Jose Perez

Again, the view that self esteem has to do with judging one's actions - and the value systems behind it - is mischaracterising the concept of self esteem. You draw it from your value of being helpful to others, Stefan draws it from playing well the piano or speaking mandarin... Nathaniel gets also plenty of followers (girls!) who draw it from certain ideals and aesthetics, and they're mischaracterising it too... You seem to agree with the idea that you can experience self esteem - even if I think this is not what Branden defined, in my opinion - so then you cannot simultaneously say that it makes sense to destroy the concept. If self esteem does not represent anything, and one's relationship with oneself is to be reduced and atomised into actions then I would be really interested in hearing from Stef why a concept such as marriage still supposedly stands.

Also, being an experience that is true, self esteem is not the sort of thing one verbalises to others in order to attract them, let alone puts on the pages of Match.com as Michael suggests.

In this video ( ) Stefan and Michael mischaracterise the concept of self esteem. Associating self esteem with external or social standards of achievement is completely mistaken and naturally leading to the kind of empirical problems mentioned. Self esteem is qualitative in nature, not quantitative or comparative; it is measured from the *true self* and thus cannot respond to subjective, social consensual or aesthetic standards - small children's behaviour in learning basic skills is a primary and significant example. This is Nathaniel Branden's own definition:[/font] “Self-esteem is the disposition to experience oneself as being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and of being worthy of happiness. It is confidence in the efficacy of our mind, in our ability to think. By extension, it is confidence in our ability to learn, make appropriate choices and decisions, and respond effectively to change. It is also the experience that success, achievement, fulfillment – happiness – are right and natural for us. The survival-value of such confidence is obvious; so is the danger when it is missing.”

Good stuff, but Sam lost a lot of credibility with me when he said – right at the beginning of the first video – that we need "healthy narcissism" in order to look out for ourselves, have a sense of boundaries, pursue goals... ouch... OUCH!

As I said, the goal of getting him out of the mood is not compatible with finding out what's wrong. In order to find out what's wrong you have to be curious, which should be independent of what you want to get from him or what mood you would like to see him in. In fact, being curious with him will probably make him cry differently or put him in a mood that you cannot predict (and yourself). There is a reason he is negative and it has to do with how he has been brought up, not with him thinking in "wrong" ways. You cannot teach a person what to think or not to think, but you can find out why he thinks that way. That's really great, but when you ask for advice here you are making it sound like the responsibility is his (theirs) not yours. I can only go by the statements you write here. You say they have a problem and that you are not like that, that you never show that, etc. This is what I mean by your not taking responsibility – for the cause of their being that way, which is in the past, not for making them change their moods now. Children do not naturally show that kind of aggressiveness. He has every reason to think he is a bad kid, as would any person he behaved like that towards. I think that's a good sign: he knows there is something wrong with himself and is seeking your attention to find out, but if every time that happens you focus on denying the (bad) reality of his behaviour he is never going to take you seriously. I think you exculpate him in the same way you exculpate yourself. I really appreciate your trying. I'm just giving you my opinion, which is not the same as being judgemental, let alone calling you a monster. Conversations on a message board are limited.

Well, he doesn't want to be famous but he does – see the latest trio with Sheehan and Portnoy which is clearly a move to get more fans. I think he has that ambivalence and love/hate relationship with power that is so typical. I met the guy backstage once in a small festival (less than 1000 people) and he was still practicing for 2h. before the show... In order to develop that stuff you have to be enough of an obsessive power seeker and enough of an honest scientist. That's why I said some of his music is philosophical. Do you have an opinion on the OP song?

If you are talking to him with the purpose of getting him out of the mood you are not being curious about his feeling upset. And he is likely to be crying to get the cuddle and the attention, just like the other boy. You can assume responsibility. Saying "I am human" is not assuming responsibility. It probably comes from you. Do you not feel or think he is a bad kid for doing that anyway?

Oh man, glad you like him. I have been familiar with his skills for a long time being a musician myself, but only recently, thanks to his transparency on the net and more introspective albums, have I realised the (liberty) message behind the way he lives his life, etc. You should check out his youtube channel, vlogs, etc. He seems to have quite a good relationship with his daughter. Also in this he is open about a conflict with his mother. He seems to be using the net to take revenge at some people in his life for wanting to own him, like his ex-wife, shows footage of his girlfriends, etc. Seems to be trolling them in a way... I'm not saying he is particularly healthy, but definitely healthier than most artists as his independence, honest realtalent and difficulty becoming any sort of main stream artist – which he has obviously sought all his life.I think his case is one that shows clearly how you can never become really famous if you are not broken and dishonest enough, no matter how much skills you have: [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhCqEfkKa5s]

What happens, you see, is that abusive parents lose authority in public places because they become self aware, because there are people watching, you see? And so the child, who perceives this weakened authority, challenges them more than he can do at home and this makes them veeeeery uncomfortable. It happens aaaaall the time if you look around; the child, as an UPB machine, is doing to them in public what they do to him in private because now he is in a situation where he is empowered. So what the assholes do, is try to prevent these situations by keeping the children well tied up and putting a face like it's really "necessary" that they do so. What happens, you see, is that their relationship to their children is already broken quite possibly beyond recovery, that they have no authority over the child, because they should have never had children in the first place... because the woman blackmailed the man into having them and things like that... you know, the usual sad reality about couples that they will never admit, and that stems from the very same abuse they suffered in the hands of their parents, which they seek to normalise with their children...

The hostility you feel coming from me on a message board is enough for you to make a definite decision to not engage with me, but the hostility you see in your family is not enough to do likewise... Clearly, and as the evidence repeatedly shows around here, one can be a false self and a hypocrite and still be "pro peaceful parenting". Sure I'm hostile to you. And I will repeat to you and anyone who cares to notice: the child in my case could walk to the car and there were over 100m with no cars around. Stripping a person into a buggy against his will is abusive.

Morse, the fact that you are offended and so invested in disproving a statement about you, while you still disregard my arguments – which represent in themselves the process of philosophically standing up to a parent – only comes to confirm that statement. Like tasmlab, you can say you do whatever you want; your behaviour is what gives you away. I sincerely hope you learn to find your true feelings regarding your family instead of following some code of action you're learning from FDR. I'm happy to help you with that as I have done before.

Sorry, writing fast... meant to say human beings are the only land mammals that don't sleep with their babies (not that our ancestors didn't still follow this natural practice; referring to modern humans of course). There are tons of resources on this (http://neuroanthropology.net/2008/12/21/cosleeping-and-biological-imperatives-why-human-babies-do-not-and-should-not-sleep-alone/) It is not surprising that children in modern society have become more irritable and likely to throw temper tantrums, to the point that for instance chimps are better behaved in infancy. The baby's heart stress has been shown to be up to 3 times higher when sleeping in a cot... Anyway, not really hard nowadays to come up with the evidence if one is really open to philosophical arguments and self knowledge.

That is not an ad hominem and I'm attacking his arguments; all you have to do to prove I am unfair is tell me where I am wrong, i.e disprove my arguments; that's all I'm asking, but you haven't done it. Telling people not to respond to someone who is intellectually dishonest helps those people save time – and it also helped to present more evidence of his dishonesty and invalidity of his arguments. Yes, I don't believe you are for the rights of children precisely because I am familiar with that topic and your not addressing or wanting to understand my arguments there either. The morality of parenting is not about scales of grey just like the morality of the state isn't either, but I can understand you regard it as such since you have chosen not to stand up to your own family. Yes, and the arguments are there to prove who has an invalid and dishonest position. This is a philosophy forum, not a parliament. Well, for a start, I don't think Stef is anywhere close to being a good parent, although closer than most. Sleep training is an abomination and a complete disregard of the child's genuine body signals; human beings are the only animals that don't sleep with their babies... When Stef talks about these things he shows no ambivalence but a complete certainty that he has researched the issues with Isabella, that he knows the answer is "for her own good" and that the measure is indeed exceptional and contrary to the general rule that there is something wrong with the parent and his behaviour. He does not participate in conversations such as this that shed light on what's really happening with parents, and he does not submit his parenting to this kind of scrutiny by people, his listeners, who he claims to "love and respect", just like he does not submit his listener's parenting to the kind of scrutiny that his own philosophical arguments and condemnations warrant. Anyway, I could write a whole book here...

Thank you so much for providing this evidence, emilia, very relevant indeed. I'm only sorry that you're addressing someone who already disregarded similar evidence on the basis that he is "listening in sequence". I recommend you do not waste your time interacting with him – as I realise you might from the fact that he blatantly contradicts himself in his response to you:

Sure, I agree. Intent is irrelevant to the philosophy and practise of peaceful parenting. But if someone has claimed ill-intent by tasmlabs, and if I don't see evidence of that ill-intent, I think it's reasonable (and couteous to tasmlabs) to say so. How funny: "Intent is relevant when someone claims ill-intent, but irrelevant when being refuted, when it becomes minutiae".

You seem very confused. Intent is precisely what allows you to judge those people and their actions as good or bad. If people were not consciously choosing they would be forever excused. The whole idea of moral rational philosophy is to have a standard for determining these things objectively. So people's own reports on their intentions have very very little value, as do the reports and justifications of statists, and bad people through the ages. Without choice or consciousness there is no philosophy.

well, Ribuck, I hate to tell you, but you are the one that brought the tedious minutiae and the 99.9% certainty in order to support your friends. Believe me, you would look a lot better responding to the reasoned arguments and evidence that people present to you.

You don't seem to be aware of the factor that profile pictures are the result of conscious choice and selection, and therefore do not make very good evidence. I'd say that's quite an important distinction, especially in the light that this is a site where the topic of peaceful parenting is central, and the user chooses to feature himself or herself with their kids having a jolly good time. As a rule of thumb, I am suspicious of anyone who has a profile picture like that on here – and if you notice they all kind of look the same. Conscious as it is, the contrivedness and obviousness of such pictures clearly still goes unnoticed for most. I have also seen you interpret pictures about anarchy in a similar manner before and be drawn to thinking appearances make for philosophical arguments, so it's not surpising to me this is what you prioritise here. I don't know how it follows from internalising the general views on child raising that the parents' motivation is the child's wellbeing. Can you clarify? The whole idea of bad parenting is precisely to not admit to yourself or others that you are indeed motivated by domination, let alone put it in books or the media. Are you not familiar with the psychology of abusers? In my opinion the only evidence you need is here. Someone who is not honest in debate, who is sarcastic and biased about his own evidence, etc. and who mistrusts the only source of evidence he has about the original case (i.e. my reports) and takes the liberty to adapt it to his conclusions about it is clearly not interested in reason and evidence, but in defending something within himself that was attacked by my post and description of my intervention. A 0.1% difference in certainty doesn't seem like a good reason to bother with a response like this. So I would also put forward the proposition that, as a parent, you somehow identify with tasmlab in relation to this. You can convince me otherwise by simply refuting my arguments above. There's not a huge amount of information given, but the impression I got was that the parent's concern was not just for the safety of the child, but also to maximise the convenience for the parent. How does this answer my question? I said the child could walk to the car. The car was in fact parked over 100 m. away and within a pedestrian area (swimming pool complex). Again, it does not say a lot of your capacity to look at these cases objectively that you mistrust the only source of evidence you have. That was a surprising thing to say to tasmlab. Churches can be quite good at increasing anxiety. This has absolutely zero relevance to my point (I am calling him irrational) and, once more, doesn't say a lot about your taking all this very objectively. Besides, the idea of clearing your sins, redemption, etc. seems to have worked pretty good with irrational people's anxiety, abusers, warmongers...

tasmlab, I believe you are not being elusive nor sarcastic as much as anyone would believe that my intervention is "activism/street campaign". Go manage your anxiety in church or similar, not on a philosophy forum.

That's the effect, but I don't think it's the motivation. I'm sure tamslab's genuine motivation is to avoid his child being physically harmed. How do you know? I'd be interested to hear your arguments for your certainty; I have provided enough here for the opposite. Do you think the parent in the example of this thread was also trying to protect the child's safety? Please bear in mind that that is what tasmlab was answering to. I think your practical advices are fantastic, but good parenting is only possible through the parent's self knowledge and willingness to explore his motivations objectively. You yourself bring up yet another argument that this is not the case:

Ribuck, excellent point. But this is not about the knife, I hope you realise, but about finding excuses to communicate to the child that his own mind and senses cannot be trusted, and that he will forever need the authority of a higher power. Indeed, in the jungle they do other things to children, and they have a good reason for them to be skilled with the knife:

Morse, please tell me how and where I am not being rational? Ad hominem? tasmlab bias, ignores, is sarcastic and says "peace!"... It's clearly him who is having an inappropriate emotional reaction. Strong? Why is a strong reaction about child abuse inappropriate for you?

tasmlab, you are not addressing my point that the child in my case was not in danger and that the mother was making up excuses to put him in the buggy. Your sarcastic referrals to your children in situations of danger, and your ignoring this point do not help your credibility. If what you gather from your extensive personal experience with your children is that they "pretty much have one way of expressing themselves as newborns which is crying" you clearly do not have much empathy for them and are yourself crying this completely subjective, anti-philosophical and self-serving argument. Your children cry because you do not care to read what they're trying to tell you, as you would rather attribute fault to a dependent and cognitively inferior person than to yourself. You can keep all your sarcasm when talking about people whose low cognitive level puts them in dangerous situations. It's not funny and you're certainly not philosophical or understanding if you do not prevent these situations in the first place, as someone with a higher understanding of the environment that you yourself are putting your children into. You can say you are for whatever you want. You cannot teach the basics of safety – or anything – to anyone by strapping them or causing them to have a fit. All you're doing is teaching them to hate you and fear you and your punishment as a primary reason to avoid dangerous stuff. This being the reason, you have actually planted the seeds for them to seek further danger in the future. Make no mistake what your children are crying about. Your children cry for the same reason anyone would: because they are in a very sad situation indeed. It's up to you to change it, and I recommend that you do before your children have to do it for you once they have learned what's going on.

Another thing that was happening is the child crying: "not the right seat! not the right seat!", which he has no doubt heard from somewhere... As I said, it's all about principles.

I said in the description that the child could walk to the car. The mother could have respected his wish to not get in the buggy at least until they got in the car. Nonsense. It was just a matter of parental whim and domination, as it is 99% of the times, no wonder the children pick tantrums when they are not allowed the same behaviour. Do you think the 'terrible twos' is some kind of genetic issue with children? This doesn't sound very philosophical. Are you not familiar with on the "terrible" twos and the nature of these conflicts?. As a rule of thumb, it's good to start from the hypothesis that the fault is with the parents, and that the child's reasons for having a tantrum are based on the principles that she is learning from their own behaviour, not in whim or the specificity of the situation.