vze57564

That would explain the universality fail. Perhaps he is wrong in his advice and that he is hiding something else entirely unrelated to whether or not I have empathy. It makes sense the more I think on this, insofar as people will be upset, especially of they are bad and do bad things willingly or even if they don't know and it upsets them because now they have to backtrack and make up for what they did. I should definitely not be empathetic with people that do bad onto others, much less should I value feelings if there are universally preferable principles being abrogated. Maybe I will explore that avenue with him. I have my doubts it is malicious, but who knows.

I never spoke to him specificaly about it but I remember him having trouble with his father most of the time. I am unsure if he was yelled at or hit. We went to elementary school together and I remember having an in and off relationship usually at my instigation. We also participated in bowling league together for a time. As to the childhood with his parents I could not say.I also remember he hated his middle name a lot. His cousins were also quite the characters, one that went wild and another that had anger issues. I remember him being active in the church. He never reported any big problems socially or when he went to school, that was more on my end.If there was any lack of empathy, it would surely be with the way I treated him then, but not for the reasons he stated in the most recent conversation. I wonder if that might be it, actually; the impression I might have left him while we grew up. I think he was establishing bounds I should follow when speaking to others. You are right in identifying he cares more for the feelings of the people I broach this with as compared to whether or not the parents know what is right, which was what puzzled me about his assertion. It would follow that I would make someone less comfortable if I told them they should not spank or yell, but what then comes of the child? As one that had a bad experience growing up, I see the bad effects of how I was raised had on me, and if I can help someone with the information I have learned, then I think I will be of better help. Its a trade off of the short term pain of realizing and correcting the mistakes of ones parenting or preventing them, than a lifetime of sadness that results when children are raised nonpeacefully. I guess he does not see that as empathetic. I will pursue the previous response though if this may be him getting at me for what I did in the past.

I feared that possibility. Guess I should talk with him about that.

Good points. I noted a few universality fails with his argument, however the possibility of him managing his anxiety probably explains what makes me feel uneasy about it all. Even now I continue to have a visceral reaction to it, similar to a great sadness. I did start thread with the possibility that someone could in fact say I am wrong for what I am doing and would have to correct my behavior, should a strong enough case be made to that effect. Lacking critical thinkers in my inner circle, I thought this a forum where I could get clearer perspectives. As to whether he experienced childhood from my end, insofar as what I have told him yes, but he was not technically in the house at all times; hence limiting the experience. To the effect that Stef has provided studies about the deleterious effects of child abuse and neglect, I have agreed and shared with others in hopes of perhaps making the lives of those children better. These can range from new parents, to parents to be, to already existing ones. Sure, people may disagree, and some have. Others were very receptive and others didn't care or dismissed me. I am not forcing anybody to take my views, if anything I might not be communicating them in a way he deems proper or more so that he contends I have no business talking with others about that at all. I did have trouble figuring what he felt were the bounds of what I could and could not talk about in conversation. It appeared to me that he is more valuing the other person's feelings on it as opposed to whether they could be the right or wrong idea. If the other person is made upset, there is a degree of social ostracism I will get as a result of me holding and putting out a controversial view on something like parenting, politics or religion. He expressed this would be bad for me, that I would be pushing away potential allies and friends and so forth. I questioned how this could be if all ideas are to be respected, that would mean so would mine. Also, with the assumption that people get into ideas outside if a rational basis and questioning, what respect could be given to an idea that hasn't been fully thought through? If people are just parroting what is popular or out of tradition, or PC are those ideas similarly deserving of respect?

Right, I had that to say, that I too was a child and there were things I didn't like, as well as the catch and release analogy with the rabid dog that I would create and my responsibility for it, if I took in a puppy and abused it through life. The child eventually goes into the world with whatever dysfunction was put into it. Knowing what is bad and good, I have presented others that information but my concern is whether or not my friend is right whether such actions are unempathetic and an overreach of my business with someone else's life.

Recently, a close friend of mine said I am severely lacking in empathy. When pressed for a definition, he stated this was on the grounds that when I argue opposing viewpoints, I do so as if it is an incontrovertible truth and that it is done without having experienced it from their end. In one example, we cited a conversation I had on parenting, insofar as I had no business telling other people how to raise their child since that is deeply personal to them and could be upsetting; much more so that I have had no experience as a parent. I was also able to get the position from him that I should value of people's feelings about an idea rather than argue it on its merits; that ideas are not quite as easily separated from an individual (their ideas are part of them). I also think he had instructed that I should show respect to other people's ideas, lest I upset them and thus fail at being empathetic. I've pointed to a few holes in the arguments, such that I argue for peaceful parenting and do not force people but merely share with them a case as best I can for not spanking, circumsizing and so forth. I also am of the position it is people and not ideas that are to be respected. Finally, I think he is making a case that I am better done, socially at least, to conform with others rather than to expound an opposing viewpoint. I was unsure how to work this idea out, if I was lacking in empathy or if he had an ulterior motive. I am evaluating things from a universal sense as well and dont think some of his premises are applicable in that sense. I am asking for some perspective on this, if possible. Let me know in the responses.

Could I mitigate the cost if I use alternative power, like solar?

Do you need lots of money to start it up or to maintain it or both?

I felt the same way the first time I called in to FDR some time ago. I think you just need some more familiarity with them. When a person idolizes someone, it is only natural to feel a sense of awe when you finally get to meet them, however, familiarity tends to bring a sense of mundanity to things. If this was your first time meeting them, especially after the experience you had, it's understandable to have these reservations and to want to leave a good impression on them and so forth.

Thanks folks. I will have a look at these resources.

Hey, Can anyone provide some resources where I can do research to start large scale hydroponics plant to grow food crops? I am wondering if I can put this idea together whereas I can provide food to local communities, possibly on a not-for-profit basis through hydroponic gardening.

Nice.

Quoting from before: So Lians, the definition of a circle and 'god' fit into the same category of truth somehow? Since everyone can agree on what a circle is and almost no one on a definition of god, I am not sure what to think, really. and I am not being difficult, I am interested in learning. I think that is the point. There is no definition of "God" because God is not a rational existence. It is null, nothing, zero, nada. It cannot be described, given form or manifested outside of someone's subjective delusions because of this. Science deals with objective reality, there are standards for truth, verifiability, duplicability, and consistency with facts or logical integrity. Things must logically follow or have a provable explanation for why they don't. God does not have that. Neither does Faith or any of the religious precepts promulgated by the respective governing body that oversees the religious body. God and Truth cannot exist; they are antithetical to one another. For one, I can make the assumption that religious people are also atheist, but did not take the last step for the one religion they currently believe in. A Christian has rejected the existence of Zeus, Brahma Odin and the like. The social aspect described in the first quote is the tar that keeps people from making that logical step out of that pit. Rather than face the criticism of others, they continue on in their path, for acceptance of religion being false, means challenging or possibly ultimately leaving all those who are in your circle of friendship who also adhere to those beliefs. This is not something done easily, so people choose to continue on the same path. In time, you will notice as your capacity for critical thinking improves, you will logically come to the conclusion of atheism. It would hold that while you have not yet arrived to this conclusion, you must improve your skill, and in the process, you will arrive to the same destination.

Remember, at the end of the day, it's still a language game. Judge the "entity" by its actions not by the culturally Marxist labels.

Yeah, video is pretty intense. I am not sure I hear the awkward laughter, but I think she is holding back a lot of emotion.

Detroit was a ponzi scheme. I thought it was illustrative of the deal when authorities use their power to extract value from others (bondholders, workers) with promises they can wriggle out of at a later date. As it so happened, they could no longer kick cylindrical objects down the road anymore. Reality hit them square in the face. Personally, I think this is the way it will go for many other cities, states and perhaps countries in this Keynesian farce our leaders see fit to move us in. As we can see in Detroit, either we come to our senses voluntarily or we have it shoved upon us in a bad way.

I haven't yet done so. I will try a few ideas. Perhaps he will reduce if I pay cash or negotiate seeing him a certain amount of times, such as more times per week, as posited. I haven't yet received back any messages from him on other things, so I am not sure yet if he is even listening...

I have some ideas on how to make money if you're interested, however it depends on your skills as well. One thing I have been doing lately requires a smart phone if you're trying to do it in any kind of time. I have scanned books at sales and been able to make some money off of them. It requires some negotiation to make sure you get a good price. The service I use is BookScouter. Once that is scanned onto your phone, you can find out if the book is worth anything. Afterwards, you can send it off to the vendor and they will pay you via Paypal. There are also mobile credit card devices that can be used on smart phones that will allow you to collect payment on the go. If you have a skill or something you can sell, you can open it up to people that don't have cash. If you have a business, that kind of capability should be a boon to your efforts. Paypal offers this service but takes a 2.7% cut. Its from these two ideas that I will get the additional funding for my theraphy, since my insurance does not cover the costs. I also have to get creative on my financing situation. Hope this helps. Cordially, Ian Bellamy

If you live by apartments, wait until the end of the month and ask anyone moving if they have books they are offloading. Ask if you can take them off their hands and resell them on Amazon or Ebay.

That was one of the first videos i saw when I looked into this mess. Truly none of the parents shown there are truly grieving in spite of the fact that they lost kids. The first moments of the video look like the guy is getting into character. The smiles, the deep breaths and when he talks, it sounds like he is reading from a prepared statement he memorized. After the intersecting deals of conflicting testimony, links for crisis actors that specialize in this kind of thing and the general agenda the news has to disinform those who watch at the behest of its paymaster(s), I could at least say the possibility exists that this was a manufactured event with an ulterior motive. To wit, that motive is unknown to me, but it seems they are moving to take guns, but even then, there is the possibility that confiscation is just an opening move for something else entirely. I can never condone violence, much less if it so happens that an event like this was manufactured. It hits me with the same suspicion I feel about 9/11 and generally helps in the case that innocent civilians will be sacrificed to achieve some sort of greater end. If that is in fact the case, then those people truly responsible for this kind of event are perhaps some of the most cunning, ruthless and evil individuals one would have encountered. Nothing on this scale is ever done by accident or haphazardly, and they get it down to the detail. Moreover, I am not sure what would possess someone to do this kind of thing either.