Kevin Beal

Because, intuitively, it's completely insane. You are giving people reasons (although technically may be in fact true) have only ever served the purpose of the "god of the gaps" ex post facto rationalizing. Nobody is served by "well, we may learn that something works differently than we thought in the future" with regard to this conversation. No, there are no gods, no ghosts, no gremlins.

The logical conclusion of your statement then is that Santa Claus might exist somewhere out there, and you can't tell me otherwise. For as long as there have been people believing in gods, they have always put it just beyond our understanding. This is just another god of the gaps. Please stop enabling delusional thinking. Gods do not exist, nor santa, nor ghosts, nor gelflings.

God, I'm so sorry! What a terrible situation. I'm feeling overwhelmed just reading this, so I can imagine that you must be pretty upset about it. I do hear you though when you say that it felt good to let it all out, and I can totally appreciate that. I don't know of any specific things that you should do, but I think that the more you RTR in your coming conversations the more confident you can be about what you are saying, and the less your parents can dismiss what you are saying. Your mom can flat out deny that things happened, but she cannot say that you aren't upset or resentful and wanting to talk about your childhood. The more you can stick with the facts of your experience, the more you can be sure that her hostility has nothing to do with anything you did wrong, and it will highlight the irrationality and defensiveness that much more. And if she responds to your experience with curiosity and empathy then you can see how to move forward with it and get her help with your journey to find closure. If however she doubles down, attacks you for being honest and resist all your attempts to have an actually meaningful conversation about some very difficult and painful things, then that is some very important information right there. Here are some relevant podcasts on the subject: FDR1222 Preparing for THE Conversation With Your Father. http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1222_Preparing_For_The_Conversation_With_Father.mp3 978 DeFOO Decision (listener convo) http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_978_DeFOO_Decision.mp3

Well, I don't think that's very fair. It's not like if a mom accidentally slips in a dirty word in conversation around her child that Stef will get a "negative tone" with her. I don't mean to put you on the defensive or anything, it's just that the implication here is that Stef demands perfection out of parents, like he's got ridiculously high standards that can never be met. And if I'm not mistaken, the goal of this thread is to have better ways of negotiating and working with your son, because right now (if only on occasion) there are times when things aren't working for either of you. So what if people are critical (or even overly critical) of the way you handled it? Is there something to what they are saying or not? If people are being jerks offering nothing to the conversation, then that's what the downvote button is for. Not to be a jerk or anything, but it's not about your feelings. I'm sorry you felt judged harshly, but that seems (at least to me) entirely beside the point. There is a lot of value to seeing things from the child's perspective, and if it's true that you could have done more of that, then that's important and you really ought to work on that for both you and your child's sake. It may be the case, despite you feeling offended, that there is an appeal to that perspective being made because it's true and important, and not because you are like the most horrible mother in the world or something. Don't let some offense get between improving your relationship with your son.

You didn't by chance watch the debate I linked, did you? Stef actually comments on this and makes a compelling case that in fact it is necessarily self contradictory, and that you don't have to pose any definition of a "god" in order to conclude this. The very fact that you are talking about gods is sufficient enough to dismiss it outright. I know that might seem like quite the statement, but just watch the debate.

*getting sucked in!* "As we currently understand it" has nothing to do with what is true. If we are mistaken and there is better information out there then the proposition was untrue. Something doesn't suddenly become true or untrue simply because people do or don't accept it. For something to be true, it has to actually be true, regardless of what people think about it. What is true is what accurately describes reality and what is logically consistent. Something that is a contradiction (for example) cannot exist by definition or be true because it simultaneously asserts X and not X at the same time and in the same respect. The proposition itself is saying that it is untrue, not some outside observer commenting on that proposition. If it ends up existing or being true, then it's not actually a contradiction and some error in logic was made. There may be some respect in which we say that a given proposition is true, like through metaphor or whatever else that may not technically be the case (e.x. "my buddy and I are two peas in a pod"), but truth describes everything according to the same standards of logical consistency. If you have a standard of truth that says that logically inconsistent things are true, then you are just simply wrong. The proposition "my god exists because of X" in order to be true must be logically consistent. There is no way around that.

I'm sorry about your father. Being cruel and then making it worse by not saying anything. I imagine that if you were to bring it up later, he would just be more cruel. That's a terrible combination of overt and passive aggression. I had not considered what you said, but it makes a lot of sense. What I was thinking was that therapy should be about the client and only about the therapist when it's going to be helpful to the client. And it seems pretty obvious to me that if you are talking about the culpability that parents have, and she thinks that you are wrong, then she would (I would think) believe that it's an emotional issue, and I can't imagine how telling someone they are wrong like that would help them, especially with such a weak defense like "parents do the best they can". It would seem to me to miss the point. It's not about her opinions, but about you and the work you are doing. I can see though how I personally would prefer to know the principles / positions my therapist is operating out of. I was thinking about what kinds of disagreements I would tolerate, and I'm okay with a statist or even a theist therapist, but someone who doesn't believe that parents are culpable is a deal breaker the more I think about it and consider what you said. Are you motivated enough to interview more therapists? That might be a good interview question.

Don't know and don't care about what?

I'm really sorry. I appreciate you saying that it's overwhelming too, because that somehow didn't figure into my thinking about it. But it makes total sense that it would be overwhelming. I would feel super anxious to do some of the things I mentioned in that previous post if it were me, and it somehow didn't register that way. I hope it didn't come off like I thought those things were a cake walk and that you need to do those things. You definitely don't owe her anything, and you are not going to hear any complaint out of me if you decide not to continue therapy with her. I would just hope that it didn't ruin therapy for you and that you felt motivated to find a therapist you can really really trust. If part of the overwhelm is that you feel it's an impossible situation, stuck between speaking truth, but not being heard or potentially projecting and thus being dismissed or rejected, then that is really a terrible situation to be in. If either one is true, then that's a problem. It would make therapy extremely difficult if not impossible, I would think. With a therapist you truly trust, I think it would be beneficial to be okay with occasionally projecting and feeling safe enough to project that you can be curious about it and why it happened. The therapist is responsible for any contamination and it seems clear that was the case in your previous session. Even if she believes that parents do the best they can, she still shouldn't have said that (speaking as a complete amateur). I lack some context, but I read the email and I think I can see how I would be annoyed by it, particularly the part where she says that you were right according to some process (that I know nothing about). I think it's more accurate to just say that you were right because you reasoned it out and made the case and it was compelling. It seems strange to me why that bit would be included. And I don't know that I would be as confident as she is that contamination won't occur again. That sort of thing just happens (very rarely hopefully). I was, however, a tad relieved when she said that it doesn't matter why parents don't seek out help, they are nevertheless responsible for not doing that (assuming I interpreted that correctly, Cherapple interpreted differently than I did). And also I am a big fan of therapists having supervisors or doing their own analysis with another therapist. I also liked that she apologized, unless they turn out to be just words. I think it may be worthwhile to do another session if you feel you can achieve a certain amount of certainty from doing so. I'm not entirely sure how to achieve that, but if you were sharing your overwhelm with her about this and she was very empathetic and didn't minimize or do the other things you took issue with, and if that established more trust in the relationship, then I would do another session after that myself, if it were me. Sorry again about the overwhelm. That is really tough, especially if you feel you have to weather it alone. Hopefully my thoughts are of some help. Take care

1) I wrote quite a bit more than "it doesn't matter". (i.e. because the practical result is the same: gods do not exist). And to add to what I already said, it doesn't matter because we're talking about what the meaning of the quote was, which is around why people use different standards for proof for gods than they do goblins. Whether or not gods are a square circle or they are goblins doesn't have anything to do with that because agnostics (typically) do reject the existence of goblins, ghosts etc. 2) I didn't say that it's true why people use different standards for gods than they do goblins because Stef said it. I said that I agreed with Stef. It was not an argument, nor an appeal to authority. And even if it were, I'm not against the appeal to authority. I think it's often a very effective and reasonable argument to make. It's not a fallacy in the same way that something like the fallacy of composition is a fallacy, it's just not proof. 3) What standard of proof have I given? I was calling into question the standard of proof that says that in order to say gods don't exist, you have to overturn every rock in the universe simultaneously (or whatever similar standard). That's what the agnosticism described in the book is all about and the basis of this standard is that there isn't any. Does that help?

I think I understand what you are saying, but then how can you call yourself an agnostic? Agnostic about what? What did you think about Stef's arguments around the fact that you have to accept a few necessary things in order to even talk about gods? Like we're not talking about bunnies or tomatoes or anything like that. P.S. I love your avatar.

I honestly don't understand what you are asking me. If the question is why do people treat it differently, then I think that Stef answers it in the quote in the OP: What I'm saying doesn't matter is whether or not gods are square circles or goblins. We can reject the god proposition far sooner than the point at which we establish that gods are square circles. By making that the standard of proof, we are doing what the kinds of agnostics in the book do by having irrational standards.

No, you said that I invalidated my own point by comparing the two, and I'm telling that that they are comparable in exactly the respect that you don't have to look under every rock in the universe to conclude for certain that there is no santa claus and that there are no square circles. I'm not wrong about that. It may be conceivably possible that there is a santa claus somewhere (maybe), but he just simply does not exist. Gods are impossible in the sense that a square circle is impossible, but even if they weren't, they still don't exist and I'm certain of it. I would encourage you not to make this distinction, especially when it comes to gods. All it's going to do is have people say "well all knowing and all powerful can be justified by considering X" and suddenly because (ostensibly) it's not a logical contradiction, therefor their god exists! This distinction is not important when it comes to gods, and I don't believe it's ever going to be productive to entertain that. I specifically worded my post with this in consideration.

Those are the same kinds of examples given in the book. One is even in the quoted text. Gods are logical impossibilities also, but that wasn't my point. My only point was that we need to have rational standards for proof. And we don't have to turn over every rock in the universe to say that santa doesn't exist either. I think you may have missed the point.

I'm not an economist by any stretch, but, as I understand it, a currency that is subject to inflation in the way that federal reserve notes are is totally fine and even beneficial in some respects. The problem with federal reserve notes is that they are forced upon us with the threat of violence, and being that they can be inflated and people aren't going to leave it because of that means that they can distort the money supply all they want. And being that so few people understand how fractional reserve banking works, they can pretend that it's the shop owner who is screwing the poor. The same thing is true to the corporate status. It's not that companies are corporations that shield themselves from legal accountability that is the problem, it's that we have corporate welfare. The products themselves aren't bad, it's the incentives in place when there is a monopoly on violence in the center of society. Nobody is going to try and preserve the value of the dollar who works for the federal reserve or wants to buy votes or is first in line for the issuing of these new notes. Theoretically there are short term advantages to quantitative easing much like the Keynesians say, but the reality in a violent monopoly is very different. Which is why Keynesian economists are so keen on avoiding the moral problem.

Okay, then just move the goalpost to something that you do reject the possibility of: ghosts? Square circles? Married bachelors? The point is not the particular thing you are rejecting, but that we don't apply these same crazy standards for proof that we do for gods for anything else. We don't say that you can't say that Santa isn't real because on another planet they may have figured out the whole flying reindeer thing. We don't say that the tooth fairy could be real, and that it's actually an act of arrogance to say that the tooth fairy is for sure not real. There is no real reason why gods should be held to these silly standards that say that we need to look under every single rock in the universe simultaneously in order to positively conclude that no gods exist. This standard for proof makes no sense. There are lots of other reasons that the existence of gods creates serious (insurmountable) logical problems. But that one point is, I think, the most effective. Because if you say that Santa may be real (for the sake of consistency) then you kinda look pretty silly and we kinda get that it doesn't really matter what story you come up with, there is no Santa Claus. This debate with Stef is pretty interesting, I think:

Hi Dire! Welcome to the boards So I think I might have a few things to say that may be helpful. The first thing is that there are, of course, more than one reason why people buy these services, but it would seem to me that one of the reasons is that they would simply want to buy sex. And to that end, a free society would almost certainly have brothels with adult, consenting women (and men) to provide such services. That would be a pretty immediate step in the right direction. There are other factors that I think are worthy of consideration as well simply from an economic standpoint. In a free society without minimum wage laws, immigration laws or work permits, these people who would otherwise find themselves in the position of being in such desperate situations that they may be kidnapped or coerced somehow into being sex slaves, would have an opportunity to work and take care of themselves, possibly buy some insurance against kidnappers even. Having a free society means incredible economic growth and capital accumulation which benefits everyone who trades directly or indirectly with the people of this future free society. It's my understanding that typically it's not the valley girl who gets kidnapped and forced into such an evil situation. It's usually people who are from third world countries or other similarly desperate situations. And an increasingly wealthy world means that less people are in these kinds of horrible situations. Stef makes a good case that in order for there to be a truly free society, we need to focus on the healthy raising of children, and being that no one who was mentally healthy would buy the services of a sex slave (much less do the enslaving), it would seem to me that evil in general, statism, sex slavery and whatever else, would be much less of a problem. These are more preventative measures and they don't really answer who will break up these sex slavery rings. And I think it's important to realize that government isn't solving the problem currently. From what I hear, there are still sex slaves in the U.S.! I don't know how this could be solved after the fact except maybe through investigative journalism, that exposes these groups thus making it harder to get away with things, find it impossible to trade with anyone from the free society and other similar penalties. I personally would provide resources to a group who used force to stop slavery of any kind. It would constitute a kind of self defense and could be justified morally. Does that help?

It doesn't matter that not everyone subscribes to UPB in the same way it doesn't matter that not everyone subscribes to the scientific method. What matters is what is true, not what people believe is true.

Opinion isn't necessarily without objective basis, and to be clear, the therapist is making a truth claim. It's not her preference that parents do the best they can, but that it's actually something true that describes people's actual parents. I'm curious how you know this, but regardless, if that's the case, then it didn't work. And that's the responsibility of the therapist, not of the client to change their mind about it. I would argue that lying to people is the absolute worst way you can help them, but maybe I've misunderstood you. You don't know the OP's parents, nor do you know the therapist. When you make claims like this, it actually means something. It's not however you are using the word "opinion" to mean. Obviously, the OP doesn't need to be told that her parents are peachy keen.

In my experience this is what the child feels: irritated, worn out, stressed. And children provoke those feelings in their parents as a way of communicating their irritation. Children don't usually act out around me, but what I find is helpful is to try and get eye contact, ask what they are feeling and let them know that I understand how they feel (assuming I do understand it). Out of that is usually a more productive negotiation or discussion. From what I hear, this is slightly easier for men. I don't know why.

I really disliked the movie actually. Maybe I'm just not as smart as I think I am or something, but the questions didn't seem interesting or important and the conclusions they drew seemed,... psychotic. It left me feeling irritated rather than enlightened. I don't remember what the actual content was that well, just what my experience of it was. That was a few years ago, and it's possible I'd have a different experience of it now. It just reminds me of those people who ask "what if this is all a dream and you aren't actually real?" which (for whatever reason) I find supremely irritating. Did they say what specifically they found enlightening or interesting? Why do you think these people like it so much?

I'm concerned that you might not have enough concern for the concern trolls...

Hi Chris! Welcome to the boards! How did you get interested in these ideas?

How is that not just another way of saying that we are superior? I also don't think it's fair to describe my post as "pretentious" or expressing some "glib superiority". I have nothing against animals, and don't want them to get hurt, but I do care a lot more about my fellow human beings than I do say an ant, or even a dog. I don't think this is some baseless bias on my part, or some form of anti non-human animal bigotry either. Here's the definition of "superior" that google provides: And by your own admission humans are this in the ways that I described. The kinds of things that elicit my admiration, respect and love. I don't know why my post made you feel icky, but I will confess some irritation on my side.

Hey thanks for the update! That takes real guts and I think that (from what I've read here) your analysis is a good one. This may be entirely my own issue and nothing to do with you, but I noticed that I had a false dilemma in my head when approaching these issues. On one hand I had certainty about immoral things that had been done to me or kids in general, and on the other hand there were things I was less sure about and felt defensive about when I heard contradicting perspectives. I thought that if I was defensive, then that must mean that my interpretation was incorrect and my feelings baseless. So either I was certain, or I was wrong. For a long time, I would not take some necessary risks and say things that were directly contradicting some things that my therapist said for fear of being dismissed outright or thought of as having "silly" ideas. It turned out that the fear was not actually out of an accurate reading of her and my relationship, but was actually more to do with either my own thoughts I had about myself or ways that I was treated when I was young. There are times that this still happens, albeit less and less. And sometimes she was wrong or lacked an appropriate amount of consideration and that kind of thing, and it's very interesting to go through that and establish an even greater amount of trust in the relationship. And I will learn something about myself when she messes up (which is not often). I'm worried about that for you too. And I think the implications you mentioned are quite accurate. How would you feel about talking about your hesitations about continuing therapy with her? I'm not entirely convinced that you have to stop seeing her, but definitely there is a risk there like you mentioned about excuses being made for your parents, at least, that would sort of make sense for the reasons you described. Is it possible you think to build the kind of trust that you wont feel hesitant to bring up your disagreements, or ideas you think she'll disagree with, with her? (Despite the fact that you definitely disagree about something very important). Do you have a sense of certainty that you aren't going to find continuing therapy with her worth the money you pay her? I got the sense (rightly or wrongly) that you don't, and that part of you that does want to continue, may have something. Or, at least, exploring what those reasons are may yield some insight into the relationship you have with her and with yourself. Along those lines, I'm curious whether or not the kinds of excuses, reasoning that she provided are familiar to you. Like, are these the sorts of things your parents or siblings might say? Those are just some thoughts and questions that come to mind reading your latest post. You know your relationship with her much better than I do, and this may be lightly flavored with projection on my part, so take it with as much salt as you think appropriate.