BaylorPRSer

Thank you for the reply. Wouldn't the child have to first possess the verbal skills necessary to communicate her experience for this line of reasoning to be relevant? Matthew M, I was at dinner with my friend's parents (the girl'a grandparents) when this was brought up and I told them I participate in a forum where parenting is an important topic and would look into it. I realize this is all information that should have been in my initial post and for that I take responsibility. At this point, I don't intend to do anything besides share my position regarding what is happening with the girl and what the next logical steps are, once I have it worked out.

Just got some clarification. The girl is doing this when she goes to sleep. She sleeps on the same side every night, so the side of her head that sleeps against the pillow is fine. I think the girl has some fears about going to bed alone while a baby boy is in her parents' room getting breast fed. Dsayers, you may very well be correct, but would you mind unpacking your certainty that the child is responding to the initiation of force?

I grew up with him and have known him my whole life. We ceased being close when i was about 15 when he moved and switched from public to private school. I'm 26 now and he's 27. Our families have remained very close and the two of us have remained friendly, but haven't had a particularly deep friendship aside from family get togethers and grabbing food together once in awhile. I was actually at dinner with my folks and my friend's parents who brought up the hair pulling. Because I've been thinking about the idea of reconciling peaceful parenting with "making" and "forbidding" children to do things, both of which I think are necessary on some level, I thought to mention it here. After these responses, I think the solution would first be looking at what could cause stress and anxiety. They just had a boy, so the presence of another sibling vying for the parents' attention could be contributing to that. Outside of that, I don't know what could be causing it because I don't know the ins and ours of the girl'a life. After legitimately looking at and eliminating potential causes of stress and anxiety, next would be curiosity. I mean asking the girl a few times a week of anything is bothering her. At the age of 2, she probably wouldn't be able to articulate much, but repeatedly showing interest in what's bothering her, would so some good I would think. There's no divorce or traumatic loss. I'm not qualified to answer about breast feeding.

I honestly don't know. She's very affectionate and gives great hugs. She seems to enjoy being around people. I don't know enough to answer that unfortunately.

I have a friend whose 2 year old daughter is pulling her own hair out to the point where she has a bald spot. I've been thinking about when it's permissible to "make" or "forbid" kids to do things a lot recently. Of course, your parents have to aim you at good habits and prepare you for adulthood, so my question is how would you go about breaking her of this habit or guiding her to toward breaking herself of this habit? I grew out of certain habits such as biting nails, but I was at least told it was harmful many times coming up. Is that all that's necessary? Just repeatedly telling the child it's harmful and explaining why he or she shouldn't do it?

They've apologized for many things and accepted that they dropped the ball and let me down. There have been times when I have shared something and they have accepted responsibility. Other times, I'll share and my delivery will trigger a defense. when I start shouting and my face crinkles with anger, it is harder to have a productive talk. There have been a few times when I've shared and they don't get how they did anything wrong, but after some further dialogue, it starts to click. My parents are looking for a therapist now, but they have never done individual therapy. I think the reason is that most people don't consider therapy. My roommate committed suicide and I didn't pursue therapy for another 4 or 5 years. It's just not something most people consider. It's very murky because many things I bring up are met with my parents taking responsibility. Others, they have a hard time with, but I think that's partially because they don't have the understanding of the human psyche that I have. They don't understand that rage isn't something you can just get rid of. However, with the right therapist, I think they are capable of understanding.

Thanks for the advice JD. How could I get the protector to trust my internalized parents? At the moment, it seems like he just wants mom and Dad out of my head and it's hard for me to blame him.

My family and I are looking into getting a therapist. I understand the defoo to be something to protect oneself from further abuse. My parents and I are at a point where I no longer expect abuse from them. There are still moments when they avoid responsibility, particularly my mom, but they have both come a long way and have accepted responsibility for a lot. They are very willing to work through our remaining issues with a therapist. I am constantly blaming my parents in my head for all of my problems. I am worried my healing is about them rather than about me. I have a lot of unexpressed thoughts I'd like to work through with them. However, another part of me is worried I've been wounded to a point where my rage will resent me forever if I pursue healing with them. There's another part of me that wants to defoo to hurt them for hurting me. Another part of me says I shouldn't make a decision for the purpose of hurting someone. Am I creating a false dichotomy? I've tried significantly curtailing my interaction with them and it hasn't worked. When I say worked, I mean freed up any of the mental bandwidth my parents were occupying. Does that make the choice to either cease contact with them or pursue healing? Is it a false hope to think healing with a family therapist can provide closure? As of now, I believe that on my deathbed I will want to know I did what I could and chose not to reject an opportunity to pursue healing with my parents, but I'm interested any feedback I can get. I'm willing to share more about my background for clarification. Thanks everyone

@dsayers: No I am not. There are too many possible reasons for why I am not to get into it now. It's a complicated area for me. However, I haven't found anything that conclusively demonstrates abstaining from ejaculation has any detrimental effects.

I'm 2 months into a no porn or masturbation streak. It's been a very challenging yet rewarding experience so far. However, to the people arguing it's a moral issue: have you not read anything this on this site? Seriously. The morality that Christians and other religions have attached to these issues has harmed enough people as it is. Please have another look at UPB.

In my view, the solution is to "experiment with" being yourself. I think Stef is definitely an advocate of being yourself, but he has also cautioned against spewing all of your baggage on new people in one fell swoop. I have an example that will hopefully illustrate my point: One time I was drunk and stoned, and told a friend who I'd known for probably 3 weeks that back in college my roommate hung himself. In almost the same breath, I then told him that fall I had a serious girlfriend who eventually threatened to kill herself. He didn't really know what to do with that information. He also gave me no indicators that he was particularly into self=knowledge. However, a few nights ago, I was eating at a kebab place and two fairly attractive girls sat at the table next to me. I am in Vietnam currently, so the go to conversation starter with anyone who isn't Asian is "where are you travelling from?" They were from Holland, and we made some basic small talk. They were on vacation whereas I am an expat, so one of them asked "why Vietnam?" I said that the free time had a lot to do with it, and that I had some unhealed stuff from past friendships and relationships. She then finished my sentence and said, "so you could think about it?" I nodded. She immediately asked, "how old are you?" I loved that she asked this question at that moment. Part of the reason I made the decision to go was because it's better to heal SOONER as OPPOSED to later. The fact that she asked that question when she did means that on some level, she understood my reasoning. I didn't have my phone on me and didn't bother getting their numbers, but I told the about a coffee shop where I and other expats/vacationers hang out and said "maybe I'll see you there". Her smile was cheek to cheek. Despite the fact I didn't make much use of it, there is no doubt that they enjoyed the interaction. Especially the one who did most of the talking. I was being very vulnerable by saying that I was in Vietnam to pursue healing; however, the degree to which I presented the whole picture was significantly less than when I told my friend that my roommate hung himself on my ceiling fan and then dated a chick that threatened to kill herself. I also had no context, when I told him that. It was only through experimentation that I discovered how to make "being myself" work for me. I'm still experimenting. Up until that interaction with those girls when people asked me "why Vietnam?" I never mentioned that I was pursuing healing. When the context is there, be honest, but feel free to spare some of the gory details when you're in the beginning stages of getting to know people. Hope this helps and let me know if it doesn't make sense.

"responsible" is used here not in the way that we say that the drought was responsible for the lower yield of crops this year. That's fine, but notice by doing this, Stefan smuggles the morality into the conversation." How is it different? The drought is a cause in that scenario, and in a human action scenario such as murder, the mind operating the body is the cause. Also, could you unpack the "smuggles morality into the conversation" a bit more? I don't understand what you're saying.

I like the way Stephan Kinsella frames this. He prefers the words violence, aggression, and self-defense/defense. Violence is the category and aggression and self-defense are different types of violence. The NAP says aggression, not violence or self-defense is immoral. Aggression is violence against a nonconsenting and peaceful person. A person initiating force (committing an act of aggression) is not being peaceful, so using force or committing an act of violence against him or her is not an act of aggression.

I would like to Skype with you as soon as possible. I'm in Vietnam, so working out a time that works for both of us will be tricky; however, I Skype with a therapist with a 14 hour difference from me, so we should be able to work it out. In the meantime, be proud of the awareness and bravery you demonstrated by reaching out in this forum. Cheers, Chris

Thanks for this Tyne. I'd advise some shopping around with your husband for a therapist and weighing the pros and cons of the different modalities. Many therapists incorporate and are influenced by several. I've had two therapists. One was more influenced by cbt, the other by Internal Family Systems (IFS). I see value in cbt, but one thing you run into in that modality is shoving bad habits and thought patterns out of your mind, which is of course, impossible, and not discovering the positive intent that particular aspect of your subconscious has for encouraging you to behave/think in a certain way. IFS is big on the idea that we are an ecosystem of personalities, and they respond to empathy and acceptance. It does not endorse sinking into your bad habits, but it ensures that you discover the positive intent, allowing the sub personality to feel seen and loved and thus, more willing to cooperate. I've had much more success with the ifs approach. Also, I Went to one therapist in person and now Skype with one, and I much prefer skyping with a better therapist as opposed to seeing one in person. There are couples therapists who work with IFS. I'd encourage both you and your husband to pursue therapy individually and together. It will transform you. Let me know if you need help finding a philosophical therapist. Thanks again for reaching out.

Yes, you understood me correctly. Where has it been established that PUA or anyone in this thread is advocating dishonest means? As we all know, disagreements in philosophy stem from imprecise definitions. PUA seems to reflect a wide range of attitudes and approaches to dating, some of which may be dishonest, some of which are not. It isn't precise to say PUA is dishonest unless PUA's NECESSARILY use dishonest means. Also, in a different thread that touched on PUA, there were a lot of participants who lacked the ability to differentiate between philosophy and joking around. If I set up some goofy role play for a girl such as "hey I got a sleigh pulled by unicorns ready to take us to Atlantis, hop on!" am I being dishonest? No, I don't own a sleigh. I am aware there's no such thing as unicorns. I'm aware that the globe has been completely mapped. There are seriously posts on this topic on this site that cause me to wonder if some members just stay in philosophy mode constantly and can't hear a joke without getting hyper-literal. No offense meant to anyone, I've caught myself doing this several times.

I don't follow how the convert women to virtue strategy is problematic at all, or incompatible with the FDR approach to relationships. When it comes to libertarianism, Stef says make your case to the people in your life for a few months. In one podcast he added, "years, I'm not a big fan of years." Hardly an endorsement of the "these people are evil and cannot be helped" view. Nor is it an endorsement of spending your entire existence trying to convert someone. Why not take this approach with dating. If you like a girl, try to show her what it means to virtuous and see what happens. If after a few months, she is still shutting down communication on anything of substance, THEN move on. It almost sounds like people here are only interested in interacting with the already-converted. Please let me know if I'm strawmanning the opposing side, but how are we supposed to heal the planet if we assume people won't be receptive to philosophy? The metric should be receptivity to philosophy as opposed to how philosophical one is already, in my view. P.S. MMX2010 (who I like) sent me a Return of Kings article bashing therapy, which I have gotten a ton of value from, so I'm not supporting Roosh and everything he does.

"Social constructs deal specifically with concepts concerning human relations from one individual to another to any combination up to and including "society."" So if we stopped here, then out of the list I gave, mathematics would be out, but property rights, white privilege would be in. "Since social constructs are not based on an objective standard, they are subject to bias, bigotry and prejudice. Social constructs are based in culture as opposed to philosophy." Once we get here we would remove morality and property rights. Am I getting it? White privilege, thin privilege, the state ... I feel like we should mention one that most people here don't think is stupid because you said sometimes they can be true ...

This is a pretty basic question, but I want to make sure I've got a good handle on this: How do you or anyone else who wants to chime in define 'social construct'? Is it anything that does not exist outside of the human mind? This would include mathematics, morality, white privilege, property rights, etc.

So to be clear, your approach is to eat whatever you want, but never eat within 12 hours of your previous meal?

I've seen Seven Samurai and Ran. I thought Ran was a beautiful film. Anyway, I'll try to make time for Rashomon as I know that it's incredibly influential.

Pretty far. Most of the therapy you do should be on your own. I'd recommend investigating the Internal Family Systems modality of therapy, which is very self-led. There is no substitute for a philosophical therapist though and you'll get the best results doing self-therapy between sessions. I'd recommend emailing [email protected] for a free consultation. She's influenced by a lot of the content on this site and IFS. I've encountered some scary stuff during introspection, so having a guide has been crucial for me. Your system may of course be different.

I agree. That labor theory of value stuff is stuffed to the rafters with fail. Oh whoops, you're saying you didn't read the article I linked to. Let's play source wars!!!

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/hans-hermann-hoppe/smack-down/ I took this test and I was correctly identified as a libertarian of the rightist paradigm. I used to love saying libertarianism or anarchism is neither left nor right, but after reading this piece by Hoppe, I quit saying that. I imagine Hoppe would come out in the bottom right hand corner if the test was constructed flawlessly. If the way Hoppe presents the left-right dichotomy is correct, which I believe it is, then anarchism is simply not compatible with leftism. If the piece is TLDR, the gist is that the leftist paradigm is that inequality among humans should be rectified while the rightist paradigm is that inequality is biological and unavoidable, therefore, nothing can or should be done about this. The right matches observable reality while the left does not.

I've been thinking about this a lot recently. I saw a movie called 'Unbroken' last winter I think. The main character is a real life WW2 vet who spent time in several POW camps. At the last camp, one of the prisoners says something along the lines of 'nobody is going to rescue you, so it's best to accept your fate'. I used to think that rage was some sort of hangover from anger that was only relevant in the past, but now i think it's a constant reminder that there are aspects of your life that are unacceptable AND changeable. Therefore, this rage part of you wants what's best for you. We have way more freedoms than POVs do. The relationship to your rage will evolve with a combination of action steps and introspection. Make sure to listen to the rage for some possible action steps that will satisfy it. In a way you're doing this already by saving to move out. Does that land at all? What comes up for you when you think about your decision to move out? The 6 months before I moved out I had a lot of thoughts along these lines: "Fuck this, I'm 24 years old, if I die at 80 my life is over a quarter finished and I'm not even a full fledged adult. This is fucking unacceptable. I won't stand for this." I'm not saying you should be thinking like this, or that what I was thinking was rational, but I'm curious if any of that is there. If it is, then it's driving you. There's many areas where I think absolutely staggering levels of rage can compel one to action. This example doesn't apply to you because you like your jobs, but at the job I just left, part of the reason I left was because it sucked. I walked in one morning and my favorite co-worker said, "the a/c is out in case you weren't already demoralized enough." I think it's pretty clear I wasn't the only one who hated it, but if it's a shitty place to work, why are there people who have been there for 5 years? 6 years? Obviously, nobody here has been to my office, but it was an unhealthy environment, and the pay sucked. People have a variety of reasons and factors for why they stay at a job they hate. Having kids and a wife for example makes job mobility decrease for example. However, part of me is convinced that my rage is what separates me from those that started at this company before me and haven't left. I don't think they're pissed off enough to make radical changes in their lives. I could be wrong. Using anger as fuel is an art and it's best to address it in the moment; however, the deep seeded rage that you "just can't let go of" is very relevant and there will be no sustainable healing without the action steps to accompany your introspection. Basically, discuss your anger with a therapist, journal about it, communicate with it, and take action steps that specifically correspond with what it wants for you is my view. Thanks for bringing this up RJ.