Kevin Beal

Hey! I just found a podcast about this sort of stuff 1633 – How Many Children Are Abused? http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1633_how_many_children_are_abused.mp3

Or to other people. If someone were to attack you Xelent, I would reject them absolutely. It would be kind of fucked up if I didn't. Or a sign that I disliked you or something in that ballpark. Not good in any event.

...and the more fucked up someone is because of their childhoods, the more we can blame them for doing nothing about it. Everybody knows that there are ways of achieving greater mental health out there. Maybe they don't like therapy, then they could do any research whatsoever into the science. There's something out there for everyone. Even if they don't have the internet, they could interview children about the genuine experiences and their preferences. If you genuinely thought that people weren't responsible, then you'd have no hope for humanity. You'd probably end up being a condescending lecturing contrarian like determinists end up being so much of the time. And I'd go farther than you LifeisBrief and say that yes, absolutely, everyone knows that hitting children is wrong. They know it like they know that the sky is blue. They know it like they know they aren't going to suddenly have gravity reverse on them. Everyone is such a complete genius when it comes to child abuse because they always know a way out of necessary conflict (or grief for that matter). I'm a smart guy, I'm a pretty good debater, know a bit about child development, am somewhat good at lowering people's defenses and whenever I've talked about child abuse to people, they always always always find ways of getting around the truth. I could never hope to completely convince someone and if I did have that as my goal, I would have to give up pretty quickly in the face of the overwhelming futility. The fact that Stef has been able to convince people blows my mind. He's like some kind of magician.

I'm condemning parents for abusing children to whatever degree they do abuse their children. I find disagreement with this in this thread on account of the fact that a repressed individual (ostensibly) lacks choice and thus cannot be culpable for their actions. (This is explicitly stated more than once, not necessarily by you). And frankly, I'm a little annoyed that you either don't see it or don't want to see it. I already told you that I do. Did you forget already? If you say that a person doesn't have choice on account of them acting as deterministic robots programmed by repression, then you are necessarily excusing that behavior. A person cannot be responsible for what they did not choose. And even more, it would be an injustice on my part to condemn someone for the actions that they did not choose. You get the point.

First of all, these are very reasonable questions. Thank you. It's not a response to anyone in particular. And my name is Kevin. The typical response to abuse against children by their parents is to look at it from the parent's perspective. It's often pointed out that they are overcome by rages or passions and that they do not mean what they are doing and it's done in haste etc etc etc. The appeal is to sympathy (as you seemingly sincerely have), but none of this has anything to do with either the morality or the culpability. It's just an (incomplete) explanation of the precipitating events. No, therapy is not about restitution. It's about self knowledge. No, that's not what I said. I think I was very clear about what I said. Accidentally stepping on a child's foot is not the same as sexually molesting them (for example). There are varying degrees, obviously. Actually, people say it's normal all the time explicitly or implicitly by appealing to unwise and unconscious motivations as typical and sympathetic. Me, by saying that it's normal, I do not mean that it's excused, just that it's familiar and the counter points less familiar. Have you heard this perspective I'm bringing before? Is it in error in any way? Is it unimportant? I'm simply pointing out something that I think is incredibly important with consideration to the topic of parental culpability. I see places where this perspective is needed in this thread, yes. Specifically where being unconscious is used as an excuse. I think it's a terrible excuse and I wish that I could destroy it as a meme. Make it vanish from people's minds. Unconsciousness is not an excuse. Wherever this perspective may be applied, that's where I wish to inject it into this thread. And feel free to replace "justification" or "excuse" or whatever you disagree with in my characterization with the appeal to sympathy or however you are talking about this parental culpability if you like. I believe the practical result is the same. It's only a difference in degree.

We can hold people responsible for the moral commandments they hold others to, and that goes a million fold if that is toward children. This is basically what JamesP already said, but it bears repeating. There's this idea that it's an injustice to hold parents responsible for things that they were not entirely conscious of and as I've already mentioned, I think it's an incredibly dangerous and vile thing much of the time. We do not help people by telling them they were not responsible. We help people by telling them they are responsible in the areas that they have control. Whether they or not they are repressed in their rages and passions is so entirely beside the point, that it greatly bothers me that it's ever used as a defense. People have control over their repression, absolutely. Therapy would be pointless if this were not the case. To talk about repression like it's determinism is to fundamentally misunderstand it. If you've worked through repression, you know what I mean. You are completely astonished at what you let yourself get away with and you (rightly) feel the guilt or remorse or whatever it elicits because you are responsible for it. A big reason I'm in therapy is because I do not use repression as an excuse and I try and take as much responsibility as is just (and that's a lot more than I ever would have guessed going in). And to defend parents who were abusive to their children because they were swept up in a passion is to have just the most insanely distorted sense of priorities. It's like asking people to forgive rapists because they have to be the most tortured souls to do something so evil. And the comparison is not that far off for a lot of childhoods. This is insane. And I'm using powerful language because it's something that needs to be denormalized. It's rancid and it completely pollutes the people who wield these excuses.

This is exactly the kind of debate I'm trying to avoid. Listen to the podcasts for a detailed account of the free will position.

899 – Stef on Writing (An Interview) http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_899_Stef_On_Writing.mp3 This is a good one. There hasn't there been a GregG podcast in a long time

I'd like to see this ad. I'm not an expert, but here's my understanding of security: Security is almost always an afterthought, a patch on top of a prototype. It gets increasingly more sophisticated, but it's still not very secure. The solution is just to find out how people hacked it and then do an update with that security hole patched up. You even see this with flash games like Gemcraft (for example). The actual way that security professionals program applications is to build the security right into the architecture of the program. Not like passwords and locks at each entry point (that would actually be a bad idea as it turns out), but an architecture that provides information on a strict need to know basis to each of it's component parts in a modularized pattern. It means that if you do end up getting access to one of those components you aren't going to get anything interesting and getting access to the next component becomes increasingly difficult. If you get access to the component that communicates with the server, but not the component that generates meaningful requests to that server through that component, and not have access to the encrypted keys either, you just aren't going to get anywhere. I don't know C++ and haven't looked at the open source code for bitcoin, but it's my understanding that it was built from the ground up with security as one of it's main features. The fact that it's open source, but we can't counterfeit coins or steal from people's bitcoin wallets is a testament to this fact. Any hacker that wanted to could look at all of the code and still find nothing meaningful in his search to steal from people. This is a really profound thing if you think about it. People have this idea about hackers like they are looking at ones and zeros and making magical programs to affect those ones and zeros in any way that they wish, but as I understand it, hackers just capitalize on the mistakes of bad programming (and there's a lot of it). This Google tech talk about secure programming is actually really good, although the speaker is slightly abrasive, and it might not make a whole lot of sense to non-programmers:

I can't imagine how we could have physics without some degree of determinism. Engineering wouldn't work if this were not true. As you have defined determinism, yes, there is absolutely determinism in the natural world. Stef says this repeatedly throughout his series on free will. Is that a satisfactory response?

There's no way to validate that without human eyes. The more you try and validate programmatically according to conventions of grammar and syntax, the more actual legitimate feedback will fail validation and not let you through. That's why all fields of this type only check if it's empty (and sometimes the minimum character count). (I do a lot of forms, interfaces and validation as part of my job). There used to be a rule in the forums that said that you couldn't edit a post after a certain amount of time and when you made an edit, it had to give an explanation of the edit. I always typed "sgsaghah". Maybe JamesP has a record of all these edit descriptions and he could say whether or not it served it's purpose. I can picture myself just saying something like "cool post" with my upvote which is just as meaningless as "sgasfgasdfg", really. Like I mentioned before, I don't think that the problems people have with the reputation system are problems that can or should be solved technologically. Like statists believing that laws are there so they can stop trying to do something about the problem, we may find ourselves only making the problem worse. Short terse descriptions like youtube comments don't usually communicate very much, and it seems to encourage hit and run kinds of aggressive stuff (which is probably a big reason behind the new youtube comment changes). People are likely to say as their feedback "your arguments are stupid and you're a jerk". You can't actually force real legitimate feedback. That's what the reply button is for

What if I don't want to give written feedback? I'm out of luck? It's like those edit forms that won't validate until you describe what exactly you edited, except that everyone just types "sfgdzfhh" because they just want to make the edit and don't feel like explaining it.

Just a reminder. This topic is considered off limits according to the forum guidelines for a reason. I'm sorry to be that guy, but I can virtually guarantee this will escalate. I'm not immune to it either, so I'm not speaking from any high place nor do I have any authority as I am not a mod of any kind. But if you look at past threads on determinism, perhaps you will see what I mean.

And also because we totally need second opinions. I can come up with stories all day long about what certain events mean, but I'm sometimes in completely the wrong ball park. Having someone with some serious self knowledge to have your back in that way is important. Someone who is aware of psychological phenomena, is aware of your history and is someone you trust. I've known people to settle for gurus or self help workshops only to get a very superficial kind of help. I don't believe there is any real substitute for a trained psychotherapist.

I think your theory makes total sense I've never met any celebrities or anybody like that in person before so it's got me wondering what would it be like if I had, and it's a weird feeling, lol. This isn't Tegan and Sara by chance is it?

Who said that it did? Isn't this just a bad strawman? Who said that one smack is going to ruin someone's life? Who is blowing child abuse out of proportion? What specifically was said? What are you comparing that example to? Is this person(s) the worst offender in this regard? Also, it's not like it's conscious or unconscious like a binary state. Even in the throws of a powerful psychological defense you can still be conscious of whatever you listen for, at least that's my experience, maybe that doesn't apply to everyone.

@lifeisBrief You still didn't respond to the main point that I'm driving at. (The point about self deception and avoiding questions). Also: Why does it matter how unconscious they are? I don't see how that matters at all. A serial murderer is probably going to be almost entirely unconscious of his actions. You have to be a little unconscious in order to do immoral things, the more evil, the more unconscious I would guess. So now we're excusing everyone to the degree to which what they did was evil. I think the comparison between being unconscious because you chose repeatedly to suppress, and being drunk is a good one (i.e. the degree to which a person avoids self knowledge is how responsible they are). Relevant podcast: 770 – Abuse and Restitution http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_770_Abuse_And_Restitution.mp3

Hi LifeisBrief I had one point that was the core of my criticism that you didn't really address. The rest is secondary as far as I'm concerned. And those things I probably didn't explain very well because I'm confused by your responses to them. One thing that jumps out at me is when I said I reject the idea of sympathizing with abusers. I would possibly need to amend that statement since I definitely do feel bad for the guy getting raped in prison in your example. I would call it horror rather than sympathy, but the feelings are there if that's any relief. I'm definitely not a psychopath... I think that it's a mistake to think that people do destructive things because they are stupid or ignorant. As far as I understand it, people can believe propaganda only because they create a split in their psyche (simultaneously rejecting that propaganda). The part that believes the propaganda is completely unsustainable and must be constantly reinforced (that's kinda what makes it propaganda). The maintenance of that propaganda is inevitably going to lead to conflict, it will cause confusion and cognitive dissonance, all sorts of signs that person must actively ignore in order to keep themselves from being honest with themselves. That alone is evidence of culpability. A person who is a serial killer or a rapist or just the worst kind of scummy person still comes up with some justification for what they are doing. The maniacal evil villain who plots to do evil for evil's sake doesn't exist AFAIK. The self deception is the part where we know they are culpable. If it were genuine ignorance, they would never need the self deception or to avoid the question. It's not hard to get why hitting a child is so cowardly and petty. Nobody is that stupid. We can blame a guy for getting drunk and smashing into someone's house. His intoxication is not an excuse. Likewise, this self deception, false self stuff is an intoxicant, but it doesn't excuse anybody. If you mistake corruption for ignorance, then you are going to not see it for what it really is, and you will likely fall prey to it. Ignorance is such a convenient excuse, and the more I learn about myself, the more I realize how not ignorant I am, and how I need to stop using it as an excuse myself. I hope that makes some kind of sense.

I don't think you give parents enough credit. Parents know what they are doing. They aren't stupid. We know that they know because these are the topics that they avoid. An excerpt from On Truth: I'm always a little annoyed to see how quickly people credit abuse to ignorance. What is the evidence for this? Because they claim ignorance? That's exactly what a toxic and guilty conscious would do! And sympathy is to say to yourself that if you were in the same situation, you might do the same thing. I would actually strongly reject sympathy for abusers (at least your own abusers). That's how you end up avoiding your own responsibility. There may be some therapeutic value that I'm not aware of, but there is a danger there as well, and I'm inclined to dismiss out of hand the person who advocates sympathy without acknowledging the danger inherent. It just means that they haven't really thought it thru.

I think like Cheryl and Pepin that the matrix is most fundamentally the result of family and early authority figures, and only as a consequence the statrix or religion. I've noticed a trend among people in whatever stage of breaking out of the matrix, which may have more to do with me than anyone else, but I think it's generally true. Stage 1: seems to be that most of us live childhoods that almost always involve a traumatic degree of indifference and denial thru abuse and / or neglect (some worse than others, obviously). In this stage we develop our defenses and our false self. If someone were not to experience this kind of childhood, I would imagine they skip right to stage 4, having no matrix to break out of. Stage 2: seems to be where we develop an identity outside of the family matrix, still maintaining those defenses and relating to the world through our false selves. I think it's usually the case that this is a very cynical stage, seeing a lot of the pretentiousness of the authority figures around us. But instead of blaming individual people, we avoid that conflict by applying it universally. The implication being that I can't blame someone for being abusive if everyone is. Stage 3: seems to be the make it or break it stage that follows some kind of catharsis, dark night of the soul. Where people either double down and cement themselves in their false self, making their defenses increasingly sophisticated and inflicting them on other people, or they start to see how their defenses aren't working for them and (as a consequence) how their relationships are toxic and how all of this needs to change. If they choose the first option, they suffer, but not so much consciously because they are so dissociated, however it lasts the rest of their lives. If they choose the second and start to work on themselves they suffer pretty severely for a shorter period of time, but they become more connected with themselves as a result and are ultimately happier. I think that this is a place that really requires a good therapist. Stage 4: seems to be a lifelong commitment to virtue, honesty, courage and attracting other virtuous people to them. They develop healthy relationships, and healthy true self ways of dealing with things. They are happier and fulfilled as human beings. I think there are a number of people in the FDR community who are here (or close to it) and I'd love to hear their stories. I really appreciate that sort of thing, like the kind of stuff that Steven Summerstone talks about on his youtube channel (and others with their channels), and some of the great posts on the forums. And of course Stef's work around this sort of thing. Stage 5: totally speculating, but maybe they are completely free of self attack and almost completely free of projection. Maybe they no longer have any false self? idk, but Daniel Mackler has some thought provoking thoughts on the general topic here and here. Also the State and the Family series is good and relevant, I think: 89 – The State and the Family - Part 1: Babies http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/babies_and_the_state.mp3 90 – The State and the Family - Part 2: Toddlers http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/toddlers_and_the_state.mp3 91 – The State and the Family - Part 3: Latency http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/latency_and_and_the_state.mp3 92 – The State and the Family - Part 4: Adolescence http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/adolescence_and_the_state.mp3

Speaking personally, I never wanted to break out of the matrix (figuratively) until I had seen someone else do it and how happy they were as a result. I've heard this sentiment before where someone was explaining that they don't ever remember feeling lonely because they never got the sense that there was something out there that they were missing out on. The same was true in my case. I experienced a pretty deep longing and loneliness when I realized that it was actually possible to live a life of freedom, having a mind of my own, having awesome relationships, doing the things I just didn't think were possible. If I could be that free person that inspires another person to be free, then that would make me very happy. Pass it on so to speak. Some people look at that free person as representing an opportunity, and others see them as an enemy (for reasons described above).

I don't believe that there are any podcasts on this topic, but I've known a few hoarders myself and I have a theory that may or may not be of help. When I used to babysit a lot in my teens, I noticed that often toddlers act like hoarders in that they never want to get rid of anything and they see value in things that aren't really very valuable. We kept a large cardboard box around far longer than we should have imo. I've also noticed that when you try and take these things away or trick them by distracting them in order to take it away, they really intensely dislike it. It seemed to me that the ones that had the hardest time with it were the ones where this desire of theirs was least respected. They fought to keep the twig from outside more when they didn't get to keep twigs as much. Based on the intensity of their responses, it would seem that as a toddler getting your beloved toy taken away is as painful as someone taking my car away from me. I'm not any kind of expert on child psychology, but I would imagine that this "mine!" stage serves an important purpose (or why else would it be there despite it annoying parents?) and if a child doesn't get their way often enough it can get in the way of developing past that stage. That term "arrested development" I think applies here. I think that I've even seen that wistful expression your father-in-law had on toddlers I've babysat. People can be regressed in that way in only very limited areas and only part of the time, but it can regress all the way back to infancy in many cases (the vaguer and more omnipresent the emotional experience is is a good indicator of this). I have my own areas where my development has been arrested and I'm a relatively healthy guy psychologically speaking. So it's not meant as any kind of criticism of your father-in-law, and of course I may be entirely full of doody

I thought of an exception to the rule. If there's a situation where you are unsure about whether or not you are right (as opposed to correcting someone) then the tactic of being calm and nice is good so that any kind of hostile response will make you certain that it's not you who's being unreasonable. Like if there's some area where I've got a history of projection, then I think it's wise to be nice and calm until you can be sure that the disagreement is not out of projection. Something like that.

Don't bother. He proved himself wrong in another thread with his own "evidence". It has everything to do with excusing abuse and nothing to do with the truth. http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37578-why-so-critical-of-deepak-chopras-work/ I didn't say that there was. You thinking I did is all in your head Maybe NVC is helpful in some situations. I am not any kind of expert on it, but if anybody uses the kind of script I showed above I will immediately resent it because it's condescending and insincere.

*add And as far as the guilt goes: