Drew.

I find that any emotional experience is far easier to go through if I try to connect with it. Either through journaling, therapy, self-talk, or some other kind of act (creative writing helps me too).

Yeah, I hear that. Well, it could be a bit more indirect. Like, they build a reputation of being fair, which offers them greater contracts or a steeper fee for contracts. Or perhaps, there will be a bonus offered for a peaceful solution. Perhaps someone sees the tact and delicacy the party engages in and tells them about a secret treasure that is too dangerous for that NPC to chase after. Oh, and you can start out small. Like, if the PCs are starting out at level one, give them perhaps a couple of coppers or silver pieces extra, perhaps some tools, rations, a natural herb/berry/whatever that acts as a cure light, bulls strength, etc. Or have the reward come later. Like, the party receives a letter from the town mayor after peacefully resolving a conflict between the villagers and goblin tribe, where the two societies are trading and there is more wealth in the region. The letter would be about wanting to share that wealth with the party, because without them, it would never have been possible. Then, insert appropriate reward.

Personally, as a player, I have always preferred gold rewards over experience. Better to be a decked-out low-level than a broke superhero. But, I've played 3.5 where that really, really matters. So, the non-aggression principle is about using proportionate force. In general, it would be that you use enough force to get the orcs to stop. It definitely would not suit to pay the orc village in kind, because rape is not something that could really ever be justified as proportionate force, I think. Additionally, while you retaliate, some peaceful orcs might defend their village, and so some individuals who could have been peaceful might get killed because they view the party as the aggressors. THat is what you have pointed out, use enough force to stop it. That might involve killing some orcs. I think that you could use elements of UPB and the NAP to form a common law justice system. I think that just about every legal system has prohibitions on rape, murder, theft, and assault, it is just that there are inappropriate prohibitions or exceptions. Like, it's not theft if it is a tax collector. It is not murder if it's an elf. My experience with individualists is that it is like herding cats. Someone who is an individualist might be less inclined to join a group or collective. So, something organized with a lot of power and influence does not really seem like a fitting option. I think the way to go is to give the party options to engage in more preferable behavior. Always try to figure out a few ways that a problem can be solved, and be open to the party coming up with their own. It might be, for example, that to solve it perfectly-wrapped-up-neat-in-a-bow that the option is no longer on the table because of the party's prior actions/inactions, but it would be nice if it was there. I know that also a player, the quest for gold has always been a prime factor in killing everything in sight. A kobold has a magical banner? Well, if we don't kill them, then we're losing out on wealth. Much needed wealth.

As a player who has tried to follow the NAP in game at times, it is really, really difficult. So, the non-aggression principle and rights would not just apply to human beings, but it all races, species, etc that would qualify. So, going into the cave where the minotaur is "homesteading" would be trespassing and potentially followed by murder. The conflict between the goblins and the villagers? Who started it? Is it that the humans are trying to seize goblin lands and resources, or is it that the goblins started it?

I would love to see where you got this data from. I agree, all parents make mistakes. All parents harm their children. Better parents correct their mistakes, make less of them in general, and give their children the tools to fix themselves.

I have had a similar experience. No matter how hard I tried to be virtuous, I was never really happy. It wasn't until I started trying to love myself, dig into my self work, and dive in deep that I started to become really happy. Virtue flowed naturally from there, because it was a gift that I wanted to give myself.

I read that you were looking for articles about the Romanian orphanages. I had a hard time finding information about these children, and I was under the impression that you did too. I did only merely skim the articles themselves, and it seems like I was mistaken, and that this information is even more difficult to find. But, I thought that the authors and linked sources might have written other works on the orphanages or were cited by other people who might have more what you are looking for, that they might be good leads. I know it was not quite what you were looking for, but still, I thought that it might help your search.

It would not be "okay" but I don't think it would violate the non-aggression principle. I could be totally wrong about that, though. I'm definitely not an expert on applying it to analyze every minutiae of a situation. The more specific the example, the harder it can be to apply a principle. Like, in the physics of flight, we know about mass, gravity, drag, etc. but clearly labeling everything since velocity and acceleration are in constant flux is an arduous task. At this point, I don't have a lot of interest exploring further about what would be a violation of the NAP and what would not in terms of lying and its effects.

I hear that. I think that a healthy relationship will probably look different based on the two individuals involved. That a healthy relationship between Ted and Sara will be different than a relationship between Ted and Jane or Sara and Chaz. For me too, I know that I don't have any examples of healthy relationships with people that I regularly interact with or see. I do think that there are degrees of health in each relationship though, and that stitching together a quilt of healthy aspects might cover it.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/06/neglect.aspx http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674724709 These should get you started, for this topic. The APA sight has citations for further articles, which if you can get access to, will have further citations or be cited by other studies which might cover the topic.

I think that would be like lying about a rape. The person will be arrested, which would be kidnapping if they are innocent, which would violate the NAP. Other slander/libel "This guy is a bad teacher/She makes an inferior product/This dog is the worst lawyer ever..." I'm not sure how the NAP would apply. I feel like there should be some kind of recourse/self-protection there. I do know that if it has been agreed to, such as in a contract, then enforcing the contract would not violate the NAP, provided that it was signed with informed consent.

That is what I was saying about the aesthetics. It is not evil/immoral to lie, but it is shitty/ugly/mean/unworthy etc. Aesthetics are values that are universally preferable, but you cannot use violence to induce good behavior. You can use violence to prevent rape, but you cannot punch someone if they lie to you. With the mention of libel and slander, there are different types of lies, for sure. With those, I am definitely open to hearing the arguments, because those are absolutely harmful lies. Personally, I try to allow some fibbing in my relationships. If someone lies to me to protect their boundaries, I might be upset about being lied to, but I can understand that they want to protect themselves. In the grand scheme of things, lying about "doing nothing" versus "I ate four sleeves of oreo cookies last night" does not significantly negatively impact me.

I said that lying to adults is not abusing them, as in, it is not the same thing and does not have the same effect as it does with children. Lying to adults can be harmful, for sure. I could have explained that better and be more aware of the language that I was using. That, abuse creates trauma creates dysfunction. That does not typically happen with adults.

If he is not initiating force against another person, then it is not immoral. Those governments are the ones initiating force. You could argue that taxes are a bribe to keep the government from seizing your property and throwing you in jail. Tell your friend to smile, be polite, and be white! That worked for me in Asia.

The second one is clearly, "It's raining men" and an homage to a musical masterpiece. Edit: Just noticed a few of those are form Salvador Dali. He made paintings that he saw when he was in a hypnogogic state

Lying to an adult isn't abusing him or her. Adults are not sensitive or dependent on you (or the dissembler) for love, connection, and all that other things. Their world view is more developed, and have the means and faculties to challenge the lie. It would be aesthetically unpreferable, in general. Lies to protect personal boundaries are okay, I think, especially when that person would try to violate your boundaries if you tell the truth. Boundary violation would be aesthetically negative as well. Some people do not deserve or haven't earned our trust, and to share too much too quickly by being extremely honest is to violate our own personal boundaries. Second, I think that lies as jokes are okay as well. For example, when I play a table-top roleplaying game, I might take a hit of a small amount of damage and then pretend that it has knocked me unconscious. Or when a game wraps up in an organized play setting and a friend asks how it went, I told him that the entire party got killed.

I really strongly disagree with Stef's definition of love. In my experience and perspective, I see that love in the prerequisite to virtue. Let's take children for example. Child need and deserve unconditional love, so for a parent to base his or her love for the child on whether the child is acting appropriately... that is entirely conditional love. Not only that, but we still have this need when we're adults, it's just our job to love ourselves unconditionally. I have seen people try to love themselves based on how virtuous they are, but that's conditional love and fundamentally doesn't sate the need. What I have seen is that the more people love themselves, the more inspired they are to act with virtue. I think that conditional love is appropriate for adult relationships. I would say that this appreciation that you feel for your girlfriend is an expression of love. It might not be very strong, but like, admire, appreciation, etc. are all flavors and intensities of love. I think the head-over-heels stuff is entirely inappropriate and based on fantasies and unmet psychological needs, and is completely counter to a healthy adult relationship.

I had an experience the other day that was similar in nature, but not severity, to what you described. I was angry at the surface, but I was also experiencing hurt, sorrow, and fear underneath that anger. I knew that with my anger, I had to really try to explore and understand it. So, I journaled as much as I could to connect with my emotions. I leaned into the anger. I listened to what my anger was trying to tell me. That what this person had done was wrong, and also that I felt hurt. I knew that due to the intensity of my anger given the small sleight, something was amplifying my emotions. I tried to think back to when something similar happened to me as a child, because I think that I still carried that historical hurt. So, I explored that historical memory and resolved it, and the level of hurt and anger that I was experiencing dissolved. I could see things more objectively, and while I was still hurt and angry, it was much less so, a more manageable, appropriate, accurate, and fitting level. Now, I'm kind of glad that I had the experience, because I am less vulnerable to attack and I was able to provide for more of my psychological needs. I second what Shirgall said, and imaging the person as putting on a performance is not imagery that I have ever heard of before, but I quite like. I would say probably about 100% of the time (I really wanna say 99% to hedge) that when someone does this, it's never personal. It's always about them. In a way, it would be nice if it was personal, because that means that they care about us, although in a negative direction. I also agree that this senior is probably dumping their excess, uncomfortable emotions onto you, further adding to the fact that it is not personal. It's not fair, and you don't deserve it, but understanding what the other person is doing does help.

Yeah, this might be more suited for peaceful parenting, but eh, whatever. Teens do go through an individuation process. They distance themselves from their primary family members, make greater associations with peers and people near to their age, they experiment, and they show a greater desire to be independent and not be aided by the parents. So, no matter how good or bad of a parent you are, you can expect this. That these baby birds are going to start trying to fly out of the nest and hunt worms for themselves. This experimentation might involve drugs, alcohol, etc. even with good parenting. There are no teens that I know of that I would consider to have really good parenting, so a lot of this is speculation and also based on developmental theories. Rebellion in my mind has to do with acting out and being angry. There is resentment in rebellion. That, fuck you, you don't know what you're talking about. I think rebellion occurs as the teens come to realize how they have been mistreated and taken advantage of by parenting engaging in poor parenting practices. I think that good parenting can help mitigate rebellion, by allowing the child to be angry at the parents, validating the emotion, and earnestly listening to what the child has to share. Individuation cannot be avoided, and is a great and wonderful thing. It is the transition into full person- and adulthood.

I'm not sure of any resources to offer, but I have found somethings to be particularly effective or helpful. But, first, we cannot change anyone. They change themselves, and the best we can do is offer guidance, structure, and support. So, the first thing I do is try to seek common ground. It's important that the argument does not get polarized like a political debate between republicans and democrats. The way that I like to look at it is that you want to less get into an argument/debate and have more of a discussion of ideas. You want to be trying to head toward the same goal, not trying to beat the other person's arguments or position. Another thing that I try to be aware of to stave off and circumvent is conclusions/labels that are applied to people. I try never to say something like, "You're a bad parent," and I actively try to predict and deal with those potential inferences, where I might say, "It's bad parenting. You're not a bad parent, but it's not good for the children." Something that I have found helpful is to say something along the lines of, "we all could be better (at) x." Even really awesome, peaceful parents could still be better parents. There is always room for improvement, and don't the children deserve that? Most parents do want what is best for their children, but they have bad conclusions about how to obtain it. Don't press the other too hard on a conclusion. They will either fight back or submit for the sake of getting past it, and no lasting change will occur. Finally, be aware of the emotional climate of the conversation. If emotions and tensions are escalating, the conversation is too stressful to learn anything.

Yeah, for sure. I know that I played that role with my mother, too.

Right. But, you don't have to have a memory of something for it to impact you. A traumatizing event alters the brain structure. Whether you remember it or not, the body does. If you're looking for a therapist, I offer my services. I'm affordable. I do try to help people improve their lives, and I do take great joy in resolving issues, so that might conflict with the "fixing" part. But, I do not see the individual as pathological. A dysfunctional person is primarily dysfunctional because they were forced to be someone besides themselves, that they were forced to grow up sooner than they should have.

Who says that you don't have memories? Memories of that age are likely going to be flashes of images, incomprehensible and likely written off as just imagination. I know for me personally, my twin sister died next to me during the night when we were both three months old, and historically, I have always had problems falling asleep at night.

I would say that the events that happened preverbal, prememory are even more influential because from birth to toddlerhood is a huge developmental process for children.

I don't think that's really all that appropriate to really dive any further in a forum setting. I think that really challenging this stuff is more appropriate for therapy. A lot of people on the FDR forums do the friends-as-therapists model, and I do not quite agree with that either. We are friends with people that we are equals with. If we are broken, then our friends are going to be broken. Two broken people are going to be working on the psyche of another, which is a recipe for disaster. Alternatively, one person is not equal to the other, which means that there is an imbalance of the relationship, that there is no reciprocity. It's not a friendship. Whether you want to work with me or not, I'll offer you this. You have a lot of conclusions that are leading to this final conclusion, despair/hopelessness/whatever you want to call it. If those conclusions are accurate, then it would make sense that this final conclusion will follow. But, whether these conclusions are valid, that is another question. We, as human beings, are never really stuck (excepting terminal illness and death). We just think that we are stuck because we either cannot see or will not pursue other options. If your current strategies and beliefs aren't working, aren't leading to happiness, challenge them. Happiness is our natural state. You said that women don't date down, they only date up. That's not true. Plenty of women settle. Of course, I'm sure that you don't want to be the man a woman has to "settle" for. Men don't want to commit down, either. Of course, this all has to do with perceived value. A better man might commit to a lesser woman because he does not recognize his value, so he grabs onto someone available and clings onto it for dear life. There are a lot of factors that go into the sexual market value, or whatever ever criteria that you wish to use, that we can use to compare others. You said that your looks aren't great. Would they improve if you groomed yourself better, wore better clothes, and began working out? Absolutely. You can increase your value. Personally, I don't want a woman who is better than or less than me, I want one who is approximately my equal. If that doesn't come, I am perfectly happy being on my own (baring some more inner work that I have to do). Another thing that you can do to increase your value is to get therapy. You said that you've been working on this on your own and this is what you have. We all need help from time to time to go further. Personally, I think therapy is the thing that makes a human being more valuable because it strips them of their scar tissue so that they can be more of who they were supposed to be and not who they became due to trauma. Additionally, a woman is plenty willing to go to some shithole apartment to bang a guy on a mattress on the floor with no cover if she's into him enough. That guy might have looks, but he doesn't have money, and the woman chooses him anyway. Assertiveness and sexuality is attractive to women. Also, if you're comparing yourself to others, you're always going to be falling short. I compare myself to my past self. A dog is always going to fall short of "catness" compared to a cat. As I have said, to really challenge this stuff, I do not think that it is appropriate in a forum. Regardless, I give this freely. I hope that it is a value to you. I you would wish to work further, reach out. I would be glad to work with you.