JKPgamer

All of the poem was brilliant, but I especially loved these 3 lines. I have an uncle that is full blown Venus project/Zeitgeister and his rants against money are much like the guy you were responding to, and that sentence is just gold. Thank you so much for sharing!

My answer to this would be...DROs in a free society would be looking at prevention not cure. Since all the evidence points to abusive childhood as the genesis of these types of incidents I'd assume DROs would be offering incentives for people to take appropriate parenting classes on negotiation and the adverse effects of child abuse. While I know it's really hard to think outside our current system, the best way I can try and explain it is this: By the time there is a free society there will be so many prevention techniques to stop this behavior BEFORE it starts...teachers, neighbors, friends, etc...that will be empathetic enough to look out for a child in a bad situation that it'll never get to that point. In our current society though the law only looks at how to deal with a situation once it has already reached a boiling point...whereas, at least as far as I understand it, in a free society the incentive will be there to catch and stop this early.

My original post was because it seemed Stef was giving a pass to a drunk driver when Stef labeled all drunk drives dangerous and evil. I know the two situations are different but if you look at the quote Stef applies his label to ALL drunk drivers regardless of situation. That's all I was trying to reconcile and as far as I can see there is evidence that Justin Bieber wasn't drunk just driving recklessly. And yes Mike I know the vid was more to the irrational haters of Justin Bieber I just found the drunk driving thing inconsistent which you've now corrected...which is why I asked because I knew I probably didn't have the full picture...thanks again!

Interesting...I didn't know that thank you so much for the info Mike! Then in that case I would agree there is a very big difference since if I remember health class even just a cough drop will make you seem drunk to the breathalyzer. I really appreciate the response I truly was very confused.

Ok, I'm a little confused about what Stef put forward on the Justin Bieber video and what he recently said on a call-in show:So first off I'd like to say, while I don't particularly care for Justin Bieber's music I do know he's filling a market and provides joy and satisfaction to a great many people. I have no problems with him as an entertainer and in fact think he has done an amazing job. I also agree with Stef in the video where he asks "Who wouldn't take that deal?" Yes I'm sure any sane rational person who had the talent would take the same deal. My confusion is when he mentions Justin Bieber's DUI... In one of the most recent call-in shows, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CuS6fJVO3U&list=UUC3L8QaxqEGUiBC252GHy3w (Feminism made me an alcoholic) Stef makes this statement: "The drunk driving thing drives me completely insane. You know my kid is going to be out there driving or biking...and people who drive drunk get me so angry, like I'm not even going to try and be rational in this area. That is so astoundingly dangerous and evil..." If it's so dangerous and evil...why does Justin get a pass in the video as, "under a lot of pressure." Like I'm just trying to universalize this and just because the guy is enormously talented and most likely being used/leeched off of by those around him, why does he get to drive drunk? I personally think drunk driving is terrible and I apply that to anyone famous or not. And the evidence is clear: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/showbiz/justin-bieber-arrest/ He failed the field sobriety test. If someone has some insight or can help me understand it would be greatly appreciated I'm just trying to find out why there is a discrepancy between the two. Or maybe there isn't and I'm missing something.

Well I think he sets up "the people" as being stupid and ignorant. If "the people" are so easily swayed why doesn't reason and evidence convince them? And I know the guy writing believes in a govt that can be virtuous...but he's advocating that people can't make decisions for themselves. If someone wants to take a risk and live somewhere you wouldn't that's their own choice. If people really care about the long-term consequences they will research it themselves. And what cracks me up is the Defense Minister was saying there is no risk...so the govt said, "hey it's fine...live here...there's no imminent earthquake." And the professor's response is, "We clearly need more govt here to solve the problem." Really?

I tried to find the call-in show where Stef briefly discusses narcissism and I can't remember which one it is. First of all my father is almost a textbook case or narcissist so I have some experience in the area. It isn't just about putting themselves first. A narcissist can't understand or comprehend others making a decision that is different from their own. They truly believe that everyone looks at the world the way that they do. I know in the call-in show Stef said something along the lines that, narcissism arises out of absolutely no negotiation on the part of the parents so they never learn that skill and think everyone just thinks and acts for the same reason. They have no empathy for opposing points of view because they weren't shown any they fall into the delusion that there are no other points of view only their own. And remember while narcissists don't put the needs of others before their own, the definition of narcissism requires them to always want the approval of those around them. From wikipedia: "Although most individuals have some narcissistic traits, high levels of narcissism can manifest themselves in a pathological form as narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), whereby the patient overestimates his or her abilities and has an excessive need for admiration and affirmation" And I know from experience there is nothing that aggravates my father more than doing something that could potentially make him look bad to those around him. So while narcissism is the appearance of high self-esteem and complete selfishness, the person is in fact enslaved to how those around him/her perceive him/her.

All in all was very interesting and I thought Stefan did really well especially calling out PJ on his ad hominem attacks...the one thing that I would say really upset me though was in PJ's final statement: "With respect to the final point in human development, we cannot be narrow enough to think that just because that parents are the starting point of development...you cannot stop generations of child abuse...our social nature has such powerful pressures, that go largely ignored unfortunately, that human development has to be given a social context. You have to give people what they need, and in the past we were not able to do that, but we can now. We can meet the needs of every human being on Earth to give that true security that people want and feel. So child development, so people look at their parents and see them struggling for money and develop this instant adaptation that they have to be concerned about money, they have to be fearful. The father that comes home from work that has just gotten fired that is full of aggression that can't help due to his own pressures, lash out as every human being inevitably will..." I could be wrong here, but to me he is blaming the victim here. I mean why did the father get fired? If this is a principle he holds true, than we are morally allowed to abuse our children, who have no choice but to be with their parents, just because we experience some social discomfort? I mean that is a clear advocation, in my mind, that he believes violence done to any adult by the state or this so called "structural violence" is an acceptable reason to be violent towards a child.

I'm not sure where I implied this, but I certainly didn't mean to. I'm well aware approaching an emotional problem rationally is about as useful as running into a wall. This is the reason I exploded like a volcano instead of trying to talk it out. Well this is just my subjective experience from reading your post. Your mother admits there is a problem and she's guilty but instead of trying to make restitution and treat you like an adult all she is doing is saying "yes I fucked up but I'm not going to change so you should learn to forgive." She isn't trying to fix the cause, she's trying to fix your reaction...which is irrational in my opinion. My question to you again is: Why is it important to you that she change? I realize having a moment where you and your mother connect would be a great thing, but she seems to want to avoid the issues in general. I know you don't want philosophizing but I just think trying to analyze your reasons would help you. I don't have any tactics for you I'm sorry if my posts weren't what you were looking for...the only tactic I found with my manipulative father was to "not play the game." I will never have that grand reconciliation moment but why would I want the approval of an abuser?

You are asking for a rational answer from someone who by all empirical evidence is an irrational person. "When dealing with someone who is irrational, contradictory, and inconsistent..."fighting back" with rationality, logic, and consistency won't make someone look at themselves in a rational manner...in fact they will be so scared of rational reality they will deny it all just to hold on to their illusions...so in stealing a phrase from the movie War Games - "The only winning move is not to play."" This is something I wrote after dealing with the irrational in my life. What your mother did to you is terrible and I'm so sorry you had to go through all of that in your life. It is good that you are angry about it. My only suggestion would be to try and understand why you want validation for that anger from her? I've been where you are and my final conclusion with an abusive father is to just not speak with him anymore. I don't think your mother will ever recognize that she did wrong and change her behavior. What I see from her is "I know I did wrong to you but I want to continue to do wrong so forgive me and love me for my immorality towards you instead of trying to find my virtues." One thing you need to discover is SHE is looking for validation from YOU that it was ok to treat you the way she did. That's what she wants when she says "forgiveness." Don't give it to her she doesn't deserve it.

I can see where you are coming from here, but I would say that isn't universal. While I had a terrible upbringing at the hands of my father and I don't even call him on father's day...My mother has been one of the best people in life. I see Mother's Day as a celebration for the woman that was consistent to me all through my childhood, yes she made some mistakes but I can count those mistakes on 1 hand, and she immedietely apologized to me after these incidents. So I learned empathy from her, how to live with consistency, and how to own my actions.(As a clarification...my parents sperated when I was 2, divorced when I was 5 and the court gave my father custody. It's not like my mother just left me in an abusive household on purpose, the state with their guns took me away from her.) I realize my subjective experience can't be universalized either but I don't think it keeps us from growing up. It's still a choice to celebrate it or not, and I don't feel subordinate on Mother's Day. I feel grateful for the lessons that she taught me and the example she lives. If you feel as a subordinate child on those days then choose to not celebrate them. I mean I could give a shit about celebrating Father's Day but that's because I know objectively my father was a terrible father. So why would I honor that?

First of all, my deepest sympathies. I can't even express how much I wish I could just hug you and tell you "None of it was your fault." Truly terrible things done to you and my heart goes out to you. One of the things Stef said most recently that applies to this: Forgiveness has to be earned. "...the involuntary emotions, like love, we can't WILL those. Forgiveness is something evoked in us by someone else's genuine and effective approach towards restitution." In that same interview he talks about anger. Anger is a healthy emotion not something to "get over." Anger towards what was done to you, stops the cycle from repeating so that you won't do the same to others. From my own personal experience I'm still angry at my father for what he did to me, which is no where near what you went through...but that anger has enabled me to sever that relationship and I would suggest the same to you.Again deepest sympathies I hope Stef leads you to freedom like he did me.

If you believe problems arise from having different classes, how can you say that YOU, being the ultimate dictator, can strive for equality when you are above everyone else? This is a contradictory statement. "I'm going to force people to be equal while not being equal to them myself." Not just immoral...They've been proven throught human history to NOT work. I mean we see countless examples that force will achieve the opposite of what your stated goal. The war on drugs has only increased drug usage. Child protective services is supposed to take kids out of abused households...is it working? How would your system work at getting better results? Wholeheartedly yes I would give up that kind of power in a heartbeat...The ends never justify the means...Actions are what is judged not the intent behind it. If we judged based on intent then Hitler was a saint because he was only doing what he thought would achieve his ends. With all that being said I really do understand where you're coming from. I, maybe 7 or 8 years ago thought along the same lines, but since I discovered UPB and have come to understand that there is an objective morality...any form of the initiation of the use of force will be wrong ALWAYS. So yes I can honestly say if someone handed me the reigns of a government I would reject it immediately because I will not tarnish my own morality for the sake of "maybe doing good for a few years" and sacrificing every principle I know know to be true. Because empirically we know it'll come crashing down.

My first thought when I read this article: People still think hierarchical systems are the only way to get morality. Stef has made this argument multiple times that the argument must come from morality to be won. The ruling class perpetuates the axiom that we need a ruling class. So of course a society hasn't emerged without one yet.

I'm going to use Stef's argument or a subset of his argument for this one...They are diagnosing society as healthy and the child's rebellion to the irrational as unhealthy. In that case of course firm discipline makes children conform to society better...the problem isn't the results of this study, it's the standard they are measuring it to, in my opinion.