oil was of course a horrible hideous byproduct, not good for anything, not even kerosene lamps, although it was refined into kerosene by Rockefeller, which helped people a lot because they could afford it rather than whale oil.
	Whale oil itself was beneficial to the world as a whole.
	But yeah, every entrenched interest gets screwed up by new technology.
	I mean, in my heyday, when I was doing like 10 plus million views a month, well, that harmed the interests of the existing media conglomerates.
	And they, of course, painted me as a dastardly, you know, mustache-twirling, evil, duddy, do-wrong, bad guy.
	And that way they could eliminate me as a competitor and scoop up the brainless back into their own narcoleptic folds.
	So free speech is very important.
	Now, if you don't have free speech, in other words, the government always has free speech because the government never puts itself in jail for hate speech.
	So the government always has free speech.
	Politicians always have free speech.
	In fact, in most parliamentary situations, you can't even charge someone with libel or slander because the rules are just that you can't.
	Defamation, no workie in Congress, in other places, because it's free speech for me, but not for thee.
	So either free speech is being restricted, in which case civilization is being eroded, undermined, and destroyed, because true arguments do not need protections.
	Truly valuable people do not need protections in the workplace.
	It's not like Brad Pitt needs to be part of a union so that Brad Pitt doesn't get ripped off because the guy gets paid $10 to $20 million per movie.
	I think he's doing okay because that chisel-jawed combination of poet and thug that he represents is particularly attracted to women.
	And I guess meant one of those abs.
	And he's a good actor.
	So away to the racist, I guess literally last F1 movie, away to the racist, he goes.
	So bad arguments, wrong arguments, false arguments, exploitive arguments, pathetic arguments, corrupt arguments need protection.
	It is the cripple who needs the back brace, not the bodybuilder.
	So if you're looking at something like free speech, then you want to maximize free speech so that you can eliminate poor arguments and the corruption that flows from poor arguments, right?
	So if you're like, oh, every time I make a mistake, I'm so terrible.
	I'm so wrong.
	I'm so bad.
	How could I?
	I'm such an idiot, right?
	Idiot.
	Well, that's poor speech on your part, right?
	That's saying that other people can make mistakes, it's fine, but when I make a mistake, it's terrible.
	Well, that's the bad argument, right?
	I mean, you want to have one dial in life, right?
	You want to have one dial.
	So if you dial up responsibility for yourself, you have to dial it up for everyone else.
	If you dial down responsibility of yourself, you have to dial it down for everyone else.
	You can't just have you maximum responsibility and self-attack, but other people, it's fine if you make a mistake.
	It's okay.
	Be gentle, be nice to yourself.
	That's not UPP, right?
	That's not universally preferable behavior, which is one rule, one ring to bind them all, and one rule to follow in life.
	So, yeah, you want maximum free speech so that you can root out bad arguments.
	It's sort of like if you are a ship's captain and you make a mistake, you want your first officer, your boatswain, or whoever to tell you, hey, you know, that's gonna like that path is gonna take us straight into an iceberg.
	And then we have to look at Kate Winslet topless for yet another movie because she kind of does that in all her movies, right?
	So you want free speech, otherwise, massive errors are going to occur.
	Hypocrisies and criticisms, criticisms that are denied are improvements that are denied as well.
	Like I always told my employees, if you see me doing something wrong, please tell me.
	Don't ever think that I'm right just because I'm the boss.
	I mean, hopefully I'm a little more right because I'm a little older, I've got more experience, but that doesn't mean perfectly right.
	And if I'm making a mistake, please tell me.
	I don't have to tell that to my teenage daughter because that's kind of all they live for.
	So, yeah, free speech is really important.
	Otherwise, society goes very, very poorly indeed.
	And liars and sophists and the corrupt and the exploitive want to limit free speech because free speech turns the light on when they're trying to sandpaper finger open the safe of social treasures and pillage everything for themselves and their friends.
	So they don't want the detectors, like the people who are running the counterfeit machines don't want easy counterfeit detection machines to be put by the side of every cashier, right?
	People who want to rob you don't want you to have a dog, a gun, and an alarm system, right?
	They don't want you to have cameras and videos.
	I guess it doesn't really matter now because nobody gets prosecuted.
	I mean, well, I guess Asians and whites do, but nobody else really gets prosecuted.
	So yeah, all of the people who are bad want to silence all the people who are good.
	So the meaning of life is to push for free speech and to resist restrictions on free speech.
	Also known as just moving the fuck out of the United Kingdom, which has become pretty Gestapo-like in its speech patrol, which is particularly tragic since England was a real pioneer with regards to free speech until relatively recently.
	So yeah, the meaning of life, to thwart evil and promote virtue, to fight the bad guys and support or be one of the good guys.
	All right.
	Do you have questions, comments, issues, challenges?
	That's the meaning of life.
	The meaning of life is to promote meaning and to promote meaning is to promote virtue because all that is compelled has no meaning.
	Right?
	If you ask a woman out and she wants to go with you, that has meaning.
	If you kidnap a woman and lock her in your basement, there's no meaning in that other than it's just evil, right?
	There's no meaning.
	There's no virtue or value.
	If you woo a woman into marrying you and living with you and having your children and loving you and all of that, beautiful, wonderful.
	That has meaning, right?
	But everything that is compelled has no meaning.
	Force, violence, restrictions, all sorts of government control strips life of meaning because meaning has to be voluntary.
	And so as evil spreads, meaning vanishes.
	And all that is left is survival, compliance, and shame or defiance and death.
	That's all that is left when evil spreads.
	So for there to be meaning, there has to be choice.
	To promote choice is to promote our capacity for meaning.
	But whenever you promote choice, you thwart the ambitions of evildoers.
	So if schools were privatized, all the weird, creepy, shitty teachers who want to teach five-year-olds about masturbation, well, they might have to find, I don't know, some other weird place to go to pursue their dark arts.
	All of the good teachers would cheer and be paid a lot of money.
	All the bad teachers would be fired or perhaps even go to jail in any kind of sane society.
	So meaning expands choice, expands voluntarism.
	Virtue expands choice and expands voluntarism.
	So I should say virtue expands choice and voluntarism, which is the only place meaning can reside.
	And it harms those who exploit through sophistry and coercion.
	Sophistry is the drug that knocks you out so that your kidneys can be stolen without you particularly realizing it until you wake up in a toilet stall somewhere in Tijuana with some weird stitching on your side, a hazy memory, and a fairly deep inability to have two kidneys, right?
	So you want to promote voluntarism, freedom, choice, free will.
	Free will operates in a state of voluntarism, not in a state of coercion.
	I mean, if you're being chased by a bear in the woods, you really don't have much freedom because you either run away from the bear or you die.
	You really don't have any choice.
	You don't have, hmm, I wonder what I should do with the next five minutes.
	You know, you're sitting at home alone.
	You're not busy with anything in particular.
	Hey, the world's your oyster.
	You can do just about anything you want.
	You hear some bear starts coming at you and chasing at you, like some Italian who forgot to shave his back that morning.
	And, well, you run away from it.
	There's no choice, really.
	You either turn and fight the bear, good luck, don't do that, or you run away from the bear.
	And that's your only thing.
	You have no particular free will at that point.
	It's fight or flight.
	That's it.
	So evil is the bear.
	Evil reduces your choices to comply and feel shame, which you shouldn't necessarily, but there are times when you can not comply legally.
	So you comply and feel shame, or you defy and risk imprisonment or death or fines or all.
	And to expand free choice, to expand free will, to expand opportunities, how should children be educated?
	Well, the answer is no one knows.
	No one knows how children should be educated because government power is so overwhelming in the field of education that you're either doing that or you're in reaction to that.
	And even if you're in reaction to that, even if you're homeschooling, if you're going to some private school, a lot of places, you still have to follow some kind of approved curriculum, especially if you want to get into university, God help you.
	But we want to expand voluntarism.
	Expanding voluntarism necessarily, necessarily, inevitably interferes with the exploitation of evil doers.
	And that is a very bad thing.
	They have their own say.
	They get to fight back.
	But the meaning of life arises from the promotion of virtue and the thwarting of evildoers, because in no other state than freedom can meaning actually be valid or exist.
	All right.
	Thank you for your patience.
	We are going with the real JSP.
	Thank God because those fake JSP really sent my NADs in the wrong direction.
	The right direction, I'm happy.
	The wrong direction, I'm not.
	JSP, what is on your mind?
	Hey, how's it going, man?
	How are you doing?
	How are you doing?
	Doing well.
	Thank you.
	I noticed, no, just caveat, I came in here kind of late in your discussion.
	So hopefully it's not too ridiculous to ask this question at this point.
	But the fungi I heard you say is correct.
	You said the meaning of life is to promote meaning.
	Is that correct?
	The meaning of life is to promote virtue and thwart evil, because thwarting evil is thwarting compulsion.
	It's thwarting the initiation of force.
	And so, for instance, if you push back and promote free speech, then you can actually find out what people mean because they're not dancing around.
	There is restrictions, so you can get their meaning.
	You can argue about meaning.
	You can debate the controversial stuff.
	So, it is to promote virtue to thwart evil is the meaning of life because only in freedom can meaning come to be manifested in our actions.
	Gotcha.
	So, I was, I know you're familiar with Rand.
	In the past, you've had some discussions about her, as I recall.
	But so, in a kind of a fundamentality way of thinking, what is your argument against just going further down the hierarchy to say the purpose of life is to promote life itself, to sustain itself and that meaning and any other things or the type of actions that a living being takes is something that follows after that, right?
	Okay, so you're saying, I'm sorry, let me not try to interrupt.
	I just want to make sure I understand.
	So, you're saying that the purpose of life is to promote life.
	Right.
	It's the function of life is self-sustainment, right?
	Well, but we have to talk about a differentiation between human life and animal life.
	So, what would you say the meaning or purpose of life for a mouse is?
	Right.
	So, you know, as Rand would put it, life qua rational animal, right?
	Okay, so we're talking human life.
	Right.
	So, yeah, like the flourishing of a conscious being with values that, you know, have abstract concepts and, you know, things that rabbits and rocks don't have, right?
	Even though, you know, there's a difference.
	Okay, but let me ask you this.
	Did Genghis Khan flourish?
	Sure.
	So, so, yeah, the question is, you know, by what metric and what standard, right?
	Did Genghis Khan flourish?
	Yeah, so through, did he achieve his values through whatever means is what you're asking, right?
	No, I mean, okay, biologically, genetically, and in terms of dominance and power, did he flourish?
	Sure.
	Okay, so he was one of the most successful males in human history.
	Like in his region, like I think one out of 17 men can trace their lineage to him, right?
	So the man was like a rapist machine.
	I don't know how many women he raped or his soldiers raped or whatever.
	So as far as genetic flourishing goes and as far as spreading his power, his values, whatever he considered important, he flourished, right?
	Sure.
	So the question is bad, right?
	Well, sure.
	So we have the question about the means by which you, the standard by which you judge a person's attainment of their values, right?
	But isn't it a different question?
	Well, because you use the word flourish, and I'm not trying to trip you up or pull the rug out.
	But if you use the term flourish, I need to know what it is that you mean, because there are evil people who flourish in terms of money, power, reproduction, control, authority.
	They flourish enormously over the course of their lives by doing some evil, evil stuff, right?
	Yeah, so I would grant that it's a hierarchically prior question that since all beings are alive and the purpose of life would be flourishing, but then we ask a later question about moral stature of the nature of their attainment of their flourishing, right?
	Okay, so flourishing is probably too ambiguous a term because flourishing can mean a bunch of different things to a bunch of different people.
	So for instance, rabbits that breed like crazy by a biologist would be said to be flourishing, right?
	Sure.
	And human beings who breed by whatever means necessary could also be said to be flourishing.
	People who gain power and control and resources and ensure the continuation of their lineage and it can afford a lot more children because of their political power than poor people can would also be said to be flourishing.
	But we would say that they were evildoers from a property rights standpoint and from violating the non-aggression principle.
	So flourishing is not precise enough a term because it can have many different meanings, many of which not only are not moral, but would be countermoral, would be evil.
	Well, is it insufficient or are we asking two different questions?
	In other words, like, is the meaning of life really about an evaluation of the means to meaning?
	In other words, isn't it a second hierarchically latter question about morality?
	Okay, so we're talking across purposes here.
	So you said it's about flourishing, and I pointed out that flourishing can mean things that are amoral or immoral.
	Sure.
	So flourishing is not a precise enough word.
	Can we agree on that?
	Well, it's not a precise enough word if we're asking about the moral status of a person's means to flourishing.
	But I think that's a separate question.
	That's my point.
	I think maybe we're talking about two different things then.
	If we just say, what is the purpose of life?
	Or what is the meaning of life, right?
	And you say that it is to flourish, right?
	By definition.
	But then we say, okay, well, are all means to flourishing the same?
	It's a different question, I would say.
	It would be, you get into a different question.
	Okay, so you were saying that flourishing is not sufficient, and I'm agreeing with you that flourishing is not a sufficiently precise term.
	So I'm not sure why we're creating a straw man and knocking it down since we both agree that flourishing is not valid.
	Or is that your critique of objectivism?
	No, no.
	At this point, I was really just trying to get the reason why you chose to go to meaning instead of flourishing.
	And as we were discussing, it seemed like the idea that it's not a sufficient term is because you're asking a question that seems to me a different question than what is the meaning of life.
	Well, no, see, the meaning of life, it has to be that which promotes the most possible meaning.
	Meaning is better than non-meaning because meaning is specific to human life.
	And we care about meaning.
	Animals don't particularly care about meaning.
	They don't have gods.
	They don't have abstract virtues.
	They don't have the kind of values that we have.
	So do you agree, or is it fair to say that meaning requires choice?
	You cannot force meaning onto someone.
	Certainly.
	So if meaning requires choice, then the promotion of choice is the promotion of the good.
	Because if somebody is compelled, then the resulting actions have no meaning.
	So for instance, if Bob decides to rob a bank of his own free will, we would hold Bob morally responsible.
	But if sort of pulp fiction style, Bob gets a phone call and someone says, hey, man, we've got your wife and kids, and we're not going to release them unless you go rob this bank.
	And then Bob goes and robs the bank.
	Let's say he gets his wife and his kids back.
	And then the police come and say, hey, Bob, you robbed the bank.
	And he says, no, like what happened was, or maybe he goes straight to the police and says, I was forced to do it.
	We wouldn't put Bob in jail if he was forced to rob the bank, would we?
	Correct.
	But if I could interject, just that in the whole scenario you described, I would say it's a question of moral culpability and not, it doesn't strike me as an answer to the question of meaning.
	In other words, I'm a little confused about why someone who's against their will compelled to do something that's unlawful.
	That sounds like a moral question about the means to it or the cause.
	Okay, but I mean, don't interrupt me in the middle of my argument and then say you don't understand the argument, right?
	I mean, that's like interrupting me in the middle of the sentence and saying, hey, man, I don't understand the whole sentence.
	Okay.
	Gotcha.
	So there's no moral content to Bob if he's forced to rob a bank.
	We don't look at Bob and judge him as having done morally wrong.
	The moral wrong is in the people who kidnapped his wife and children, not in Bob's robbing of the bank.
	Can we agree on that?
	Absolutely.
	Okay.
	So because Bob didn't really have a choice, because his wife and kids had been kidnapped and he obviously wanted to keep them alive, Bob is not responsible because he's forced.
	And so if we want to have that which is specifically human in the world, which is free will, morality, choice, and meaning, we have to, as much as possible, remove compulsion from human affairs.
	By compulsion, I'm not talking about, because, you know, I always have to clarify this.
	I'm in no way, shape, or form an absolute pacifist.
	I think that if somebody is going to is going to inflict grievous bodily harm or injury or death on you, you can use deadly force to protect yourself.
	So when I'm talking about violence, I'm not talking about self-defense.
	So in order for there to be that which is specifically human, meaning virtue and free will, we have to remove compulsion from human affairs.
	So to maximize the meaning of life, we have to remove as much as possible violence and compulsion in the realm of human interactions.
	In other words, a guy who kidnaps a woman and locks her in his basement, there's no meaning in that other than it's just evil, but there's no value or meaning in her choice.
	She's just trying to survive.
	Whereas a guy who woos a woman, marries her, and then she comes and lives with him, there's meaning, virtue, and value in that choice.
	So the purpose of life is to maximize meaning, or the meaning of life is to have the most meaning in human life.
	And the only way you can have the most meaning in human life is to reduce or eliminate as much as possible compulsion in the realm of human affairs.
	And this is why I promote sort of peaceful parenting and so on, so that children can make choices rather than just dodge blows and abuse.
	Sure, sure.
	Obviously, that will increase the skills necessary to become adults as well, right?
	Having to learn to deal with their obstacles without force, right?
	Yeah.
	But I appreciate you giving me your time, brother.
	I just wanted to have a good chat with you about that.
	Unfortunately, I got to go back to work.
	But I'm glad you thought about that too.
	And I really do appreciate your comments.
	I hope you have a great evening at work.
	And I certainly thank you for dropping by.
	So, yeah, it is a real challenge to sort of conceptualize, but meaning is not necessarily objective.
	Like what means something to you might not mean something to me.
	Some people love anime.
	I've never got into that bug-eyed Sailor Moon stuff.
	Some people really care about Pokemons.
	I don't care about Pokemons.
	Some people care about Star Wars, you know, that guy who was like crying over the Star Wars trailer and so on.
	I don't particularly care about Star Wars.
	And so meaning is different for people.
	Some people love to paint.
	I remember when I was in theater school, I had a guy, I tried doing some mime work, right?
	And I was miming, gathering wood and starting a fire and all this, that and the other, right?
	And he said, he said, listen, man, I trained the teacher, the acting coach.
	He said, listen, man, I trained in mime for years.
	And what you don't have is you need to have levels, right?
	So everything you put down is on a level.
	And every time you go back, you put your sticks down, you were just grabbing all over the place.
	Every time you put the sticks down, man, you gotta, you gotta get them on the right level, you know, and if you, if you sit here, it's gotta be on the right level.
	And you go back, it's gotta, you gotta have this mental construct of levels and everything you put has to, and I was just like, oh, God, shoot me now.
	Like, I can't think of almost anything more useless.
	And again, some people are mimes and, you know, hey, hey, hey, mime is money.
	But they're good at mimes.
	I've never particularly cared about it or liked it.
	But I just remember thinking, my God, to train for years on how to have levels for things that don't exist.
	It's not any kind of insult.
	You know, people like it, but it's just that to me would be hell itself to have to spend.
	So, you know, the mime has meaning and so on.
	But we want the most meaning, which means the least coercion, right?
	What is the most meaningful education?
	We don't know because parents are forced to pay for this bullshit called government education.
	Children are mostly forced to go.
	And so we don't know.
	We don't know what the meaning is other than control and bullying and the drugging of children who don't particularly like their form of education, which who being compelled likes it at all?
	All right, Christopher.
	Christopher Christopherson.
	Is he still alive?
	All right, Christopher.
	What's on your mind, my friend?
	I can't hear you, Peach.
	Oh, sorry.
	Hello?
	Yo.
	So, hello.
	How are you doing today?
	Well, thanks.
	How are you doing?
	I'm doing good.
	So I've been, I don't know how the thing went from addiction to social media to meaning and purpose, but I personally believe meaning and purpose are interlocked.
	I think purpose gives meaning.
	Purpose gives meaning.
	So that's a statement, but that's not an argument.
	And by argument, I don't mean that we disagree, but that's a statement.
	If I said happy is up, I'm making not a particular case.
	I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you could break out your statement to something that would convince others who don't already agree with you, because the purpose of arguments is to convince people who don't already agree with you.
	So just tell me a little bit more about what you mean.
	So I literally was talking about this not too long ago, like when I jumped on here, it's kind of weird how the universe works.
	I came up with this theory that everything is surrounded by meaning and purpose and it's cosmic, meaning that, you know, without the earth, the moon would be nothing.
	Without the sun, the galaxies would be nothing.
	So that's the purpose, gravitational pulls and everything like that.
	So that gives meaning and structure to everything.
	And so, you know, I know we like to think, I think we're very egocentric or egocentric individuals, which means we always view things in our own sight.
	So it's really easy to label things like, oh, well, my meaning is this and that, but what is the true meaning?
	It's the purpose of where you're going for.
	It's whether that purpose is a drug habit or the purpose is whatever it is, it creates a meaning for that person.
	Well, that's quite a lot of words.
	And I'm trying to sort of unpack what it is that you're saying.
	Are you saying that somebody who is a drug addict, their meaning is to procure the drug and feed their addiction?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Are there good or bad addictions?
	So for instance, a serial killer might be addicted or might find happiness or, God help him, joy in killing people.
	He enjoys the hunt and he enjoys killing people and so on.
	Whereas other people might like giving free health care to the poor.
	You know, that's their particular thing.
	So Would it be fair to say that not all drives or purposes or meanings are equally valid from a moral standpoint?
	I would agree with that.
	Okay.
	So what about you said the meaning is in the universe?
	The meaning is in gravity.
	Without the earth, the moon is nothing, but there's no meaning in the moon.
	It's just a bunch of atoms in space, right?
	So help me understand when you say that the universe itself, like the atoms and the energy and the void, has meaning.
	What do you mean by that?
	I mean, if you dissect the structures of the universe, it all breaks down everything when you.
	So there's a community, like, I'm going to break it down simply.
	So what do we do as humans?
	We create things that replicate ourselves.
	Look at cars, look at plumbing, look at everything we do.
	We create in our own image.
	You got to slow down.
	Let me catch up to these concepts.
	So a human being creates a car in his own image.
	Yes.
	What does that mean?
	It doesn't look anything like a person.
	No, but it runs like a person.
	You have a fuel component.
	You have a radiator, which acts as coolant.
	You have a heartbeat, which would be considered the CPU in the car, a battery, like energy is fuel.
	Like everything we make, plumbing, same thing.
	You have male-female parts.
	You have like everything we create is created in our own image.
	Okay.
	I mean, not, I mean, okay.
	So let's say that I'm just trying to understand what you mean.
	So let's say I paint a painting of a sunset, right?
	Is that created in my own image because I see the sunset and therefore I'm reproducing that for others?
	Possibly.
	I mean, it depends on the intent, right?
	Okay.
	So how is painting a painting creating something in my own image?
	Well, because that's an abstract concept that you're translating it and understanding it.
	Hang on.
	Sorry, you're breaking up.
	You're going to need to either get to a better, get closer to your router or something like that.
	But if you could repeat that.
	Okay.
	So what I was saying was like that's if that's what that purpose was for that person, then yeah.
	But, you know, that's all an interpretation, meaning that, you know, that person themselves looks at that art and goes, oh, well, that gives me meaning and purpose.
	But then someone else can come along and go, oh, well, that's just useless or whatever.
	But there might be somebody out there that goes, oh, well, that said something to me.
	Okay.
	So does the paint, you said everything we create is in our own image.
	I'm just trying to understand what you mean by that.
	So somebody who paints a painting, the painting is not in their own image.
	Is that right?
	It's an expression.
	So that goes on a different level.
	Of course, it's not, it doesn't have any.
	Well, it does kind of have a quasi-living resemblance to because you're projecting onto a platform.
	It's kind of like what you do, what everybody does on social media and whatnot.
	They're projecting themselves and they're just looking for purpose.
	And then once they get that purpose, I find you've introduced a new term here, which I don't understand called projecting themselves.
	So you, and we can talk about me because I know that one fairly well.
	So when you say everyone on social media is projecting themselves, I'm on social media.
	So what is it that you mean by projecting themselves?
	Well, I mean, I've been given a pretty good projection of who you are as far as like, you know, I know your, you know, childhood, all the stories and all that stuff.
	So you're projecting yourself out to hold a concrete foundation of what you're talking about.
	So when I say, what does it mean to say I'm projecting myself out and you say, well, you're projected yourself out, I mean, you can't, I mean, you know this, right?
	You can't use the word when you're the definition.
	You can't say water.
	Well, it's just water.
	I mean, that doesn't illuminate.
	So I'm not disagreeing with you.
	I just really want to understand what you mean when you say I'm projecting myself out.
	What does that mean?
	Well, it means Stefan Molyneux told me that, you know, you have a daughter, you like the nature.
	You go out, you do things, you're trying to help people and do all you're a philosopher.
	You're projecting out and you're giving meaning to people.
	Okay, hang on, hang on.
	Now we've got giving meaning to people.
	So when you say projecting out, normally, so projection is normally a psychological term.
	And projection is accusing other people of what you yourself are doing.
	That would sort of be one example.
	So if I'm going to cheat someone, then I would accuse them of cheating me.
	Or if I've just cheated someone, I would accuse them of cheating me.
	Or if a woman comes onto a man who's not her boyfriend, she's in a relationship.
	And then the boyfriend comes home, the woman will say, oh, he came onto me, right?
	So she would be projecting what she did onto him.
	So projection tends to be a kind of psychological term, which is to accuse other people of what you yourself have done.
	So when you say, I'm projecting myself into the world, doesn't that just mean I'm communicating?
	I'm saying what I think and feel tomato, tomato.
	No, no, no, words have meanings.
	We can't just make it.
	No, I agree.
	I agree.
	I don't use the word hate.
	I don't use the word awesome.
	I don't, because I agree with you with that.
	I believe in words.
	Okay.
	Now, let me ask you something else.
	So when you say a man creates a car in his own image, I mean, certainly, yeah, everything that has an output requires an input.
	Human beings and cars, human beings require, you know, food and water and cars require energy and need oil to maintain themselves or whatever.
	But a car is created specifically because a human being can't do stuff, right?
	So a human being can't run at 100 kilometers an hour on a highway and so on, right?
	And so we create things not in our own image specifically, but to do things that we ourselves can't do.
	So for instance, I can't yell loud enough to have a conversation with somebody 100 miles away.
	But if I use a phone, then we are creating things that can do what we can't.
	And I don't know that that's the same as creating things in our own image.
	I can agree to disagree on that one because I really do think that just to come up with that concept to create things like that is, I mean, by chance.
	I mean, yeah, I get the science and all that, but how what is the chance that we would design something that you could put on a person?
	Like everything we like the pressure system, all this stuff, like it's something, I don't know.
	Like I said, it's just my theory.
	Okay.
	And if you could just give me one last run at what is the meaning of the atoms in the sun?
	Oh, the meaning of the atoms in the sun is that they do what they need to do to create life.
	Actually, I have this whole spermiation theory that theory spermiation.
	Spermiation.
	Okay, it's not a word I'm familiar with.
	So there's this theory out there that Brian Cox talks about it where I might be saying it wrong.
	We're also Tyson talks about the stardust.
	Basically, it's when cosmos explode and whatever, they send out genetic and material out to planets and infest them with stuff.
	So I just looked at that as like kind of like a receptacle or a reproductive system that exists out in the cosmos.
	So stars explode and send out genetic material, which lands on other planets and cause life.
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	And sometimes they don't actually happen.
	Kind of like a stillbirth or, you know, rejected systems like Mars and Venus.
	So where does the, sorry to interrupt, where does the, I mean, it certainly is true that there are a lot of complex atoms that are required for life that come from solar activity, from exploding stars and other kinds of stars.
	Like I've made this argument, which is a fairly common argument that, you know, we are composed of exploded stars and we should reach our potential and we should shine as bright as the stars that gave us birth and all of that kind of stuff.
	So I certainly agree with that, but that wouldn't explain where the first genetic material comes from.
	I don't think that's ever something that we'll ever figure out.
	I mean, that's not a question we ask ourselves as children.
	We don't go, where did I come from until later on?
	So, you know, we're still children in the scale of, you know, the cosmos.
	And have you yourself, are you a drug partaker?
	Oh, yeah.
	And what drugs have you taken?
	I'm just a weed and beer drinker.
	And how often do you do weed and for how long have you done weed?
	Geez, a long time.
	Decades, years.
	Oh, decades, decades, plenty of decades.
	40-something or 30-something years.
	And why did you think when did you first, how old were you when you first started doing drugs?
	16.
	And who introduced you to drugs?
	School.
	You mean kids at school?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And did you hesitate before taking drugs or did you just dive in?
	I dived in.
	No hesitation.
	Just straight up.
	Yeah.
	Give me more.
	Right.
	Okay.
	And what were your parents' perspectives or opinions upon you taking drugs at the age of 16 back in the day?
	Well, I was a parent before I was a kid.
	So when everybody was kids, I was a parent.
	We grew up on welfare and my parents would be gone doing side jobs because that's what a lot of welfare people do.
	Oh, like charging for the fruit.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And so I would be home raising my brothers and whatever.
	So I fell into what you would call Peter Pan syndrome once I hit 16 because I went in that rebellious system.
	Okay.
	And would you say that the parenting that you experienced was good or bad or medium?
	It was a conflict of interest, my friend, because they taught me values.
	We went to church.
	We did all this stuff.
	But the conflict came because I'm an audiovisual learner.
	So church actually was really good for me.
	I don't believe in structured religion at this day and age.
	But at that time when I was a kid, I think it kind of saved me because I was listening to something that was contradicting my uprising.
	So I was like, what, what's this all about?
	Sorry.
	What do you mean?
	What were you listening to that was contradicting your uprising?
	And I really appreciate you being open about this.
	I'm talking about the scripture.
	And so, like, you know, they talk phrases and all that stuff in church and like psalms and all this stuff.
	And the priest, you know, translates it.
	They talk about Jesus and all this stuff.
	And then, like, I have no problems with the story of, you know, JC.
	I mean, it's cool as hell.
	In fact, I played them quite a few times in school plays and stuff.
	But that was like my structure was that.
	But behind the scenes, it was beatings, torment, you know, many beatings were.
	What?
	Sorry, where were the beatings?
	Oh, the beatings were at home.
	Like, actually, my mom was really good about it.
	She had this pain center.
	So in the back of your arm, she could pinch you while you're in public and you'd get this immense pain.
	And like, she was like the grand torturer.
	She knew how to torture you with not even beating an eye and produce herself as the greatest thing since license cheese.
	I'm sorry about that.
	I'm really sorry about that.
	That's very sad.
	It is.
	But, you know, it was because I listened to people like you, Jordan Peterson, and whatever, because, you know, when you're programmed like this, you end up believing in the program.
	So I married the very thing that I was trying to get away from, not realizing it because my program was like seeing that as normal.
	So I got married into abusive relationship and the whole cycle started all over.
	What kind of abuse did you suffer or inflict in your marriage?
	Oh, she was the psychological kind.
	So my parents were both psychological and physical, but then my ex was emotional, you know, type.
	It was emotional abuse.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And what kind of emotional abuse did you suffer?
	What's that?
	What kind of emotional abuse did you suffer?
	Oh, so I became a truck driver because I needed to come up with money for a family that started out with two kids that weren't mine and whatnot.
	So she was a single mother.
	I was doing this.
	Okay.
	What's that?
	She was a single mother when you got together.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	I can see your, I didn't know about red flags, bro.
	I didn't know about that.
	No, listen, I'm just, I'm just curious.
	I'm not, you know, I'm not going to fingerwag at you or anything.
	This is a long time ago.
	And, you know, we didn't have the kind of information that we have now.
	So this is not, I'm not going to nag at you or crab at you.
	I'm just curious.
	So you had to become a truck driver.
	And then how did she, how did she treat you that was negative or destructive?
	It was good up until like she was, I was like, all right, you can stay home, whatever.
	Like she convinced, because first of all, she asked me the question, who should stay home?
	And I was like, well, I'm not, I'm not, you know, because she has a bachelor's degree.
	I'm like, well, you got the degree.
	You can go out and work.
	And she was like, what?
	And then what?
	You're just going to teach the kid video games and all this stuff.
	And I'm like, oh, my goodness.
	Like, that's not even my profile.
	I don't even understand what you, it's all manipulation.
	I understand this now.
	So I went out and did the truck driver thing.
	It was going good.
	But then I was gone for three to four months.
	I'd come over two to three days.
	Wait, sorry.
	You were a truck driver for three to four.
	Sorry.
	You were a truck driver for three to four months away from home.
	Wow.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	That's how crazy it is.
	That's how it is here in the States.
	Okay.
	Wow.
	It was wild.
	Okay.
	Then you were home for, I mean, I remember when I worked up north, I would do like two and a half months off and then like a couple of weeks at home, but not like three months and then a couple of days.
	But anyway, go on.
	Sorry.
	Well, yeah, no, it's corporations, bro.
	It happens.
	You know, some places are better than others, but here, no, they tax you left and right.
	So I was gone.
	And then, you know, she started like, I was in Jacksonville.
	I live in St. Pete.
	I don't even care about, you know, locations, whatever.
	You're cool.
	So I'm in Jacksonville and she's calling me, telling me how she's going to kill my son because he won't stop crying.
	Wait, wait, your son?
	And I'm like, yes.
	So she had two kids of your own and then you had a son with her.
	Yes.
	My bad.
	And then so how old was your son when she threatened to kill him?
	Three months, I think, at that time.
	And what was her reason for wanting to kill your son?
	Just because she was getting driven nuts by the fact that he wouldn't stop crying.
	Wow.
	Was she serious?
	I don't know.
	This is the same person that had three of my kids because I'm not into this whole, you know, those are my stepchildren.
	I raised those girls since they were seven and nine until they were 20 something.
	So, you know, all three of my kids are in a car.
	And she calls me.
	She's like, oh, this POS just held up a sign on me.
	And it said, put your cell phone down because I guess she was on her cell phone or whatever.
	And she started chasing after him.
	I'm like, what are you doing?
	This is stupid.
	Stop chasing after this madman because if he's crazy enough to put up signup like that, you don't know if he has a firearm.
	You don't know anything about this stuff.
	Like, yeah, she was a something special type person.
	But I mean, was she ever aggressive towards the kids in your knowledge?
	No.
	No, that's the crazy part of it.
	That's what really strokes the brain is that, well, there's this one time she was pressuring her middle child, our middle child, to try and sign off on school loans because she was 18.
	And she was using verbiage like, I did all this stuff for you and you can't do this one thing for me.
	Sorry, sign off.
	Hang on.
	I don't understand.
	So your wife wanted school loans and she wanted her child to sign off on those loans?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Because she was already like at that point $200 and something thousand dollars in student loan debt.
	So you have to do extensions.
	I don't understand.
	How does an 18-year-old have any credit that anyone would take seriously?
	Well, student loans, you don't need it.
	You don't need credit.
	Oh, because the government will pay off if you don't, right?
	Right.
	So, yeah.
	And sorry, she just had a sorry.
	How did she end up with like, I don't know, close to a quarter million student loan debt if she just had a bachelor's or did she just keep going to school?
	She kept going to school.
	She was a lifetime student.
	Right.
	Well, because that means she doesn't have to get a job, right?
	Right.
	And then when I actually figured everything out by the time, because I stepped up to the plate and I said, you know what?
	I'll sign whatever.
	So I'm on the dole for $80,000 of school that I've never seen.
	But that was in protection from that plus taxing because she also did the tax thing where she claims married, but filing separate so she could get child tax credits.
	And that messed me up and all this stuff.
	So like I was being blackmailed left and right.
	It's a crazy place.
	And how long were you married?
	14 years.
	And then what happened at the end?
	All right.
	I'm going to be honest with you.
	I hope you figured out with me, but keep it now.
	No, I've always been honest with you, dude.
	Trust me.
	So she figured out my programming.
	She so things were getting hot.
	And it was during the pandemic.
	And my job was, I was a person that drove around a surgical robot.
	Well, sorry, you drove around a surgical robot?
	Yeah, the DaVinci X diet actually pretty kick-ass.
	You go in there.
	It's really cool.
	Sorry, do you mean that you actually drove a surgical robot or you drove the truck that delivered it?
	I drove the truck to the location, dropped it off, set it up.
	I couldn't even sell it to you.
	Okay.
	So I'm never, yeah, I'm never happy just knowing what I'm doing.
	I like to know what I'm doing.
	You know what I'm saying?
	Okay, so you were doing that.
	And then how did that come to the end to bring the end of the marriage event?
	Well, it was a pandemic.
	I'm dealing with hospitals and they're like, oh, well, we got to cancel this.
	We got to cancel this.
	We got to cancel this.
	So a lot of my money was coming from my per diem and all this.
	And then, because I get salary, so that wasn't a problem.
	But, you know, things, we were already living in a deficit.
	We're already living in a lie.
	But everything came crashing down.
	And she was still getting this student loan money.
	And I was just like, hey, I need help.
	You know, help me pay the bills.
	And she was just like, nope.
	And so when things got heated up, I put a lock on my door just because of security.
	I didn't want her, you know, taking stuff or whatever.
	So she put a lock on your door.
	I mean, at home, not in your truck.
	Correct.
	Okay, got it.
	So she put locks on her bedroom door and my stepdaughter's door, which my stepdaughter, that was a problem in itself because I said, no, if she wants to move back in, we need to renegotiate things because, you know, she's an adult and she needs to help pay.
	And that got ignored.
	I didn't.
	Well, sorry, because at this point, you're paying for your wife who doesn't work and goes into debt to go to school for no particular purpose other than to not work.
	And you got her two kids.
	I'm sorry, what?
	Well, you're paying for your wife and you're paying for her two kids and you're paying for your son, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So you didn't want the older kid moving back in.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	I'm just getting choked out at this point.
	So she bought lock.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	And so she bought lot.
	The lock I bought was like a $12 Home Depot lock on my bedroom door.
	The ones she bought on both those, because I was just there for both those bedroom doors were like expensive.
	And that, so I walked away at first because I'll admit, yes, I was intoxicated.
	And I looked at it and I, at first, I just walked away, but then I realized that she put these expensive locks on that.
	And then my brain just snapped.
	And so I kicked the door in, freaked out the stepdaughter.
	My son runs in, starts attacking me.
	And I just put him in a headlock and whatever.
	Then my ex accuses me of trying to kill my son, which I wasn't.
	You know, I was the one with fat lips.
	I never struck him or did anything or nothing.
	And then, you know, I dealt with the year of what they call, you know, PTI or pro, it's basically probation for a year, have it drop off my record and all this.
	Meanwhile, I got ran over by the courts because I couldn't say nothing in the civil courts, you know, talking about, you know, the things that are going on with the divorce and all this because of the criminal court.
	And so my hands were shackled.
	So I got railroaded and they were charging me $610 a month for child support/slash aluminum.
	And I couldn't say nothing about it.
	I basically just watched my whole life being railroaded.
	It's over now, though.
	It's done.
	So that's a good thing.
	So you said, I'm sorry to hear about all of that.
	And you said you were intoxicated.
	Do you mean with alcohol or with the marijuana?
	Or both?
	That night it would have been just alcohol.
	And you were driving?
	No.
	Oh, you just, you know, I was in my house.
	I was in my house and I was playing video games on my Xbox and trying to stay to myself.
	And then some, I don't know what it was.
	Oh, I remember what it was.
	I got irritated because I was sick of being not listened to because I said that, you know, the middle child was supposed to talk to me before she moved back in.
	You know, my ex was sleeping in the same bedroom on the same bed with my son, which I thought was really weird.
	Sorry, how old was your son at this point?
	Searching.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	So you can see where I was mentally going, things aren't going right, you know?
	Right.
	And had you thought about leaving her before?
	Oh, back in the days, like back before I knew she was pregnant.
	There was this time where her and the girls went out to this like Sabaggan where they were like doing canoeing or something.
	I don't know.
	Don't care.
	And I was there in front of my beautiful computer and playing my games and drinking my beer and smoking my weed.
	And I was like, you know what?
	All this stuff I'm doing is not worth it.
	I'm done.
	And then the craziest thing happened.
	The girls came running in, all super excited and all this stuff.
	And then the ex comes in and is like, I got a surprise for you in the center council.
	And I was like, oh, no, no, no, no, no.
	So I know they tell you not to stay for, you know, your child in an abusive relationship.
	But at the same time, it had its ups and downs.
	So it wasn't all bad.
	And I just got to find the good in the muck.
	Right.
	Right.
	And are you still on the hook for a student loans?
	Did that get, I mean, how did that go with that?
	Yeah, definitely.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	I'm on the hook on more than that.
	My old man screwed me over too.
	Yeah, my life's a beautiful mess.
	Yeah, I currently own a house that I'm on the hook for for property taxes, city code, and I can't even sell because I come from a dysfunctional family.
	And so I have four younger brothers.
	Two of them are cool, but two of them I can't get in communication to.
	So I'm stuck in a house I can't sell, even though I need to sell it because it's in disarray.
	I have no electricity.
	I have water, no bathroom, no toilet.
	It's kind of crazy.
	I'm sorry about all of that.
	I assume your dating life is not exactly Krakatoa either.
	Come on, man.
	What am I going to say?
	Hey, baby.
	You want to come to my place?
	I mean, yeah, no, like a friend of mine, a friend of mine once was doing his graduate school degree and living in a school bus.
	And he was dating this woman.
	And he was like, yeah, you know, we have a lot of fun, but I just can't get her to commit.
	And I'm like, commit to what?
	The bus?
	Hey, baby.
	I get 40 tons of luggage in these things.
	Come on, man.
	One day I'm going to get wheels.
	Yeah.
	Nice diamond.
	Oh, man.
	I'm sorry about that.
	So, yeah, it's all good.
	Not great.
	It's not great for your kids, right?
	No, no.
	Actually, my relationship with my son is nil because so through listening to you, Jordan, all these others, I learned that, you know, I have to understand abuse and all this stuff.
	Well, when I met her, and again, you're going to like cringe.
	When I met her, I became the embassy or whatever you want to call it, the emissary between her and her, yeah, ambassador between her and her mother.
	And I witnessed her using the children as tools to extract money or whatever she was trying to get from her own mother through the kids.
	So knowing that knowledge, why would I try and, you know, I know it sounds rough and I know I sound like a POS, but it's, it's just logic, you know?
	Right.
	And you don't have to tell me your exact age, but sort of, are you in your 40s at this point, 30s?
	Oh, thank you.
	No, I'm 49.
	49.
	Okay.
	Sorry, I thought because you've been married for 14 years and I thought, hang on, you've been married for 14 years and I thought you got married in your 20s.
	So no, I got married in my 30.
	The horrible time, baby rabies era.
	Oh, for her.
	Yes.
	Right.
	So I was, yeah, I fell for the trap, the age-long trap.
	Uh-oh.
	I didn't know about that either until I researched stuff.
	I was like, oh, no.
	So you like that.
	You had a life with a lot of stress and, you know, kind of extra responsibility, right?
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Definitely.
	So, I mean, is it possible that you're self-medicating for stress and anxiety with regards to your weed and alcohol use?
	Yes.
	In fact, how's that working for you, that self-medication?
	Right now, honestly, good.
	It's not good, but it's good.
	It's just one of those things like I'm sleeping on a pot that is, yeah, my dog messed it up a little bit and whatever.
	Like, it's, I know what you're going at.
	I get what you're saying.
	And you're correct.
	I understand, but it's really hard when you're in these circumstances to you can see it, but it's hard to get to it.
	Well, I mean, but the problem is, of course, that if your judgment is impaired in part because of the addictions, then you're just going to be constantly going from problem to problem and stressor to stressor and saying, well, I can't quit now because there's this stressor.
	And then, yeah, but the stressor is in part because of impaired decision making and therefore you have another problem and so on, right?
	So, I mean, you should read.
	I don't know if you have read this guy, Gabra Matte is really, really good.
	So people don't take drugs to feel good.
	They take drugs to feel normal, to just not feel bad, to feel like what normal people feel.
	I've heard, like, so when I was a truck driver, I've consumed so much information because music gets really boring really quick when you're working 10-hour shifts.
	So I went to audio casts or I went to, you know, information.
	And I would like, I heard Jordan Teal, all these people that are talking, Thomas Soule, all the great, you know, minds, even, you know, all of them.
	And one of the things I learned is that I get it.
	I get what I'm doing.
	I get what I'm trying to do, but it's really hard when you're under the constraints of like, okay, it's easy to judge when you're in your air conditioning.
	Well, maybe not you.
	I don't know how you're Canadians, you know, deal with air conditioning, but here in Florida, it sucks not having it.
	And like I go into work, actually, I like work because work, I'm air conditioned.
	I'm doing, I have a function, I can do things, I'm fine.
	But when I come home, it's just like this instant, like not instant, but a gradual like grind down, like where my body is just like going, oh, it's coping with, you know, um, issues with temperature.
	I don't got internet, so I have to deal with, you know, you know, Wi-Fi or the phone data and all this stuff.
	It's very aggravating, especially being that I have so many ideas.
	And do you have any thoughts or goals of dating again or entering into a sort of second half of your life relationship?
	Well, the way I see it, and I might be wrong, is I can't be there for someone when I'm not there for myself.
	Okay.
	So if you are at some point there for yourself, do you think you might want to enter into another relationship for the second half of your life or the last third or whatever?
	I'm one of those that never say never.
	Right.
	I mean, you know, you know, and you know, listen, I'm not, I'm not going to be here to finger wag at you.
	You're a, you're a grown man.
	So, but what I will say, my friend, is that the odds of you getting a quality woman while being a double, I mean, would you say that you're an alcoholic or you just like to drink?
	I would say if I had purpose, oh, here we go, full circle.
	Right.
	Yeah, I, I would have another purpose, which would give me meaning, which I would, I'd like to drink, but it wouldn't be as much.
	Like I was the goalpost always shifted with her, always.
	Like, okay, don't drink when you're at home.
	Oh, okay.
	Well, you can like, it was always, it just moved and moved and moved and moved.
	And so, like, if I got somebody that understood that, you know, when I wanted to decompress, I could function on a level to where I'm what the AA people would call a high-level alcoholic or whatever they call it.
	Yeah, functional alcoholic.
	Yeah, functional alcoholic.
	Or, you know, like if I get purpose, I have meaning, I can do it.
	Okay, so if there's a quality woman around that you're interested in dating, is she going to want to date a weed addict and functional alcoholic?
	Well, I'm not an actually, okay, let me correct some things here.
	First of all, I'm not a weed addict.
	I can go without weed for a long time or whatever.
	It's not, in fact, my practices are not, I smoke a joint or all this other whatever.
	I'm more of a, I'll take a hit from the bowl, set it down hours later, pick it up, smoke a little bit more.
	Like, I'm not, like, I learned about tolerance and all this other stuff.
	The problem I have is with alcohol because, you know, I'm in a situation to where it knocks me out and then it helps me sleep in my situation.
	So it's more of a coping mechanism to help me get to sleep as opposed to actually a need, if that makes sense.
	Well, but you know, it interferes with the quality of your sleep, right?
	My life interferes with my quality of sleep.
	Well, yes, but your life is also a problem because you were drinking in the past and decided to kick a door in.
	It's a bit cyclical, if I understand this correctly.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I can't argue that.
	But I'm just telling you, the succubus master planned that because in the restraining order, she specifically pointed out the fact that she thought that I did this intentionally because she put those door locks on the doors.
	Okay.
	Hang on, hang on, hang on.
	Listen, I've been, I'm very sympathetic.
	I really am.
	But, you know, man-to-man, did you kick the door in?
	Oh, yeah.
	Okay.
	It was kind of cool.
	It's your wife's fault that you kicked the door in.
	I don't know.
	How do you answer that?
	Right.
	Well, did she put a gun to your head?
	Did she put a gun to your head and force you to kick the door in?
	Or did she grab your foot?
	No, no.
	No, no, okay.
	No, you chose.
	That's the draw man.
	That's a straight argument.
	That's a straw man argument because that's not taking into consideration the emotional consciousness of what was going on.
	She knew what would trigger me.
	So I walked away.
	It took a second before what initiated the process that was going in my brain, a second, I walked literally like five steps away.
	And then my brain was like, wait a minute, those doorknobs.
	I saw those at Home Depot.
	Those are like $65, $85 doorknobs.
	And she wasn't helping me out with bills.
	So, yes, I get it.
	But, you know, what you're saying is like, oh, if you stab a beehive, you know, whatever.
	It doesn't matter.
	Bro, bro, bro, bro.
	Come on, man.
	You have more free will than a beehive.
	You are not a cloud of insects.
	I can't believe the sentences I have to say.
	This show.
	I say this with all affection.
	You are not.
	You are not a cloud of bees.
	And even in some weird Japanese anime, you are not a cloud of bees.
	Look down.
	Do you see any bees?
	Right.
	So, no, it's a choice, right?
	You made a choice.
	Can you blame her?
	Sure.
	Does that make your life easier in the short run?
	Yeah.
	But I mean, you've heard me talk about my deplatforming.
	Who got me deplatformed?
	Yeah.
	Me, this guy right here.
	I got me deplatformed.
	I peed on the third rail and then said, oh my God, I'm proud of you.
	My penis is starting.
	I'm sorry.
	Yeah.
	I said, I'm proud of you for that.
	Okay.
	So I took ownership for something which, you know, arguably could be considered a smidge unjust.
	So if you want quality relationships, blaming the other person is going to keep those away.
	Oh, no.
	I don't blame.
	I blame myself.
	No, you don't.
	No, don't, don't, don't gaslight me, bro.
	You just said, hey, man, she knew what to push.
	She knew what buttons to push.
	Right.
	She did because you're talking about a 14-year relationship and she wanted out.
	Like, there's so much of this story that's out.
	No, but it's $1,000 for me.
	I can't say she pushed my buttons and she's not to blame.
	That's true.
	You chose to get into the relationship and you weren't a kid, right?
	If you're 40, what was he, 47 now?
	So we go back to 2009.
	No, I'm 49.
	Sorry, 49.
	Okay.
	So you were, what, 35 when you got married?
	Jesus, was I?
	Well, I'm just doing the math here.
	I'm not a mathematician, but I'm pretty sure it's good.
	I don't celebrate my birthday.
	Like, I was 25 for three years.
	So.
	Okay, that's not particularly relevant, although it is kind of funny.
	But you were 35 when you got married.
	So you weren't a kid, right?
	You were 20 years past childhood almost.
	So you chose to get married.
	And was she pretty?
	Was she sexy?
	Was it sex?
	Was it less?
	Like, what is it that got you into this single mother hellscape?
	I was a geek working at a computer shop and she fed me attention.
	Okay, so fed you attention.
	So she roped you in by being nice to you?
	I was looking at her butt and okay, so she was sexy and she offered sexual access.
	Did your friends or family warn you about our good little sister here?
	So that's the issue.
	My friends have know where you're going with this, but it's still they're trying to be respectful.
	I did have some sub-warnings from some, but it wasn't in your normal nomenclature.
	It wasn't like, oh, by the way, yeah, it was more like, you know, dude, you know, I can't deal with you anymore, like type thing.
	And it was like, oh, okay, whatever.
	Oh, so your friends abandoned you when you got involved with this woman, right?
	Right.
	Okay, that's a bit of a clue, right?
	That's now, other than the fact that she was using her children against her own mother, which, as you mentioned earlier, is a red flag.
	What were the red flags that you saw about her before you got married?
	The fact that she would, so she would make fights for no reason at all.
	Like, she would make problems and then she wanted to resolve them.
	I'm more of the, I want to think of things.
	I want to digest the information.
	And she's kicking doors in.
	Not at that time.
	This is a different meeting.
	It doesn't take a lot of times.
	And how long did you know her before you got married?
	How long?
	Yeah.
	I'd say about seven, eight months, maybe a year.
	Okay.
	And what was her story about why she was a single mother?
	Basically the same story that it is about me.
	I actually got to meet her ex and whatnot, and he had the same qualms about her that she spends money that you don't have.
	No, no, no, but what did she say?
	Like, so you met her.
	She's like, oh, I have two kids.
	Oh, where's the dad?
	Oh, I'm a single mother.
	Oh, we divorced or he's gone or whatever.
	And what was her?
	You are an intellectual.
	So these are very good points.
	I'm trying to help our other brothers out there.
	I'm trying to help other people out there.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	I know, I know.
	But I'm a tart at this point.
	I didn't think of all this stuff.
	I didn't think about it.
	No, no, no.
	I didn't ask you.
	Hang on, hang on.
	I'm not asking you what you thought of this at this point.
	I'm asking what was her story about why she was a single mother.
	How did she explain being a single mother?
	Oh, it was always the same thing.
	Somebody else, somebody else, somebody else, somebody else.
	So she took no responsibility and she blamed her ex.
	Oh, he was such a nice guy.
	Then he turned out to be a bad guy.
	There was no warning, no explanation.
	He was a jerk.
	And so she's an angel and an innocent.
	And he's just a mysteriously bad guy that couldn't have been in any way seen ahead of time.
	Okay.
	Correct.
	And I even actually deciphered her background because I got yeah.
	Oh, dude, cheer this out.
	Just check this out.
	So I talked to her mother constantly and all that, and I get all this information.
	So what happened is her mother was somebody that, so her father was a mama's boy and loved it.
	So her mother was jealous of her father because he was constantly giving attention to her mother.
	And so he decided to have a baby to obfuscate that attention, or she did to obfuscate the attention, but then it backfired because then he focused that same attention from mother to daughter.
	And so the mother, I mean, admitted to me that she was quite abusive to her daughter, your wife, okay.
	Yeah, yeah, my wife, my wife, my ex, yeah.
	Yeah, so I mapped all that stuff.
	I was like, oh, and so the other thing is that she has no long-term memory, and I believe her on that.
	What do you mean, was she Dory?
	What do you mean she has no long-term memory?
	She has no long, no, she has to ask, like, she literally, no, she, so short-term memory and long-term memory are a curious thing.
	I think there was some substantial abuse or something that happened.
	Or like a brain injury or something.
	Yeah, I'm not sure what it was or what it is, but I believe her in that because there's things that I was like, okay, yeah, that matches up.
	So I'm not.
	Okay, so hang on, hang on.
	So why didn't you just wait until a while after you kicked the door and say it never happened?
	Because at that point, everything had escalated so much that I was off the hinge.
	Okay.
	I was already in a certain way.
	I was just kidding that way, of course, right?
	Okay.
	All right.
	Well, listen.
	So generally, what I would suggest for people as a whole, because, you know, listen, we've all been kicked up and down the alley of love and lust.
	So again, I'm not going to lecture you in any way, shape, or form, because Lord knows I've made my mistakes.
	But I think what we do want to do is try and teach younger men how not to mess up like we've messed up.
	And, you know, one of the key things is if you date someone who says that only the other person is responsible for all the bad things in a relationship, it's a setup.
	Like then you are going to be blamed for every bad thing that happens.
	The person's never going to take responsibility.
	They're never going to grow.
	They're not going to learn anything.
	And it's just countdown to, you know, some sort of court action usually.
	So if people don't take responsibility and say, I'm a single mother because I chose the wrong guy and I stayed in too long and that's really harmed my children.
	I've done therapy.
	I've learned better.
	I've, you know, talked to my parents.
	I've done all of these kinds of good things.
	But I'm a single mother because of my choices.
	Okay.
	Well, you know, we all make mistakes and nobody's perfect.
	And I mean, that's a big one.
	But definitely if people don't take that kind of responsibility in their life, man, you are just in for an endless world of hurt.
	Well, I don't want to say that's because you're not endless because you're out of it now, but that would be my particular suggestion.
	And what else would you tell younger men who are listening about how to avoid this kind of stuff?
	I would say make sure you understand where their financial place is, their beliefs.
	You find structure in things that are important to life as opposed to all this, oh, I like to hike.
	Oh, I like to run.
	Oh, I like to whatever.
	Long walks on the bullshit.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Like you need to find out the fundamental truths of the person you're hooking up with.
	Don't go into anything blind.
	You need to find that reason that you need this person.
	If they don't connect with you, if they don't give you signals where your brain's firing up or you're like, oh my God, yeah, you're right.
	That's a great.
	Or you're saying something and you're like, oh, that's great.
	Well, okay, you're pretending like you're listening to me, but you're not listening to me.
	These are all signs.
	Also, don't interrupt.
	Don't co-sign $80,000 loans for people with no long-term memory.
	That's also a bad thing.
	And the last thing, I got another caller, so I'll move on.
	And I really do appreciate your time today.
	Here's my imitation of a line from a great movie.
	Don't date a woman because she's got a great ass.
	You've got a great ass.
	Don't go all Al Cacino and do it for those reasons, even though she may in fact have a great ass.
	All right.
	Thanks, man.
	I appreciate that.
	Try and get off the drugs.
	All right.
	Time lock.
	Do you have a great ass?
	What's on your mind, my friend?
	Hey, can you hear me?
	Yes, sir.
	All right, great.
	I just want to have a question and maybe a point of contention about something you said in regards.
	Someone asked you, what is virtue?
	And you said it was GPB.
	So I'm just curious, since UPB is inherently like a non-action because of the coma test, like is virtue an action or can it just be like an observation of a characteristic?
	Well, have you ever dieted?
	Yeah.
	Tell me about that.
	Well, you got to make a plan, a shopping plan, come up with spread recipes, find things you like, stick with it, and track your progress.
	And what did you have to give up?
	Sugar, I guess.
	Was that hard?
	Moderately.
	Okay.
	And how much weight did you lose?
	20 pounds.
	And did you, when did you lose it and have you kept it off?
	Yeah, I kept it off.
	It's probably been three or four years now.
	Well, congratulations.
	I think you're in like 5% of people who lose weight and keep it off.
	So good for you.
	Congratulations.
	Now, would you say that a diet is an action or a non-action?
	In other words, other diets where you say, look, I just have to cut out X, Y, and Z, and I'm good to go.
	I would say it's an action.
	Okay.
	Are there diets where you simply don't eat some stuff?
	Like, let's say chips, cookies, chocolate, candy, whatever, right?
	If you cut out all of those things, you will lose weight, right?
	Yes, but you still have to eat, you still have to eat things.
	So you can't just not eat.
	Okay, bro, come on.
	Like, we're smart people here.
	Do you really think that I'm suggesting that people don't eat?
	No, but there's still an action required of eating the correct things.
	No, but the action is the same.
	You're doing everything except eating candies, cookies, chocolate, and chips.
	Okay.
	So you have to replace those with some other foods, correct?
	No, not necessarily.
	Not if you're gaining weight a lot and you are cutting back your calories to lose weight.
	Okay.
	So are there diets where it is a non-action that is the success of the diet?
	I would still kind of, I still think you have to be acting in some way.
	You can't just be not eating.
	What do you mean, not eating?
	I mean, if you have a diet, even if you're cutting out a bunch of bad things, you have to be eating other things.
	So there is an act of eating.
	What the hell are you talking about?
	When have I ever, hang on, when have I ever suggested that you don't eat anything?
	I just said you cut out the bad food.
	What's with the F-bomb?
	My apologies.
	I'm just not sure why we're circling because I've never introduced saying you cut out the bad food and all foods.
	Right?
	So that's a straw man, right?
	So what I'm saying is that there are diets where you cut out food that is bad for you and retain everything else that you were eating before.
	Okay.
	So that would be a successful diet that is a non-action.
	Is that right?
	I would follow, yes.
	Okay, because all you're doing is not eating the bad stuff.
	So you can have a successful diet without acting.
	Now, there are other times where you kind of have to introduce foods that are better for you or something like that.
	Or you're cutting out so many calories, as you say, you need to replace them with other things.
	And maybe you need to eat more meat or eggs or whatever it is that you might be doing.
	I mean, this could be the case if you start lifting weights or something like that, then you would be having to eat foods higher in protein that maybe you didn't eat before.
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So with regards to virtue, imagine, if you will, let me take you on a journey with no swearing.
	I apologize for that again.
	Let me take you on a journey wherein people conform to UPP, and that's all they do.
	And of course, with UPP in the framework is aesthetically preferable actions.
	So they tell the truth, they're on time, they keep their promises, they keep their word, they pay back their debts, even if they're not contractually obligated to.
	They don't initiate the use of force.
	They don't hit children.
	They don't steal.
	They don't assault.
	They don't rape.
	They don't verbally abuse children.
	That's a pretty great world, isn't it?
	Yes.
	And I do think, you know, the kind of way I would look at it is that's like the lowest common denominator of virtue.
	Would you agree with that?
	Well, let's say that, and I'm sorry to use these analogies, but I just want to say they can be very helpful because virtue, we got a lot of static in our brains from all the misinformation about virtue.
	So if someone is dying, you know, they're smoking way too much, they're drinking way too much, they're not exercising, they're eating all kinds of crap, right?
	And if they stop smoking, stop drinking, and stop eating crap, they've done a lot for their health, right?
	Right.
	And those are all negative actions.
	They're avoiding or refraining.
	If someone is a pathological liar and they stop lying, that is a big step forward, right?
	Right.
	So right now, and I'll just tell you my own personal thoughts and opinions about this.
	And you certainly, of course, are welcome to disagree.
	Right now, human beings are in such a pathetically fallen state that they worship power, they worship violence, they worship lies, they worship exploitation, they rip off the next generation, they drug children for being bored in schools, they are promiscuous, they demand everything for free, and they don't want to pay for it.
	So they shaft the poor by demanding the government print money rather than raise taxes, which has the people on fixed incomes really eat their shorts financially.
	They blame, they are irresponsible, and they demand other people pay for their irresponsibility.
	So the woman who gets pregnant without a bed, with a bad father for her child, demands that the government and therefore the taxpayers and therefore generally the more responsible people are forced to pay for her issues.
	The older people are demanding that the young people who are very poor relative to the older people get taxed to pay for their retirement.
	Like we are in such a fallen and corrupted and immoral, if not downright evil state that I view this as a crisis.
	And the important thing is not to get people to run marathons, but just to stop the bleeding and to stop the addiction of violence and corruption that characterizes pretty much the whole world at the moment.
	So if you're saying, well, you know, it's not really that positive a set of virtues, man, if we could just get people to respect property rights, get people to respect the non-aggression principle, we'd be living in a relative paradise compared to where we are now.
	And it's going to take 100 years at least to get there, you know, a couple of generations of peaceful parenting and robust philosophy.
	And that's very optimistic.
	Like it took like 100 years just to end slavery.
	And that was when there was big incentives for the government to do so because they could tax the capitalists more than they could tax the landowners.
	So at least we got at least 100 years just to get people in general to start respecting the non-aggression principle and property rights and stop worshiping violence as the solution to every conceivable social ill and to stop preying upon the next generation and selling off the unborn and killing the unborn.
	Like 28% of my generation was aborted.
	And so we've got such a long way to go to just get to people not any longer supporting evil and corruption and violence and falsehood and exploitation and selling off the young on the auction block of foreign banksters to pay for their greed for free stuff in the here and now.
	I think we've got to work, certainly for your lifetime and my lifetime, we've got enough cut out for us just to get people to begin to see what UPB has revealed in the world in terms of what people need to be do and need to do to stop being evil.
	Now, once they stop being evil, great, then we can start to work on the virtues.
	But given that I think we're at least a century away from people really stopping being evil, at least in any considerable set of numbers, I think we have our work cut out for us, if that makes sense.
	Like it's all triage.
	It's not being a coach for an elite athlete.
	It's just having people stop bleeding out.
	Yeah, no, very well said.
	And I totally agree.
	And I think UPB is beautiful, great concept.
	And thank you for that.
	I was just reading some Anne Rand, and she had mentioned that they're more of an action that led to an objective value.
	So I just kind of a thought that came up.
	Well, and how successful has Ayn Rand been at preventing the spread of evil?
	I don't have the data on that, but not very good.
	Well, it's terrible.
	Right.
	And listen, I'm not, you know, I absolutely love and adore Ayn Rand.
	So I'm not, you know, as far as metaphysics and epistemology goes, there's almost nobody better.
	But she failed.
	And she failed because she focused on economics and politics rather than childhood and parenting.
	Now, again, people can say to me, well, Steph, you know, you've been doing this for 20 years and where's your reduction in violations of the non-aggression principle?
	And I would point, of course, to the billion and a half assaults upon children that my show has prevented over 20 years, which is relatively measurable, relatively objective, and certainly a reduction in coercion and violation of the non-aggression principle.
	So hopefully that's a good question.
	Yeah, thank you so much for that.
	Your work is doing a lot of good.
	I guess just one final question on that topic.
	Would you consider the man in a coma to be a virtuous person?
	I know this is getting nitpicky, but just the curiosity.
	Well, he's certainly not being evil.
	And again, if we can just get people to have the moral status of someone in a coma where they're not constantly baying like a bunch of jackals with red gums for violations of the non-aggression principle to backfill all of their terrible mistakes and their greed for the unearned, if we can just get humanity as a whole to the moral status of a man in a coma, I would consider that a massive advantage.
	You know, like if you're fighting some enemy, I don't know if you've ever had this thought.
	You know, you see all these guys come charging and be like, wow, wouldn't it be cool if they all fainted at the same time and we didn't have to have this war?
	And it's like, statistically, that's not going to happen.
	But at least if they were an invading army and they all fainted, they wouldn't be invading you and killing you and raping your women and putting your children on bayonets or whatever.
	Like that would be a big step up from invading you and killing you for them to just pass out on the battlefield.
	So yeah, if we could get people to the moral status of people in a coma, I would consider that a massive improvement over what we've got going on now.
	Yes, I agree.
	That's good.
	That's really all I had.
	So I appreciate it.
	Thanks, man.
	I appreciate that.
	And again, sorry for startling you with the cuss.
	And you're welcome back anytime.
	Patrick.
	Mr. Anderson.
	Mr. Anderson.
	Do you have a great ass?
	Anyway, what's on your mind, Patrick?
	Go for it.
	Oh, I appreciate that not four head, but eight head avatar you got going on.
	You need to unmute, my friend, if you are talking.
	I know Hiri, the talkie.
	Going once.
	Going twice.
	Patrick, Put an H in there and we've got three goals.
	Patrick, speak now.
	All right.
	I think we're going to go back to the real JSP.
	We can just finish up now with the real JSP.
	I'm sorry, Patrick, that you could not figure out the technology of this.
	JSP, you're back.
	Hey, yeah.
	Yes, sir.
	I'm off work.
	You know, just a thought about something you just said concerning, you know, the necessity of good philosophy and the role of persuading the culture towards the non-aggression principle.
	Something I wondered, since you're quite heavily centered on a lot of philosophical, I mean, I'm sorry, psychological issues, particularly related to upbringing childhood.
	I mean, you're familiar with the concept of dehumanizing opponents politically, right?
	Am I familiar with that?
	Why, yes, I am.
	Funny, funny, you should ask.
	I've been living it for 20 years.
	Yes, yes, I am familiar with that concept.
	Okay, so I'm wondering if you have, I'd love to hear your input on what I see as a current phenomenon that's becoming pretty pervasive, even by folks who are mentioned already on here, like Jordan Peterson, where rather than promoting the necessity of winning the battle of ideas with rational arguments,
	that we identify certain behaviors as psychopathic or narcissistic.
	And in the categories, these psychological categories, the idea is that these folks lack a certain gear that other people have and they can't be persuaded.
	People cite things like we have zero change in any therapy or whatever.
	And I'm just wondering, in the attempt, in your view, of our goal is we want to create a flourishing and moral society that allows people to use their volunteerism and be good humans.
	What is the solution if, in fact, we have psychopaths who are largely the ones who are violence and force initiation in the culture?
	How do we deal with that?
	Like on the road to flourishing, on the road to a good culture, if there are people who are people, but yet lack a certain so-called human gear, let's say, what do you say?
	How do you think we deal with this?
	Because I think it's a very bad, a very potentially bad thing if we try to deal with anyone as if they lack the capacity for being human, right?
	And to try and deal with anyone popping up here.
	Sorry, to try and deal with anyone as if they lack the capacity for being human.
	So you mean people who have no particular empathy or compassion or conscience?
	Right.
	Like, yeah, whether they have so-called a lack of affective empathy, no capacity for affect, or, you know, even if they have cognitive empathy and all of these things.
	I'm just wondering if you've thought about it because it's popping up a lot.
	And it's relevant because, you know, they're quite overrepresented, psychopaths, at least, in those, you know, in the prison systems and all of that stuff.
	Well, and in positions of power in politics and CEOs, heads of business and industry have score higher in general psychopathy.
	So, I mean, three-pronged approach.
	I'll keep it very brief.
	First, of course, is we want to prevent the development of these people without a conscience.
	And the best way to do that is, you know, good time care, attention, nutrition, love, skin-on-skin contact, eye contact, mirroring.
	Empathy flows from the sensitivity of the parents into the heart, mind, and soul of the infant.
	And once it is taught, I did a show with, it was actually Sasha Barron Cohen, the comedian and the movie maker, I did a show with his cousin on the science of evil many, many years ago.
	And evil, sorry, he was talking about how the sort of 13 brain areas that need all to be working in coordination for people to develop empathy.
	And so the best way to do that is to show compassion, love, affection, and have relative peace towards children.
	And of course, don't circumcise them and so on.
	So that prevention is really, really important.
	The second thing, of course, is you need to be able to identify people who are cold-hearted or cruel or without a theory of mind that includes different opinions, because those people will always be totalitarian in your life.
	In politics, it's brutal in your personal life.
	It can be even worse.
	And so asking people, and you see me doing this all the time.
	And of course, this is not to say that the people who don't answer correctly are all psychopaths or sociopaths.
	But what I'm saying is you need to find out if people are actually listening to you.
	So you'll hear me in conversations, I will say, like I'll ask a question of someone.
	They'll go off on some tangent and I'll say, whoa, whoa, whoa, you're not answering the question.
	And they'll say, what?
	And I'll say, what was the question I just asked?
	So somebody who's empathetic will remember.
	And somebody who's having trouble with empathy will not remember because my input is not that important because they're just there to make a speech and to be heard rather than to actually have a conversation.
	So find out if people are listening to you.
	Find out if they can repeat back to your perspective.
	Also, find out if they can steel man, right?
	The straw man is creating a silly argument and knocking it down and thinking you've won.
	A steel man argument.
	Can you make a good case for what it is that I'm saying?
	I mean, I've made really good cases for child abuse.
	I've done that in my novel called The Future, which you can get at freedomain.com slash books.
	It's free.
	You should definitely read it or listen to it.
	I've made steelman cases for communism.
	I've made steelman cases for statism as a whole, for taxation.
	Like you have to be able to really understand the mindset of the people that you're arguing against, because otherwise you will only mischaracterize everything that they say because it'll go through your filter of what you want to hear rather than what they're actually saying.
	So when you're having conversations with people, see if they're really listening to you, if they're, you know, like bad actors, like they taught this in theater school, right?
	A bad actor is just waiting for his turn to speak.
	You know, he's kind of glazed over, but a good actor is genuinely listening to the other person.
	Like I've had, I was in plays where you have some super creative actor who constantly is changing the way that he approaches a particular scene.
	And there was an example of this in, and this was by direction, the woman who directed American Psycho with Christian Bale and Willem Defoe, who almost always gives a fantastic performance.
	And she told him when he came in to interrogate Patrick Bateman, the supposed killer, to come in and she shot the scene a bunch of times.
	And the first time she came in saying, assume he's innocent and you're just getting information.
	And then the second time, think he might be guilty and you're looking for evidence.
	And then the third time, come in like you absolutely know he's guilty and you're just waiting for confirmation.
	You have absolutely certain knowledge that he's guilty.
	And then she took all of these three different takes and mixed them all together to create this disembobulated sense of, you know, so, of course, Christian Bale is a great actor.
	So every time William Defoe came in with a different intention as the detective, Patrick Bateman, like the character, had to respond in a different manner.
	And so when I was in plays with really creative, and I did this sometimes myself with really creative people, sometimes they'd say, you know, oh, I love you so much, right?
	And other times it's like, oh, I love you so much, you know, like, and whatever, like they would do it in a different way.
	And you have to respond to that.
	You can't just be on a train track like, well, this is the way we did it before.
	You have to play off what the other person is doing.
	So when you're debating with people, you need to understand, do they have a theory of mind that includes what you're doing?
	So, you know, if you've got a kid and the kid really wants candy, well, we all know what that feels like because we've all been kids and we all want candy.
	And we even as adults, right, we want, we want candy, at least I do.
	So I can completely understand why my daughter, when she was little, wanted lots of candy and why she'd even sneak candy from time to time because we've all done that kind of stuff too.
	I used to sneak quarters out of my mother's purse when I was a kid to go and play a video game.
	And so, you know, I'm not going to sit there and say, oh, shocked.
	How dare you?
	Blah, blah, blah.
	I mean, that's just a natural thing that kids do.
	So does the person have a theory of mind, right?
	So if you're pro-choice, can you make a case for pro-life?
	If you're pro-life, can you make a case for pro-choice, right?
	If you're into the free market, can you make a case for government intervention?
	And if you're into government intervention, can you make the case for the free market?
	Do you even understand what an opposing objection is?
	Now, people who are midwits, people who are narcissistic or sociopathic or, you know, just generally kind of selfish and self-absorbed, for them, anything that opposes their perspective is immoral, right?
	So they are the good and everyone who opposes them by definition must be the evil, right?
	So if you're a doctor and you say X promotes health, then the opposite of X must detract from health or promote sickness.
	There's no other particular possibility.
	If you're supposed to go north and you instead go south, you're going the opposite direction of where you need to go.
	So most people, and this is very, very common and it is most people, they do not have a theory of mind that includes the possibility of being wrong.
	And if you're around people who cannot admit that they're wrong, if you're around people who don't have any capacity to view themselves as wrong and therefore immoral, and this happened all the case, all the time during COVID, that people are just, well, you have to do this.
	And if you don't, you're killing grandma and you're stripping us of our freedoms.
	Therefore, we can strip you of your freedoms because I don't have the freedom to leave my house because you won't take the damn vaccine.
	Like that people just whip themselves into a horrible 1930s style frenzy of, oh, these people are unclean and they shouldn't have rights.
	And we're the good and they're the bad.
	And right, it's called splitting, where you are just the good because you're obedient.
	And anybody who disobeys is just the bad.
	So I don't have people in my life who can't argue my perspective.
	And I don't want to be in people's lives if I can't argue their perspective.
	Because a lot of times if you have sympathy for a selfish person, they'll just take advantage of you.
	Well, I'm so glad that you see my point of view.
	That means I'm right.
	I'm like, no, no, no, I'm just showing you that I can do that so that I'm not fighting against something I don't understand.
	And people without a theory of mind that includes opposing viewpoints that could be valid, well, like I'll give you a tiny example and then I'll shut up and you can have your response.
	So there was a guy, somebody was talking about how a show was missing from Joe Rogan's archive.
	I think it was on YouTube.
	And I said, my three shows were removed as well.
	And then somebody's like, no, they're there.
	You're a liar, right?
	They're there.
	They're on YouTube.
	And it's like, I mean, they were certainly deleted from my channel as they were deleted from a number of platforms where I was deplatformed.
	So they were certainly deleted from my channel.
	And that's certainly them not being there.
	Some of them have been removed from Spotify for sure, at least the last time I checked.
	And when I went to search after Joe Rogan did his deal with Spotify, I went to search for my shows on YouTube and they weren't there.
	Now, it turns out, I think, I don't know the exact history, but it turns out that Joe Rogan's channel was set to unlisted during his deal with Spotify while they sorted things out or whatever it is, right?
	So, and then people were like, well, they weren't deleted and re-uploaded because it says 11 years old and you're a liar.
	And it's like, okay, like, do you have a theory of mind where I could have an honest error?
	You know, like I went to search for them.
	They were gone.
	They'd been removed from a bunch of other platforms.
	And so is it possible to have the grace to say they are there?
	Maybe you made a mistake or maybe you searched for them while they were missing.
	Or what was it that had you think that they weren't there or something like that?
	Because it's not like I wake up every morning, oh, what's the status of my shows on Joe Rogan?
	Again, it's been 11 years.
	Who cares, right?
	But that is, do you have a theory of mind wherein someone else can make an honest mistake for good reasons, right?
	And if you don't have that, and I did say to the guy, like, in your world, can people not make honest mistakes?
	Like, they're just liars and grifters.
	And, you know, like, it's like, now that I know something that you're objectively wrong about, I can use it to insult you and grind.
	It's like, why would I want to have anything to do with that?
	You know, why would I immediately go to you're a liar and you're a grifter if somebody makes an honest mistake for, you know, some reasonably good, good reasons.
	So, yeah, and then the last thing is, and this is just a one or two sentence thing, given that those people exist, we cannot afford concentrated political power and we can't afford concentrated economic power.
	And by economic power, I don't mean people who are wealthy.
	I mean people who can buy politicians.
	So yeah, go ahead with your thoughts.
	Well, you said quite a lot.
	Yeah, I agree for sure that the capacity to differentiate between moral and factual errors, you know, honest errors is an important ingredient.
	And obviously, that would be something that would be short-circuited by being kind of stuck in a loop of victim mentality, right?
	No, no, not victim.
	No, that's an attack mentality.
	Is it?
	Okay.
	Yeah, no, and sorry, let me just be real brief about this, right?
	So I haven't checked because, you know, I don't have the opportunity to go back and check on everything.
	But when I said, look, here's the reasons why I thought the episodes were gone and I have good reasons for those.
	Like, why is it, is it impossible that I just made an honest mistake?
	Now, he's saying that, Steph, you're a grifter and a liar.
	And again, this is not an important thing, but it's an important example of something, right?
	So he says, Steph, you're a grifter and you're a liar because you said these episodes are not on YouTube.
	And they are, right?
	Okay, so I made an honest mistake for good and understandable reasons.
	And it's fine to be corrected.
	I'm glad that the episodes are there.
	I thought they, except for the last one, which was obviously a kind of a kind of bitchy backstab.
	But so somebody should say, you know what, that makes sense.
	I'm sorry for calling you a grifter and a liar, right?
	Like it makes sense why you would think that.
	I can understand that if I were in your situation, I could understand how I could make that mistake.
	So I apologize for publicly condemning you morally as a moral philosopher.
	I apologize for that.
	But here's the thing.
	I'm almost 99% sure, and maybe he has, but I'm 99% sure that he wouldn't apologize for that, which is why he's able to publicly condemn people's ethics while being in the wrong.
	So he's saying, well, Steph, you're a liar, and that's really bad.
	And then he lied about me being a liar, but he won't correct it.
	So it is an attack mentality.
	Now he gets trapped into not being able to admit that he's wrong.
	And that's going to be harmful for his relationships as a whole.
	And, you know, for me, I just move on, right?
	Gotcha.
	Yeah, I was just making for a second.
	I thought you were thinking I said you were having a victim mentality, but you were saying he actually, you don't think that's the right description of his problem, that he has the attack mentality, correct?
	I don't have a victim mentality because if people are correcting me, I mean, it improves my knowledge base 0.000001% or whatever to know that my shows are back or have been restored after they were taken down.
	Not my shows in particular, but the whole channel during the Spotify negotiations.
	So it's good.
	Now I can link to those and that's fine.
	But I wasn't lying when I said they were removed from YouTube because last time I checked, they were.
	And it wasn't like I went and checked right away because I know that they've been removed, or at least some of them from Spotify.
	And of course, they were removed from my channel when it was deleted, as is a bunch of other places where, including Spotify, where I had accounts.
	So to immediately go to, you're a liar and a grifter and a cheat and whatever it is is just kind of hysterical rather than, hey, because can this guy himself make an honest mistake now?
	No, because he's set up this paradigm in his mind where honest mistakes, you just attack people and call them horrible names in public too.
	He didn't just send me a message like in public.
	He's calling me a grifter and a liar.
	And it's like, that's, I mean, that's pretty bad for people as a whole.
	And that's, that's very unfair and unjust behavior.
	But again, I don't suffer from it because I learned something new and he will suffer from it, whether he knows it now or down the road.
	All right.
	Is there anything else that you wanted to mention?
	I'm just going to say this real fast.
	Today, Jay Dyer and I think Andrew Wilson were on Alex Jones talking about their theory of right or rights.
	And I think you've probably done the best at getting Jay Dyer to have a reasonable conversation about his transcendental argument for God.
	Usually it kind of devolves much, you know, in a really different manner.
	But I would love to see you and either of those guys discuss right one day.
	And how do we make that happen?
	I suppose you just ask them and see if they want to do it.
	I'm sort of very happy to talk about rights and all of that.
	So I appreciate that.
	All right.
	Appreciate you coming back.
	And Ray, are you Jamie Ray?
	Are you not?
	You're not.
	What is on your mind, my friend?
	If you want to unmute, I'm all ears.
	Yes, sir.
	Yes.
	Go ahead, Adrian.
	What's on your mind?
	Yeah, I'm Ray.
	We've spoken before.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I'm in Montreal.
	Remember, email correspondence saying you're in Toronto.
	I'm not sure if you're still there.
	Yeah.
	So my mind, you call it, we talk about God before.
	I've been trying to put something out there so we can understand each other on certain things.
	I mean, is there a addicted to social media?
	But here, so do you think addiction to social media is just a necessary means to living in the modern world?
	It's like looking at your clock.
	If you're looking at your clock or checking your email, you're not an addict to checking your email or an addict to using your watch.
	You see what I'm saying?
	Or if you're driving to work every morning, you're not an addict to driving your car.
	It's just part of, you know, they may have called you an addict to driving a car when everybody was driving, you know, on horsebuggies and what have you.
	So I just want to get philosophical with you on maybe this title, addicted to social media, because a lot of people use social example.
	I use Marketplace on Facebook to make some money.
	I mean, it's a side thing, whatever.
	Buy car parts, resell it, re-salvage it.
	Yeah, I mean, that's just something else.
	But that's a little psychic.
	So am I addicted to Facebook, social media, when I'm using it for a business purpose?
	So, what do you think of that?
	Well, so it's a great question.
	So, in general, addiction refers to repetitive behavior that is causing some kind of objective harm in your life.
	So, obviously, an addiction to gambling when you lose your house, that's pretty bad.
	Addiction to alcohol, if you can't do anything without getting drunk, can't do any social life, and your wife leaves you, you're a bad parent, and you get fired.
	So, those kinds of things would be negative.
	Using social media is not in and of itself addictive, even if you use it a lot.
	I mean, I'm on social media, certainly now that I'm back on X, I'm on social media quite a bit.
	But, you know, I'm trying to make some money, freedomaine.com slash donate.
	I'm trying to do some good in the world.
	I'm trying to engage people in the discipline of philosophy and promote peaceful parenting and virtues and so on.
	And hitting back against corruption that I see as people hit against corruption that they see in me, which is, again, always helpful and good.
	So, I don't think it's addictive.
	Now, if I ignored my family and spent, you know, 12 hours a day on social media, even if it made me more money, which I suppose it would, that would not be particularly productive because I did choose to have a family and I did choose to become a husband and father.
	And I owe my wife and my daughter my time, care, and attention.
	But I also owe my daughter a better world, right?
	So, there is, and my wife too, I suppose I want to live in a better world when I get older, or at least hopefully not a much worse world.
	So, there are balancing responsibilities.
	Like, if you're the man and you got to, as you say, go pay the bills.
	Are you addicted to work?
	It's like, no, you just, you have to pay the bills.
	And so you have to go and work.
	So, I think, I mean, obviously, I think I have a relatively healthy relationship to social media.
	I mean, I was off it for half a decade for the most part.
	And having come back on it, I think I'm reasonably well managing the time that I do.
	This morning, you know, I woke up and I had breakfast with my family, and then I worked for a couple of hours on writing a new chapter of my book.
	And then I went out shopping because my wife's birthday is coming up.
	And my daughter and I went out shopping and rolled around the town and had a great time and had lunch.
	And then I came back and we chatted more and we tried harmonizing our singing voices together, which was a lot of fun.
	And then I came down to do the show.
	When I'm done, the show, I'll go back up and talk to my family and figure out what we're going to do for the rest of the evening.
	So, you know, am I on social media?
	Yeah, for sure.
	You know, it probably adds up to an hour or two.
	Sorry, hang on, hang on.
	Probably adds up to an hour or two a day, maybe three on extreme, sort of, you know, when there's a real big flurry going on and that's sort of some multi-million view tweet that's sort of really important.
	But I think it does good.
	I know it does good.
	And it also helps add to the income of what it is that I do, both directly and indirectly.
	So I think it's a plus.
	I would be addicted if it was at the cost of my relationships as a whole, but I don't believe that's been the case.
	And certainly my family says that it's not the case.
	So that's all I can go with.
	But I'm so sorry, Ray.
	Go ahead.
	No, you answered a question very thoroughly.
	I appreciate that.
	I guess it was all in the definitions, you know, with the negative connotation.
	But here's a question for you.
	I'm looking to run.
	I've always liked your videos.
	The few of them I saw on YouTube.
	It's that it's sad that you were targeted for censorship.
	As long as you're not making death threats or promoting violence, you should be allowed to speak your mind.
	So, I mean, we understand social media.
	We understand freedom of speech like that.
	But as a Canadian, so I'm looking to run for council as an alderman in the city of Point Third, Montreal in November municipal election.
	I have a pretty good chance of winning.
	What's that?
	But I want to actually make a difference.
	And, you know, I was canvassing the industrial, the industrial area is the district I live in is very industrial.
	And no one's ever gone out there.
	No one does that.
	I mean, who even knocks doors anymore during an election?
	But I'm actually knocking doors in the industrial part.
	And they're like, some of these guys are like, we've never seen somebody come here.
	So a lot of them want lower taxes.
	And this is a question as a Canadian.
	I don't know if you're still in Toronto.
	You don't have to tell me.
	Whatever the case, as someone who was a Canadian or is a Canadian, how would you lower taxes?
	You know, at Montreal, Toronto are pretty similar cities.
	How would you lower taxes without actually, you know, because that's the thing, you know, more condos are going up, but for some reason, the city is not able to think it's just inadequacy.
	I want to what I would do is just go through the books.
	I would open up all the books and try to offload properties the city owns and, you know, try to sell it.
	You know, a cultural center that no one uses, a second library no one uses.
	But we want condos all over the place.
	So how would you, you know, people are complaining about condos, you know, bringing densification and, you know, cutting into green space, but at the same time, the city needs some money to lower taxes.
	When they have all this stuff, I'll give you an example.
	This one, one business owner was telling me that, you know, he was paying $22,000 in tax in 1994, and now he's paying something like $150,000 or something.
	So it's really gone past double.
	So how would you do it?
	Well, I mean, that's a good question.
	I'm not really doing politics as a whole, so I'll just keep this really brief.
	So as far as I understand it, new immigrants to Canada are getting a lot of subsidies to start or take over businesses.
	That does not seem particularly helpful to the local population that probably want to have the opportunity to run or start those businesses themselves.
	So that's certainly something that I would look into as a whole.
	And I'm not sure that there are always the best of motives behind those kinds of things.
	So I think that people can come and work, but they should be on an even playing field with everyone else.
	And I'm not sure that people should get new subsidies just for moving to Canada because I think that also is going to create some resentment among the domestic population.
	So I appreciate the question.
	And I certainly wish you the best of luck.
	But on a municipal level, I mean, how would you do it?
	Oh, yeah, I can't answer that.
	I'm afraid I don't really know much about the municipal economics.
	But, all right, ask yourself what is on your mind.
	One unmute, and we are on our way.
	And I'm sorry, Catherine, I thought that you were going to talk, but you vanished.
	Ask yourself.
	Now I've got that stupid Eminem song going on in my brain.
	All right.
	It's going once, going twice.
	Patrick, I think we already talked tonight.
	Yes, go ahead.
	Hey, how are you?
	Good.
	How are you doing?
	Pretty well.
	So you're back to the internet now.
	No, I've always been on the internet.
	I'm just back on X. Okay.
	Well, I was in here the other week and you were talking about the isot gap.
	I don't know if you recall that.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	So was I incorrect in thinking that you believe you have a solution to that problem?
	Yeah, no, I have a solution.
	I solved it.
	Do we understand what the problem is in the same way?
	And just so you know where I'm going, I mean, it should be obvious, but I'm not convinced that you have done that.
	Of course, I'm open to it.
	But I guess before understanding if you've done that, I think we'd have to agree on what it would mean to do that.
	My suspicion is that we might have different understandings of what it means to cross the gap.
	And perhaps on one understanding, it is something you've done and on another, it isn't.
	So that's what I would maybe guess.
	That's the direction I guess things might go in at the outset.
	But it would depend on how you see the problem.
	Yeah, what do you think that the task is?
	Sorry, you said problem or task.
	I'm not sure what you mean.
	Well, there's a challenge that one is supposed to solve.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So I'm just so the problem is that you can't get any shoulds from the existence of matter and energy.
	So just because if you push a guy off a cliff, he falls and dies, there's nothing in the atoms or the spaces or the energy or anything in the material universe or its effects that command you to do or to not do that.
	Now, of course, if you're religious, then you believe that God commands you to thou shalt not kill and the essence of the universe being God's commandments rather than material reality.
	You can get the ought from the is because the is is created as an ought from God as a moral test for humanity, so to speak.
	But if you just without without the existence of God, then getting a moral from a fact, right?
	The fact values dichotomy, the is-ought dichotomy.
	And for those who want more details on this, I've got a whole show on the philosophy of David Hume, which is available for donors at freedomain.locals.com.
	It's a 23-part history of philosopher series, and I've got a whole chapter on David Hume and the is-ought dichotomy.
	But yeah, you can't get a should out of base material matter.
	There are no moral laws inscribed in the nature of atoms or gravity or electromagnetism or radiation or any sort of form of matter or energy has implicit within it no moral commandments.
	And so the fact that there is an is cannot produce an ought.
	Do I have that roughly correct?
	No, did we lose them?
	Well, that's a shame.
	All right.
	So I've just put out a show recently about the is-ought dichotomy.
	I guess he ought to have stayed, but the is that he didn't.
	Okay.
	Catherine, Katie von Katiehead, what is on your mind?
	Mon Fraulein, what is going through your canogen?
	If you want to unmute, I'm all ears.
	Oh, yeah.
	I think there is like a little time delay there.
	Yeah, no way.
	Yeah, thanks.
	Since you are, you know, the subject of the room seems to be social media.
	So what's on my mind would be essentially, you know, our perception of reality is going to be the combination of information that we have, our experiences and the information that we have access to.
	So in the social media sphere, we have these algorithms.
	And it seems to me that everybody has this very different experience of what reality is, which I do think is quite harmful because as a shared community, it makes things very difficult to kind of come to consensus or figure out how to even understand what is happening.
	So what would you say?
	Okay.
	Go ahead.
	I make groaning sounds not because anything you're saying is wrong, but I just have thoughts overflowing.
	And the fact that I have thoughts overflowing is no obligation for you.
	So please, if you've got, if you want to finish your point, please go for it.
	I'm just groaning to relieve the pressure on my brain.
	Okay, well, I'll be very brief.
	So in terms of that, it's like, okay, how do we is it something that we're able to deal with?
	Is this something where we are able to change some of the designs to ensure that we're not just in our own sort of universes?
	But go ahead.
	Sounds like you already have thoughts.
	I'm backed up.
	All right.
	So the problem is on the left.
	The problem is not on the right.
	Now, I've got my criticisms of people on the right and I've got my compliments from people on the left, but this is a left problem.
	The reason being that what is taught in schools is leftism.
	What is taught us in universities is leftism.
	What is in the media is leftism.
	What is in the newspapers is leftism.
	What is in the magazines is leftism.
	And so the left, by definition, is already in a massive confirmation bias self-reinforcement bubble.
	And they don't ever have to step out of it because it never intrudes upon their life.
	Like you never accidentally open a Netflix show and see a valid right-wing point or a valid right-wing hero or anything like that.
	So the problem is on the left because they never have to step out of their comfort zone because it's everywhere for them.
	They're sort of like fish in water, right?
	They can't get out of the water.
	So they don't even recognize it.
	Water, what water?
	It's just what we swim in.
	Now, on the right, though, if, and I know this from sort of being in my mid-teens, so in my mid-teens, I started reading, of course, Ayn Rand and I read the sort of great Friedman and other sort of great economists of the free market school.
	And so I began, you know, pointing out and talking about free markets and limited governments.
	And I was a libertarian back in the day and an objectivist.
	And the moment you start swimming against the current, you really feel how strong it is.
	When you're floating with the current, it's like, eh, this is nice.
	We're floating down the stream.
	Like if you've ever gone whitewater rafting, well, maybe not whitewater rafting, but you know, if you're just floating lazily down a stream on one of those giant inner tubes, everything's kind of peaceful, right?
	If you suddenly have to go back for whatever reason, suddenly, like it's really hard work.
	And so all throughout my high school career, didn't really matter when I was working up north doing physical labor.
	But then in my university career, I started off.
	I did two years of English literature where everybody was leftist and socialist.
	I took a course on the rise of capitalism and the socialist response where it was taught by an outright Marxist.
	And then when I was in history, it was all leftist, leftist, leftist stuff, interpretation, how it's in, people's history of X, Y, and Z. And then in graduate school.
	And so when you swim against the current, you realize just how powerful these institutional forces are and how unified and monolithic and mono-thought they are.
	I mean, you've got a couple of people arguing about whether they should be more or less left, more or less leftist as a brief strategy, right?
	And so then you, you know, I recognize because I'm exposed to leftist thought on a continual basis, then having anti-leftist thought or non-leftist thought is a real difference.
	And this is why people on the right tend to be more empathetic.
	I know that's a shock to people on the left because they define leftism as empathy and everyone who's not a leftist must be cold-hearted and cruel and want people to die in the streets from lack of healthcare and food and stuff.
	But to have a theory of mind that includes an opposite position is the automatic state of anybody who's on the right, or at least not on the left, right?
	I don't view myself as a- Sorry, go ahead.
	What would be your evidence for people on the right having necessarily more empathy?
	Well, that's not my theory.
	That's actual fact, in that what they've done is they've asked people on the right to describe leftist positions, and people on the right can do it actually quite well and relatively easily because they've been exposed to those positions their whole life through just about everything that they see that's not specifically on the right.
	But if you ask people on the left to describe positions on the right, all they can do is yell Nazi and evil and racist and sexist.
	And like they simply cannot get out of their own mindset because they've never actually swum against the current.
	So they don't have those muscles.
	They don't have the muscles to view another viewpoint because they've just been told the people on the right are evil Nazis and they've never been exposed to rightist thinking.
	They're in a complete bubble.
	And so the experiments are pretty clear that people on the left have no theory of mind to describe the mindset of people on the right.
	They only have insults and attacks and condemnations.
	Whereas people on the right can actually describe leftist positions relatively clearly and relatively accurately.
	I don't know.
	I've seen both sides of it where neither is very charitable.
	And I've seen sides where both can give positions.
	I mean, I do.
	You're going to have to fight the female cliché.
	When I give you data and you give me your personal lived experience, I'm going to have to ask you to step out of the female cliché a little bit, right?
	Because this is data that I'm giving you.
	What data did you give me, though?
	That's why I asked, like, basically.
	Or you didn't hear me give you any data?
	No.
	I heard you.
	I heard, well, I specifically asked, where does the data come from?
	So is it some sort of a study that you're referring to?
	Like, where are you basing your conclusions on?
	I'm sorry, I could just spend a few minutes explaining where I base my conclusions on.
	You didn't cite a specific study or anything.
	Well, do you think I have the study names and references off the top of my head in a free-form conversation?
	I gave you where I got my data from, and you're saying, but you didn't give me where you got your data from.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Well, I'll move on from this point.
	No, I don't think I want you to move on from this point because we are.
	Do you think that I'm making up the studies or lying to you?
	No, no, I don't think you're lying to me or making up studies.
	I genuinely wanted to know where they're coming from because the way that you spoke did sort of sound to me in a similar way that what I just said, where I said, you know, from my observations.
	It sounded to me like you were saying...
	No, I was not saying from my observations.
	Well, so let me, I'll sort of reiterate it.
	And I'm going to move on because the theory of mind stuff is kind of important.
	So I'm just going to remove it because that's just not a particularly fun conversation when I explain for like five minutes where I'm basing my opinions from.
	And then you don't seem to have heard anything.
	That's not a particularly enjoyable conversation for me.
	So just to reiterate, so my theory was that people on the right are constantly exposed to leftist thinking modes, leftist ways of approaching problems and issues because it's in government schools, it's in universities, it's in graduate and postgraduate work, it's in the media, it's in newspapers, magazines, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	So you're constantly getting this leftist viewpoint.
	And so you can describe it fairly well.
	And then you also have the rightist viewpoint, which you sort of study on your own because you're almost never going to get that from any particular major institution.
	So that's one theory.
	Whereas the people on the left, if they're not consciously out there searching for non-leftist viewpoints, they're never going to find them.
	Like they just don't exist in the media and in the culture as a whole.
	So it's not like it would be the same, like if they broadcast, I don't know what you would consider right these days, but like maybe Fox News or something like that, although I don't know how right they are.
	But if you would have broadcast Fox News talking points and all the teachers had Fox News talking points for like 12 years of your education, then you would understand those talking points, even if you didn't agree with them.
	So my theory was, and it was more than a theory.
	I mean, everybody knows that every organization not specifically devoted to rightism gets more and more left over time.
	So people get exposed to this.
	If you're on the right, you get exposed to the leftist viewpoint everywhere you look outside of your purely right, rightist sources.
	Whereas people on the left can live in that bubble and never encounter any rightist thought and are constantly told to simply condemn rightist thought.
	So that's a general theory, and I think that's kind of unassailable.
	And then the practice was that there have been a number of studies wherein they ask people on the right to describe leftist positions, and they can do so quite well.
	And they ask people on the left to describe rightist positions, and they really can't do that.
	And so, because of that, there's theory and practice.
	So, then when I go through that explanation, and then Catherine were to say, well, what's your evidence?
	It's like, I just hold the theory of evidence.
	So, there would be an example of somebody who is not able to process, at least at this point, a different viewpoint.
	It just kind of short circuits.
	All right, Ryan, I guess we can do you as the last caller tonight.
	What is on your mind, my friend?
	Hi, Steph.
	Can you hear me?
	Yes, go ahead.
	All right.
	So, I was, I'm kind of looking for advice in my personal life as far as communicating with my girlfriend.
	We normally get along pretty well.
	But it's when, you know, and I'm not trying to be crass or anything, but it's when she's PMSing that things kind of go very haywire.
	And to be quite honest with you, I did not really have much experience with that as a, you know, handling that and in my family.
	My mother was on antidepressants, I think, for most of my childhood.
	So, and same with my sister.
	So, it's kind of hard to understand when things kind of go awry.
	And what does she do when she's PMSing in your experience?
	Well, so she'll make she'll complain about things that perhaps are valid things to, you know, to critique, right?
	Okay.
	So one of the critiques that she gave was, you know, she finds that she feels loved by gift giving, right?
	So if I were to give her like gifts, for example.
	Like, what does she want?
	Well, I asked that, right?
	Oh, no, you have to know what I want without me telling you because then there's no point.
	I mean, if I have to tell you, you clearly don't love me.
	Would you die if I was a girl and you gave me a gift?
	Anyway, sorry, go on.
	Well, there is a little bit of that, but it's more so that she'll mention something that she's interested in and I'll be curious, right?
	And I'll say, oh, you know, like a dress, for example, right?
	And she'll say, you know, oh, this is a really cool, you know, really good dress, but she doesn't feel like she can ask for it, which I've tried to make clear, you know, if you, if you want things and if you're interested in it, I'm, you know, I want to be a good partner.
	I want to be supportive of the things that you want in life.
	And if gift giving is something that makes you happy to a reasonable degree, I'm, I'm, I'm interested in, you know, facilitating that.
	I'm sorry.
	And how old are you guys?
	So I'm 26 and she's 23.
	Okay.
	So she likes you to buy her things.
	Yeah.
	Not expensive things.
	It's not, it's not like.
	I mean, a dress isn't cheap.
	No, no, it's, I suppose it wouldn't be.
	So how much does she want you to spend on her, say, in a given month to feel left?
	Well, I asked that question as well.
	No, no, no.
	Just what's your impression?
	My impression, if I were to estimate the cost, it would probably come down to maybe, I don't know, anywhere between $100 to $300 a month total.
	Okay.
	So if you spend $100 to $300 on her a month, she feels left.
	Yes.
	And she says that it's a cultural thing due to the fact, you know, where she was raised and how she was shown love as a kid.
	That's sorry, where was she raised?
	She was raised in Russia.
	She's a Russian-American.
	She has one parent that's American, one parent that's Russian.
	Okay, I got it.
	And you were raised in America, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So does she grow up in America?
	Around half her life.
	So 15, yeah, 15 years of age on.
	Wow.
	More than half, but okay, two-thirds.
	It doesn't huge matter.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So she wants to feel loved in part by having gifts given to her.
	And what does she do in return for you that is over and above, right?
	Because giving gifts to your partner is over and above.
	Does she reciprocate?
	Does she cook you nice meals?
	Did she rub your feet?
	Like, what is it that she does over and above that is there to satisfy you as well?
	Yeah.
	She'll go out of her way to cook for me.
	And she'll go out of her way to, like, it was funny.
	When I moved into my apartment, I didn't ask her to do this, but she went out of her way to like wash and mop like the floors because, you know, you move into an apartment, it's not really customary, at least in the United States, for it to be really clean.
	They say it's cold.
	That's true.
	No, right.
	It's not.
	And she knows that.
	And she knows that I won't do it, right?
	But she wants to look after me in that way.
	So sorry to interrupt.
	So let me ask you this.
	Is it a requirement that she cook meals and do other nice things for you in order to feel loved?
	In other words, will she suffer negative consequences in you being upset or cold or distant or mad or something like that if she doesn't do these things?
	No.
	Okay.
	Do you suffer negative consequences in that she feels unloved or is cold or upset if you don't buy her things?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So you have to tell her straight up that you have to ask her, how would you feel if I got mad and upset if you didn't cook me nice meals all the time?
	That's a good question.
	It would no longer be an act of love or generosity.
	It would be something that you'd feel probably a little bullied to do.
	Like, well, I have to cook him a meal now because otherwise he's going to get mad.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	I see what you're saying.
	Okay.
	Right.
	And it's like sexual activity, right?
	Nobody wants to have sexual activity in a healthy relationship because the other person's going to get sucky or not sucky if you don't, right?
	Because that's kind of bullying, right?
	So you always have to have that free choice and it always has to be chosen from a state of fun and pleasure and connection and love, not obligation, because the other person's going to get upset.
	So she is not trusting you, I think, in the moment or over the course of the relationship sorry, not in the moment.
	She's not trusting you that you care about her.
	And so she wants to kind of carrot and stick you into doing the things that she likes rather than trusting that you care about her.
	If she has trust or commitment or pair bonding issues, there is no amount of gifts that will fix that.
	She has to commit to talking about, I feel sad, upset, or anxious if you don't buy me presents.
	Now, that's a very interesting conversation to have with someone you care about, right?
	I feel sad or anxious or angry or upset if you don't buy me presents.
	Now, that's a fascinating conversation to have.
	The solution to that is not to buy her presence.
	Because what that's doing is it's setting up a precedent in the relationship that the other person has to act based upon fear or based upon potential punishment rather than love and desire.
	Okay.
	Does that make sense?
	Yeah, no, and I'm glad you're stating it for me this way because I sensed that there was something wrong and I really couldn't, I don't know, man.
	I couldn't put my finger on it.
	And I'm not sure why, to be quite honest with you.
	There's also, you know, the situation in our relationship where, you know, there's a little bit of a difficulty in physical intimacy as well.
	Right.
	Where that's a broad topic.
	Yeah.
	I'm sorry.
	I know it's uncomfortable to talk about, but nobody knows who you are, who you are.
	Do you mind zeroing in on that a smidge more?
	I'll be specific.
	It's not sexual in nature.
	We're both Catholic and so and we're pretty devout in that way.
	So it's it's more related to when I see her, you know, she will only want to hug me upon seeing me if she's sort of in the mood to do that.
	And if and if she's not, right, she won't.
	It's kind of hang on.
	So you have to buy her gifts even when you don't feel like it because she might get mad, but she doesn't have to hug you if she doesn't feel like it.
	Essentially.
	Yeah.
	I mean, does that seem consistent to you?
	But you have to do things to please me, even if you don't want to.
	But if I don't feel like hugging you, which pleases you, I don't have to.
	Yeah, it's, it's not.
	It's not.
	And, you know, it's not a full, you know, we talked about it and she made some concessions as far as that's concerned.
	But sorry, what does concessions mean that she'll hug you when she doesn't want to?
	Well, you know.
	Why would she not want to hug the man she how long have you guys been going out?
	That's that's what I asked.
	How long have you guys been going out?
	We've been in a relationship for about a year and a half.
	Oh, gosh.
	Okay, a year and a half.
	And it's not long distance, is it?
	No, no, it's a burst.
	So are you close to getting engaged or what's the story?
	Well, you know, I was, I've, you know, in the past few months, I've been looking for rings and whatnot.
	And I'll be quite honest with you, it's one of those things that I've kind of been almost forcing myself to do.
	And recently, I've just stopped forcing myself to do that because I feel like there's some significant problems that ought to be worked out before I commit to it.
	Like I feel a physical like a block, right?
	There's like there is a mental, physical block.
	There's a full-blown procrastination.
	It's not like any form of eagerness to go and do that.
	Right.
	And, you know, it's pretty painful.
	Listen, brother, you should, you should absolutely trust your instincts.
	Do not force yourself to do stuff in realms of the heart.
	You know, maybe you have to force yourself to go to the dentist or go to the gym or something like that.
	But in the realm of the heart, do not force yourself to do anything because that is overstepping the very emotional instincts that are supposed to help you pair bond.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So with regards to romance or sexuality.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So her feelings are primary in terms of I want you to get me gifts, so you better get me gifts.
	And now, if you don't get her gifts, what are the consequences?
	Well, it's, it's funny.
	The consequences only really show up when she's when she's PMSing.
	You know, she won't, she won't complain or have any sort of, or at least won't verbalize any form of complaint about not being given gifts or not being given flowers up until her hormones change.
	And then it's just an avalanche, man.
	Like it's, it, it really, it rocks the shit out of the relationship.
	Okay, so, so this is for like a couple of days a month, is that right?
	Um, yeah, yeah, it would be probably about three, three or four days.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So three or four days a month is where the significant conflicts arise.
	And how much or how many conflicts would you say you have over those couple of days?
	I mean, it's just, I mean, you know, it's, it's a good question.
	I, I would, I would say like, like arguments, like different issues, different people.
	No, you can problems that you have that are interfering with your general happiness as a couple.
	I mean, it's a good question.
	She'll, she'll normally pick apart three or four things that she's not happy with.
	And how long will those conflicts last?
	You know, it could be a week-long event because it's a pretty big blowout where, you know, I feel like Steph, she'll go from like the day before, right, telling me that I'm the best boyfriend ever, and then just boom, avalanche of problems.
	Right.
	And that literally did happen one time.
	Okay.
	Now, how are you, if you are unwell or under the weather or you have a headache or you pulled a muscle or whatever might be going on or you didn't sleep well, how is your temper or evenness of mood when you are going through something negative?
	Well, I'm pretty even keel throughout, to be fun.
	How hot is she?
	Steph, she's 11 out of 10.
	She is the hottest person I have ever dated.
	Okay, so she's Russian.
	I got it.
	I got it.
	My very first girlfriend was Russian.
	All right.
	So does she know that her hormones make her moody?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So the way that you deal with conflicts, this is super powered stuff, so only use it for good.
	The way you deal with conflicts in relationships is through universals.
	So what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
	Turn it around.
	And if she doesn't like it, she shouldn't inflict it.
	So for instance, if you were to say to her, so hormones, it's forgivable to do the wrong thing when you're hormonal, right?
	And she would say, well, yes, I'm hormonal.
	This is how it is.
	You just have to live with it.
	I say, okay, well, I have hormones as a male and I'm attracted to other women occasionally or I find them attractive.
	Am I allowed to act on my hormones and pursue them sexually?
	And she would say, no.
	No.
	You have to do the right thing regardless of your hormones, right?
	And so if the principle is you have to do the right thing and hormones are not a valid excuse, which would be the same for you as it would be for her, then she's not allowed to get crabby with you because she's on because she's going through PMS.
	So she's not acting badly because she's having PMS.
	She's acting badly because the PMS is to her a valid excuse for acting badly.
	It's not the hormones that are doing it.
	It's the fact that she has an excuse for herself called, I'm hormonal, therefore I can be a bad girlfriend or something like that, right?
	So it's the permission, not the hormones, that are the fundamental root of the bad behavior, if that makes sense.
	Now, she would never say to you, you can act on your hormones.
	Right.
	She wouldn't.
	She wouldn't, of course, right?
	You know, as a man, I'm sure you get angry from time to time.
	You want to yell at things or thump things or whatever.
	And you say, well, no, because that's kind of scary and intimidating.
	So as a man, you have seven times, 17 times the testosterone that women have.
	So that drives particular patterns that women generally don't accept in the relationship.
	Neither should they, right?
	I mean, a man should not sleep around.
	A man should not be punching walls or yelling because he's got all this testosterone and sexual desire and energy and all that kind of stuff, right?
	And a man's sexual desire tends to be quite constant over the course of his life.
	I'm still waiting for it to diminish, but I suppose I'll wait until about 20 minutes after I'm dead or something like that.
	But a man's sexual drive tends to be quite constant, whereas a woman's will fluctuate particularly based upon her hormones to some degree.
	And so there are times when you're hormonal in terms of lust or desire and she's not because she's dealing with PMS or period and she doesn't particularly feel sexy, right?
	So you're not allowed to act on your hormones and they're not an excuse for bad behavior, right?
	If she finds you, I don't know, chatting up some girl and you say, well, no, listen, I mean, I was hormonal.
	I mean, I've got a lot of testosterone.
	I got a lot of lust.
	So I'm talking, she'd be like, she'd be outraged, right?
	You're committed to me.
	You don't get this excuse called you're hormonal.
	It's like, well, that's the same thing for both parties.
	So if she expects you to surmount your hormones and to have good standards of behavior regardless of your hormones, the same is valid.
	So the way that you solve these problems is to universalize them and to not have separate standards for the male and for the female.
	And this is, of course, God's commandments don't have an asterisk in them saying this only applies to men.
	This only applies to women, right?
	The God's commandments or what is good and virtuous and right apply equally to both sexes.
	So you have to have the principle of she's got the thing which says, I'm angry or upset if you don't buy me presents.
	So then you have to abstract that as a principle and say, okay, so what is the principle here?
	Because I don't want to just appease someone.
	You don't want me to buy presents for you just because you'll get angry if I don't.
	Because then she'll pick at you for that.
	Oh, you don't really want to buy me these presents.
	You're just trying to appease me now.
	And it's like, then you can't win.
	Like it's not going to solve the problem.
	So the thing is, if we have, as a couple, the principle that if we're upset, the other person has to do things they don't want to, is that a principle that we're both willing to live by?
	And what would she say?
	I'm not sure that she would agree for it to be universalized.
	No, she wouldn't.
	So for instance, if she wants you to go over to her parents' place, but a new version of Fortnite came out and you want to land with your friends or something, or you just don't feel like it.
	And you say, you know, I just, I don't feel like it.
	I think I'm hormonal.
	I think my testosterone level is too high to go and do a family function.
	I need to go running or go do jujitsu or fight online or something like that.
	Would she say, oh, yeah, that makes sense.
	You should definitely do things that you prefer to do that are against what I want to do because you're hormonal or because you have a bit of a headache or something like that.
	Do you have to do the right thing regardless of mood?
	Or is mood an excuse to do the wrong thing?
	So don't ever, ever, ever in relationships accept a principle of behavior that only applies to the other person.
	That will never work.
	That will only breed resentment.
	And I think that's why you have a fundamental hesitation about getting the ring because you both have to do the right thing.
	And you know that as Catholics, right, that there's no asterisk for males or females.
	And your concern is that she's giving herself a permission for bad behavior that she would absolutely deny in you.
	And the reason you're cautious about that is you can fight back.
	Your kids won't be able to.
	In other words, if your Russian girlfriend ends up with this moodiness and this aggression and this rules for thee, but not for me, how's that going to affect her capacity to be a good mother?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, no, I think you're completely right.
	Because your kids don't care how hot she is.
	They care what a good mother she is.
	Right, right.
	Right.
	And that is another thing that's kind of been a fear of mine is how would that look like for my kids?
	Because I'm committed to peaceful parenting and, you know, I wouldn't want to bring a kid into the world under a situation where, you know, I don't know, there was instability as far as the mother's emotions and how that would affect their upbringing.
	Yeah, does she get to yell at the kids when she's PMSing and cause them to have a difficult week?
	Well, I would say not.
	So look, she's 23 years old.
	So I assume, at least I feel this way, that it's important to have some patience because we're all raised.
	Most of us are raised badly and the schools are terrible at explaining this stuff and all of that.
	So I hope that you would have some patience.
	I'm sure you would.
	And just sit down with her and say, okay, so we're having these conflicts.
	How are we going to resolve them?
	By what principles are we going to resolve them?
	And they have to be rational and objective principles.
	Like you can't deal with religious conflict, you know, the Protestants versus the Zwinglians versus the Calvinists versus the Lutherans versus the Catholics, because there's no objective, rational metric in particular, if you don't accept the authority of the Pope.
	Of course, as Protestants wouldn't.
	So the way that we resolve disputes about the physical universe is not through religion, but through science.
	Science is more rational and objective in that way.
	And this is nothing negative towards religion.
	Of course, it provides great spiritual comfort to many people.
	But with regards to these things, we have to look for facts.
	In an adjudication of a criminal case or a civil case, we look for facts.
	There's discovery, there's evidence, there's cross-examining witnesses, there's no hearsay, there's chain of custody, all kinds of funky stuff to try and get to the truth as objectively and universally as possible.
	So if she's crabby and she says, well, you know, you've got to buy me presents because it's the only way I feel loved.
	It's like, okay, so do we get to have the other person do what we want if we feel bad if they don't?
	Like if I really want to have sex and you don't want to have sex, what should happen?
	Well, we shouldn't have sex.
	And that's totally true.
	If the woman doesn't want to have sex or the man doesn't want to have sex, you shouldn't have sex because otherwise just building resentment.
	So, okay, so there's a principle, right?
	And the principle is like, if I don't feel like going to work, let's say you're home with the kids and I'm paying all the bills and I don't feel like going to work, do I have to go to work?
	Well, yeah, you can't just not go to work if you don't feel like it.
	So you have to go to work because you have responsibility.
	It's like, okay, so there are some things that I have to do, even if I don't want to do them.
	Hormones are not an excuse, but we shouldn't bully the other person to do what we like at their expense, right?
	Well, you should want to buy me a gift.
	And it's like, but the should means that I don't want to.
	Like if I, if I'm, you know, we're married and I'm saying, well, you should want to have sex with me.
	Does that make you all kinds of turned on?
	Well, no, it doesn't.
	It just makes it feel like a horrible obligation, right?
	And so we, yeah, go ahead.
	Sorry.
	And that's exactly, I was actually about to bring that up.
	And I'm glad you mentioned it.
	That is one thing that she has told me.
	She doesn't want to feel like she doesn't want to be in a situation where she feels like she's demanding gifts.
	She wants me to desire or to want to get her gifts.
	And I honestly stuff, like, I feel like I would.
	I feel like I genuinely would want to get her these things because I think she's a wonderful person.
	She's really, she's very virtuous.
	She's changed her whole life in order to become a more virtuous person.
	And we're all working on that.
	Right.
	But I feel like I would want to get her these things if I didn't feel like I had to.
	Well, and the example would be that if you want to have sex and she doesn't, then you would say, well, I just want you to want to have sex with me.
	She'd be like, but I don't write that for whatever reason, right?
	Maybe you've got bad news or something like that or the hormones.
	Right.
	And so then would it be okay for you to pressure her or to be upset if she didn't have sex with you?
	And look, it's okay to find a say to express disappointment or whatever, but not to pressure, right?
	And so saying that you have to conform under somewhat of a threat to what she experiences as loving.
	Well, a man, frankly, experiences sex as loving, right?
	But she should not have sex with you when she doesn't want to just because you want to.
	And you should not give presence to her under any kind of threat of negative consequences because threats of negative consequences in relationships absolutely undermine the pair bond.
	And so this sort of traditional thing like, I don't want you to bring me flowers.
	I want you to want to bring me flowers, right?
	And look, that's fine.
	You can have that conversation, but she needs to be curious as to why you don't want to give her flowers if for whatever reason she doesn't want to.
	And nobody, no man wants to do what he feels bullied to do or what he feels he's doing to appease, right?
	So she wants a successful man and successful men don't get bullied.
	And it's a kind of funny thing that women want alphas and then want to treat them like they're betas in a way.
	Right.
	And it's like, no, if you want a man who's going to be successful, don't bully me because bullying me is going to not add to my success at all.
	In fact, it's going to make me feel worse and weaker.
	And therefore, you're just kind of undercutting my entire ability to compete in the tough world that's out there.
	But the question that you guys need to sit down and listen, sit down the whole weekend, whatever it is, take the time, sit down and say, okay, we have these disagreements, which is natural and inevitable.
	Two different minds are never going to be completely in sync.
	Even your own mind changes from day to day if it's anything like mine.
	So you have to sit down and say, okay, we have these disagreements.
	We have to have a way to resolve these disagreements.
	It can't be that I just appease you, right?
	It can't be that you have the ability or the right to quote right to snap at me whenever you feel hormonal because you wouldn't give me that, that I would be hormonal.
	Therefore, I could go chat up girls because you're not feeling sexy or something like that.
	So we can't have that.
	We have to have rules that take away our excuses for negative behavior.
	So if she feels upset, and this is real-time relationship stuff, it's a free book at freedomain.com slash books.
	If she feels really angry and upset that you didn't buy her presence, she can say, I feel really angry and upset that you didn't buy me presents.
	The solution for that is not for you to buy me presence, but for us to have a really interesting conversation about what it means.
	Now, my guess is that she feels that what she's done is she's become a bit aggressive to try to get you to do things that make her feel loved.
	That is causing you to pull back, to withdraw.
	As you say, you had to kind of push yourself to go get a ring.
	And so she's kind of freaking out, but all she knows how to do is escalate or increase or double down the pressure that she might be applying because she doesn't have other tools or ways of approaching it.
	And so I think that you're probably in a cycle where you're withdrawing, she's pursuing harder, which makes you withdraw further.
	And it generally ends in a breakup unless that cycle is interrupted.
	And, you know, you guys both care about each other and you say she's a wonderful woman.
	She's hot as hell, which is not a negative.
	And so saying, look, I do have a hesitation because I do feel pressured to do what you want in order to feel loved.
	And I don't feel like it's the same thing.
	Like I would never pressure.
	I love it when you cook me meals, but I'd never pout if you didn't.
	Does that make sense?
	Yeah, no, it does make sense.
	And I think you're perfectly, I think you've nailed exactly the issue.
	And, you know, they're fascinating conversations to get to the root of how we feel loved and why we feel loved and what helps us to feel loved, whether it comes from the past, as she says, it's part of the culture.
	Okay, that's fine.
	But it still can never be coming out of a place of fear.
	It can never be, I have to do this thing.
	Otherwise, I'm going to get punished.
	She's going to be cold.
	She's going to be distant.
	She's going to be mad.
	She's going to be this.
	She's going to be that.
	And you absolutely cannot have, you absolutely cannot have a week out of the month where you live in fear of, you know, stompy hormone boot queen, right?
	You can't have that.
	I mean, you need at least seven times good stuff to bad stuff just to even it out because we're much more sensitive to bad stuff, right?
	I mean, how long does it take you to go back to a sandwich place if the last time you went there, you got violently sick?
	Well, it's going to take a long time to go back, right?
	Because we're much more attuned to negative stimuli for obvious evolutionary reasons.
	So if you have a quarter of your time with her negative because she's moody as heck, well, that's not sustainable.
	That is not a sustainable thing.
	I mean, you can have the occasional conflicts.
	I mean, I think my wife and I have a conflict maybe once a year, maybe twice a year, and it's never particularly serious.
	And we always end up closer at the end of it.
	But if it was a week a month, my God, that'd be unbearable.
	And that's not sustainable.
	And you don't want to expose kids to that kind of stuff either, because every time this is reinforced, I mean, it gets worse.
	You have to very, I don't want to say forcefully because there's nothing aggressive about it, but you have to very strongly prevent the people you love from acting badly because it goes against everything that they want.
	She would love for you to propose.
	She would love for you guys to get married.
	So by protecting her from her negative behavior and saying, this is not acceptable, we have to find a better way to deal with this.
	I'm open to solutions, but everything has to be universal.
	We can't have permissions for you that are denied to me because that's just going to breed resentment.
	And so we have to very, very strongly and very resolutely prevent people that we care about from acting against their long-term self-interest.
	You know, I mean, if you have a friend who's, I don't know, smoking a lot, you should try and convince him to quit because he's going to be very unhappy down the road if he gets sick, which he probably will, right?
	So the real love that we have for those around us is to prevent them from acting in ways that are going to harm their own interests, to save them from the worser devils of their nature, which we all have.
	We all have.
	My daughter will sometimes call me up on hypocrisy, which is perhaps a weakness that I have.
	And I appreciate her for doing that.
	And just in my family, we will bring each other up short when there's negative behavior.
	And we do that because we care about each other, want to retain all the good things about the relationship.
	And in the same way, a coach, if you're lifting weights badly, he'll say, oh, you got to adjust your form because you're going to hurt your back.
	Right.
	And if you keep doing it that way, you're going to get sore and it's going to really could be really dangerous.
	I mean, you want him to say that so you don't get injured.
	So we have to be very forceful.
	And by that, I just mean resolute.
	We have to be very resolute when people are around us are doing things that harm their own long-term self-interest, like indulging in bad temper a week out of the month.
	That is not good for your girlfriend.
	It's not good for your relationship.
	And if you don't find a way to have her stand against that, to stop giving herself permission.
	And again, why does she give herself permission?
	Probably comes back to her own family.
	Her own mother maybe gave her permission and that's just what she used to.
	And again, she's very young.
	So have some patience while you're exploring these kinds of things.
	But yeah, absolutely do not have rules that only apply to one person.
	That's asymmetrical and that's going to be very bad for your kids to come.
	Yeah, I can't agree more.
	And, you know, and I, and, and I'm probably going to show this to her later, just because I don't think I could explain it as well as you can.
	But I just want to put it out there as well.
	Like, you know, her, the, her childhood was pretty atrocious and it's pretty miraculous.
	Well, she's Russian.
	Yeah.
	It's, it's, in my opinion, miraculous how great of a woman she's, you know, become and gotten out of that herself.
	So, you know, okay, well, let me, let me just finish off by then talking to her directly if she's going to, if she's going to watch this.
	And listen, my, my, my good young friend, I, I want you to get married.
	This sounds like a great guy.
	He's very thoughtful.
	He's very sensitive.
	He listens to philosophy.
	Excellent.
	Double plus good.
	So I'm really fighting hard to get you what you want, which is a happy and committed marriage to a guy who's going to be a great dad and a great provider who's going to provide and protect in the way that makes women feel the happiest and the most secure.
	So I'm really working like a Turk to further your own interests.
	You just can't give yourself permission to act badly.
	You just can't do that.
	That doesn't mean you'll never have the impulse to act badly.
	We all do.
	We all do.
	But we can't give ourselves permission to act badly, which means that we commit to act well if and when.
	It's always a case of when we mess up.
	We then have to be willing to be corrected on those things and do the right thing.
	And if you universalize these principles, which is to say, no, hormones don't remove from you moral responsibility.
	There's nothing in the Bible that says, yeah, these are good ideas, unless your estrogen's a little high, in which case, you know, let the devil instruct you, right?
	There's nothing like that.
	I mean, Jesus forgave when he was on the cross, right?
	Jesus forgave the soldiers when he was nailed to a cross.
	I'm sure that you can do the right thing when you're facing PMS, which again, I understand is no fun and I really do sympathize with that.
	But I want you to have a happy marriage.
	I want you to have a great relationship with your husband.
	I want you to have a wonderful relationship with your kids.
	That is going to require self-restraint, right?
	I mean, if you're anything like me, you'd love to eat, live on sour cream, potato chips, and cheesecake, but I just can't do that because I'd have to buy a wide-frame camera.
	I wouldn't be able to fit through the door of the studio and would break the suspension on my car when I sat in it.
	So sadly, I have to say no to those things.
	And that gives me a longer and happier and healthier life.
	And it's the same thing when we're tempted to do be mean or crappy or nasty or slam doors or be cold or storm around or stuff like that, which again, we all have the impulse to do.
	And I really sympathize with that again with the hormones.
	Men have their own hormonal issues, which are just around, you know, permanent demirections.
	But anyway, so I really am working to get you what you want.
	You want your boyfriend to be converted into a fiancé, to be converted into a husband, to be converted into the father of your children.
	And the price for that, as is the price for all good things, is virtue.
	And you are committed to virtue as a Catholic, which I hugely respect.
	And you just have to not let the devil tempt you to bad behavior for a week or month and you'll get everything that you want.
	So I certainly wish you guys the very best.
	Thank you, everyone, so much for a fascinating conversation and show.
	To the person who wants to debate the is or dichotomy, fascinated and thrilled to do that.
	Just go to freedomain.com slash call, freedomain.com slash call and set up a call-in show and we'll do it as a debate.
	It doesn't have to be video or anything like that, but we can just do it as a debate because that I think would be important because it's a very important issue.
	And I really appreciate you bringing it back up.
	Have yourselves a lovely evening.
	Freedom.com/slash donate to help out the show.
	Lots of love from up here, my friends.
	I'll talk to you soon.

▲