FiddlertheLeper

I don't mean this as insulting, but you need to do some research, Iran is Syria's mutual defense partner, any war that Syria is involved, Iran is obligated to join on behalf of Syria, this is the number one reason we are target Syria. It goes back to the U.S. history of trying to get a Pro American Iranian goverment in place (all the way back to the Iran Contra of 1953,) we have been trying to bet the kind of Vassal state in Iran that we created in many South American states in the 20th century for many years.As to the ethics, i thought my view was a little clearer, unless the population asks for intervention (and it needs to be some kind of if not majority, then a large proportion) then i think getting involved in another countries affairs is eithically unjustifiable (from a military stand point, other types of intervention i am less against, though i still would not want it to be the U.S. getting involved, the number of countries we have helped without exploiting is so small it's really only the ones that either had nothing for us to exploit, or that were powerful enough to actually threaten us) Now this doesn't mean that no crime is a great enough one for some sort of Unilateral effort, but even those the U.S. is powerful enough diplomatically and economically to find a way to turn to our advantage. I equate war to save oppressed people, as some one deciding to kill a mother and father who are abusing their children in order to save the children. Now punishment of the parents is justified in some sense, but it has to actually improve the life of the children for it to be something that should be considered, (not meant as an argument against CPS or other current intervention programs for abused children, they may be horrible, but most of the time they are at least a small step up from the situations they get children out of, though definitely not always) As for the Russia China part, i do think this HAS to be factored into our thinking, because its a huge part of the reason we are there, Iran has been attempting to negotiate a switch from the U.S. dollar for its oil sales to a deal with China/Russia (either to start selling in one of their currencies or to trade for physical goods, which would literally be September 11th for the U.S. dollar, it would be an economic disaster for us) also because both countries remain the ones that are not our allies, that have the ability to at least challenge us militarily. Now i do agree the idea of allowing threats to back us down is unpalatable, but we have to consider what is the best course for all involved and i don't believe risking another world war would fit that description, also it's important to understand that even though Syria is a Sovereign nation, that because of the way Russia and China view nations like Syria (in a similar way to U.S. they are close allies, which really means more of a vassal state) so to them it's almost like we are attacking Russia/China instead of Syria. to the Libya point, no we didn't get locked down in a quagmire there, but we did leave behind powerful Western corporations to exploit the natural resources we desire from the country, which while great for us, is pretty crappy for them, so ethically even though we helped some people there (and not trying to downgrade the part we played) but we will be having them pay for that help (whether they like it or not) for years to come, which ethically is not right. as i said before exploitation does not require long term military occupation.As for the Government desire to be in this conflict, of course they want to, we wouldn't be there with this focus otherwise, many countries over the years have used chemical weapons while the U.S. turned a blind eye (often until some later point when U.S. foreign interest coincided with that region) But Russia may have out smarted us here with their latest proposal. The Syrian rebels have been backed by us, and i am sure made promises to that we would get involved and help them win if necessary, and with Russia's latest proposal they have detected rightfully our situation. They proposed that Syrian government give up all chemical weapons (which Syria happily claims to agree to, whether they will or not we will see) if they do, since the President has made that the central tenet of his believe of a need for an intervention, he will have no choice but to back off getting involved in the region. This would be great, except it will seriously hurt U.S. credibility with future insurgencies (a tactic we rely heavily on to get what we want) it would also mean we have to rework out strategy for getting involved in Iran, so it won't end U.S. involvement in the region, just post pone it. U.S. middle east involvement is a hugely complicated subject, with decades of history, and more problems than a 70 year old HIV positive smoker working in a disease treatment facility. trying to understand anything we do in that region requires looking past what the government says to us, and asking that age old question, who benefits? you'll find in most countries we get involved in, shortly afterwards the number of U.S. companies involved in that country grows, and U.S. gains (money, resources, political favors etc) also grow in the time following our involvement. War is no long about conquering territory, its about exploiting the resources and gaining influence through puppet governments, we use Economic warfare more than weapons, insurgencies more than armies, and Proxy wars more than direct announced wars. This makes it almost impossible for anyone not willing to spend hours upon hours digging through the muck to find the gold from being able to decipher what it is we really are doing (or why) over there. But when you begin to know what to look for, it becomes easier, and eventually you can start to see the patterns emerge.

I would like to point out that Libya was and definitely is being exploited with regards to it's oil, Western companies have been the main component of getting the oil production back to near prewar levels, it is a fair example of American Imperialism, not quite as good as some of the South American countries in the 20th century, but it's important to remember that exploitation does not require long term military occupation. Now i would also assume (meaning i have no information to confirm this prediction or deny it, so take it as nothing more than my opinion) that the new government in Libya will be friendlier to Western interest than the previous one. Now as to why i believe that getting involved in Syria and Iran will drag us in to a long term conflict is based on the public statements by both the Chinese and Russian Governments that if America becomes involved in Syria militarily they will step in on the side of Syria (Russia even claimed Thermonuclear war would be an option, though i doubt the sincerity of this statement, i do not however doubt that one or more of these countries will at the very least support and supply the current Regime with weapons and intelligence on American military movement.) This does not guarantee an actual war, but it makes it a much larger threat than in many previous U.S. interventions in various countries. Also i hope we both realize that a "limited strategic operation" would have only a relatively small chance of being able to resolve or improve the situation in Syria, meaning that either we will wind up having to commit to a more traditional campaign in the region to achieve our goals, or we will bomb the country and kill both Military targets, and civilians as well, for little to no gain other than to say we punished them for their use of chemical weapons. Now if i believed this would actually prevent any future chemical weapon (or other WMD) use i would be much more willing to support the idea, but it's doubtful at best (in my opinion). Now onto the claim that Obama doesn't want to be involved in Syria, if we are talking about him personally (as in his own private opinion) i could believe that, its a veritable hornets nest of public blow-back both foreign and domestic. But his personal opinion is not what drives the country, Iran has been a key strategic objective for America for many years, this has been talked about by many Officials (retired mainly, though some current) and our actions in the area have continually supported this idea, Iran is a prize for any western country (part of the reason i believe Russia and China will intervene if they feel our actions threaten their ally) We also have a history of knocking off any government in the OPEC nations that attempts to get off of the U.S. dollar for oil sales, and Iran has been contemplating (at least) this very move, historical precedent says we won't allow this to happen, we will try to solve this diplomatically if possible (which with Iran is a tall order), if that fails we try Economic means (Sanctions actively aimed at crippling the economy are already in place) if these fail to work we will try more direct means (most likely covert at first, if those fail out right military intervention will be the final option) the fact that we are pushing so heavily to become involved in Syria leads me to believe that all of the other options have been expended (and failed) and we are now moving into our endgame strategy. I sincerely hope i am wrong on this issue, but i have yet to find much of anything that points to that,

Listen, i am going to say something that is really simple, the ability to use force is not an obligation. If the Syrian people ask us to come in and liberate them from their government there might be a case, but even then committing to war is something that should be avoided at all costs. Instead it's the first and often times only solution offered, If i saw a child getting attacked i would intervene in what ever way i could that would lessen or avoid harm to the child. But that's not the case here, children were harmed, but there is not a constant use of chemical weapons against children, what happened (who ever did it) was abominable, but instead of bombing or attacking, (since neither have any chance of reducing the likely hood of this sort of thing happening again, and both have a very high chance of harming more children, both directly and indirectly) We should be providing the best methods of securing the children possible, building shelters where the civilians not engaged in the conflict can weather the storm, or helping them to leave the country and seek a better life somewhere else, things of that nature. Violence is never the answer, sometimes violence is used but only to confront violence, and even in those situations it is usually not successful in reducing the harm to those who are in danger. There are so many possibilities of what could be done if this had anything to do with children being harmed. If you really believe the Government is going to Syria to save children, I think you need to check your reality. We are going there to exploit them, and to impose our will upon them, same as with every other American Imperialistic venture. And trying to hide that behind the shield of "helping children" is also abominable. And every person, American or not, who stands up and says we cannot or should not allow ourselves to be stirred by the manipulations of the government into going to an unjust war for profit, is a hero. Those who cry for war, are generally mislead and tricked into believing good can come of it. But those who work from logic and evidence know this simply isn't the case, no good will come of our involvement in Syria, we can't save those children already killed, and we can't protect the Syrian population from their own leaders, these are things we need to equip the population to do themselves. Instead we come in, bomb and kill our way to "Victory" and wind up leaving the very people we were "trying to protect" worse off than they were before. Even if we managed to somehow destroy the injustice in Syria with bombs, without a revolution in the ideology of the people, they would simply rebuild that same injustice, the way emotionally damaged people recreate their abuse in almost every relationship they get into. There is no justification for bombing Syria that is just, there is no justification for going to War in Syria that is just.

I am glad i was wrong about you, this is turning into an interesting discussion (for me, not trying to imply it wasn't for you or others beforehand). To your first point, not sure if my clarification will make any difference or if it even has a leg to stand on so to speak, but to me the difference comes down to classes defined by attributes, versus classes defined by actions. Self defense is a response to an action (an attack against you), the positive obligation of charity is a response to an attribute (being rich, or the recipient being poor) i wish i knew the proper way to phrase this, or the terminology, but to me this difference seems important, and is part of my unease with the second kind of class. Now i don't think this invalidates the idea of classes, but it's only the second type of class where i see major problems, (not implying the first kind is faultless, but responses to actions are less likely to be used as blanket excuses or justifications i think, again this is probably subjective) i would love to get both your feed back and others as to what this implies (for me) is this unease simply a defense mechanism for a bias i hold? or does it have objective value? is there a true difference in the value of classes defined by attributes, versus those defined by actions? But on to your second point, which i humbly accept, i am not nearly well versed enough in ethics or moral theory to be able to really get down to the nitty gritty and dispute (if it's possible) this idea of classes, and what should or should not be allowed to constitute a class. I recognize that i am arguing from effect in the case of not wanting a moral framework that allows for different moral rules for different classes, and i am sorry for that, i do not have Stefan's amazing mind or ability (or eloquence) to argue purely from the stand point of morality, perhaps in a good number of years with more work in this area on my part i will be able to, but as of now, i feel i fall short. Now for the control, i guess i should have been more specific, i meant that requiring certain actions to be taken, is different than saying certain actions should not be taken, while if a person wanders on to another's lawn, the owner has the moral right to remove him (without violence) but he is not required to do so to be moral. To me this difference is (to refer to our current imperfect system, i know an understatement) the difference between "stealing is illegal" (or bad) and "To be legal (or good) you Must pay taxes" the first is valid, the second is not. Now i don't think this argument is nearly capable of invalidating all positive moral obligations, but it highlights part of the problem i have with the idea. Now for my true subjective preference, i want a moral framework that applies to all humans equally, that only makes any sort of exception to it's rules when you are responding to the actions of another, who has violated the moral rules stated within the framework, and even then, you should be encouraged to use the least immoral means of negating the risk/loss/encroachment available to you, that stands a reasonable chance of success.

I apologize, i did indeed miss this post. thanks for quoting it again and pointing it out to me. Personally i find the idea of categorizing universals to only apply to certain groups, or to exclude certain groups to be while objectively possible and factually correct problematic. I come to this position on a couple of thoughts, (please note that i like many others here missed what you pointed out in how this is already used in the terms of self-defense, so this is all my initial response, and after time to reflect on the revelation i may indeed change my position, in other words, this is all off the top of my head) First would be that while self defense is a categorization of an action (or reaction in this case) I.e. anyone with the ability to control their own body can attempt to defend themselves, this is to me different proposition than one depending on actual difference's between individuals (i.e. rich/poor/etc). Now this may seem arbitrary but hear me out, if a classification can be applied to all moral agents ( which, i know is a classification in it'self) like self defense, to me it fits UPB, and my basic understanding of morality (UPB definition or not). But when a classification requires a qualifier like money or race, or class etc it becomes dangerous, and should be used with extreme caution, lest we wind up in a similar situation as we are now (killing is wrong, unless your a soldier, Stealing is wrong, unless your a tax collector, kidnapping is wrong, unless your a police officer etc). My second thought on the subject is that i have trouble thinking of any external classification with any sort of meaning that is possible to universalize itself not everyone can be rich, (as rich requires someone to be poor in order to have a meaning, if everyone was rich, we all just be average not rich. not the best wording i know, but i hope the basic idea is being transmitted) now i do not think these nullify the objective truth that according to definition universalization can be specific to a class as you pointed out, but i do feel that it should be avoided within any framework for an objective morale theory, for the reason i stated above, it's the fact that two groups of humans can have different (in fact opposite) rules to be moral that has created horrid things like Government, but while my observation is objective, my preference is subjective. This leads me to believe that while having a moral framework that regards external qualifies for positive obligations is possible in the sense of not contradicting itself or it's rules, that the benefit to having this clause included do not outweigh the possibilities for negatives. Now classifications for actions taken against one another to me seems slightly different, as you have no control over the actions of another, but qualifications or classifications based on things such as relative wealth, health, race, etc seem to open up far too many complications, too many situations where something not ok, becomes ok, or vica-versa. This would in my opinion leave morality in a state similar to our legal system with endless appeals and footnotes and objections exemptions etc, while a moral framework like this would certainly be possible to at least some extent, i would definitely not see such a framework as ideal, and believe the simplicity of UPB is one of it's triumphs.I also personally do not like the idea of positive obligations within morality, morality then becomes a controlling system like it is now, a framework that does not include qualifications or classifications (or at the very least avoids them wherever possible) seems to me to be far superior. But this is, as far as i know, all my subjective preference. To me, adding these kinds of qualifying classes runs the risk of the old child's book "If you give a mouse a cookie" scenario.

Wait did you really just cherry pick my post, ignoring every single thing i said, except the one thing that could be twisted to work in favor of your argument? i now understand why people are having such a hard time getting through to you, your not at all interested in either UPB or the premises involved, nor providing any sort of objective feedback/criticism. You seem to be simply looking for something you can twist to make you sound right and call others wrong/ad-homs/etc which while obviously others are more than willing to engage with you over/about, is still a pretty revealing desire.i would like it very much if you would at least speak to the arguments contained within my post if your going to attempt to quote me to defend your position, as i obviously do not agree with your position, so taking my words and trying to use them to support your position, is both disingenuous and quite rude. I am more than happy to debate your original thought/post, or even what ever tangent you have now wandered onto. But this would require actual debate, answering the points contained within posts is kind of central to that on a forum site.

While i personally disagree with your arguments against the coma test, i do agree that the lack of proof for subjective preferances does not equate to them not existing, or for them to "ought" not to exist.However, with regards to your overall argument, there are a number of problems, many of which have been stated in one form or another, and while you claim to have read and thought on these subjects, i see no real reflection of the position within your own arguments. there remains a core problem i see in your arguments, Stefan is arguing against the idea of positive obligations being a requirement of morality, and the reason's for this are indeed sound within the framework of his theory. If it cannot be universalized it doesn't work within the framework of UPB, positive obligations cannot be universalized, if everyone gives to charity, there would be no one for the charity to go to. But the heart of the problem i see with your position, is that your actually affirming stefan's argument with your own position. His argument that since we cannot possibly expect everyone to follow positive moral obligations (due to inability, lack of knowledge, etc) they cannot be universalized, and therefore do not work for UPB. Stefan clearly stated that the person in a coma was not doing anything immoral, and thus positive obligation is unable to be universalized, thus does not work within UPB. Am i mistaken in believing that is the same thing your saying? if so please correct me, as i wish to address your argument from as objective and logical a position as i can. Now his way of stating this may be confusing to you and others, that is entirely possible, but your confusion on his terms does not dismantle the underlying premises, which form the argument. That, however is different from an objective fault, i have all but the last few of your posts, (as it has derailed from the original argument on to many while relevant in a sense tangents, that do not however directly reflect, or pertain to the original argument.) and i have yet to see anything that actually disproves UPB as you claim, since you seem very sure that UPB is wrong, could you possibly do your own version of the Appendix on UPB (the UPB in a Nutshell section), just a short logic train that will articulate or clarify the underlying falsehood of UPB? I in the very least would find it very helpful for figuring out if my disagreement with your argument stems from a misunderstanding of your position, or if it stems from an actual objective problem. now on to the other issue i have, throughout this thread you have continually stated appeals to objective reality, and it's importance, saying the your observation proves something "false" and it should be changed to no longer be "false" or regarded as invalid if no such change is possible. Is most definately you placing obligations on others and exactly the behavior UPB is based upon. Thanks for your concern with insuring we are not basing a foundation moral theory on something that is not consistent with logic and evidence. hopefully we can get to the root of this, and figure out the objective value of your proposition, and either affirm Stefan's theory (in this regard) or affirm your position that is an incorrect theory.

Welcome to FDR Redouane, i understand you want to question this stuff as it obviously is important to you in some way. But i would encourage you to approach these sort of subjects with an open mind if you can, otherwise many here are likely to detect that your asking these question as a way of attacking the people who believe differently than you. If you ask a question of people to which you feel you already know the one true answer, your not asking these questions to learn the truth, your asking them to manipulate others into believing what you believe. Many people here will react negatively to these kind of question (even though most or at least some of us are guilty of this same thing in other areas, we are all human and all make mistakes) If a position that is contrary to yours has either no criteria by which it can change your position, or such high criteria for changing your position as to be practically impossible for it do so, your questions are not sincere. If this is the way you feel, a sincere position would be to state your position as the truth, and see who agrees with your "truth." If i believe that the only true answer to how economies should function is the Free Market, and i ask people how should we run our economies? I am not sincerely looking for possible answers, i am looking to do one of two things (most likely) either i am trying to find which people know the same "truth" i do, or i am trying to get people to state their "truths" so i can dismantle, or attack their "incorrect" position. Neither of these two reasons, require, or benefit from the form of a question. When we ask a question sincerely, we are seeking data and truth, if you will not accept data or truth contrary to your belief before you asked the question, then it's not a real question, but a manipulation tactic. And, here in this community people are very likely to call you on that. Doesn't mean your always wrong in your opinion, just that you might want to think about what it is your really trying to achieve by asking the question, and if it's not to gather information (facts) and learn about other beliefs (opinions) that will effect your own belief (opinion), then perhaps you would be better served by a statement of your beliefs, or an assertions of your reasons.

did you check the sources he provides for the podcast he talked about this stuff in? he normally has a link to all his sources in the description on youtube, or the sidebar thing for podcasts. If it's not there i would try emailing him through FDR, in my experience Stefan rarely talks about statistics he doesn't have sources for, i am sure either him or Mike will be able to send you links to where he got this information, which would at least be a starting point for your research. I will try and do some searches myself if i have the time, and if i find any reliable sources i'll post them here in the topic, good luck!

I agree, it's not a really comforting thought. But i do think it's pretty reality based. If there's anyone who disagrees (and i hope there is) who can help inject some greater reality, or logic into my admittedly non-expert ramblings on the issue i would appreciate it.Now i do think this is a major issue, just not for the same reasons as some here have said. I don't think this is a major issue because of the possible effects of the crisis for the end user, i think it's a major issue because i believe oil (energy) is one of the main ways governments and corporations maintain their control over the populations of the world. It's this believe that leads me to the proposition that they will revolutionize the energy market when they have to rather than lose control by attempting to keep the world on an oil based market past it's economic efficiency. I think what you said about how quickly Infrastructure can be built or updated when the people at the top of the pyramid decide to do so, is a key thing to keep in mind when looking at the energy situation. This is exactly the kind of change i foresee in the energy markets once the metaphorical cliff edge looms too close. Granted i think switching from oil to an alternative energy source is going to be a much larger change in basic infrastructure than almost anything we have seen in the past, the industrial revolution may be the closest change in infrastructure. (at least that i can think of off the top of my head) I just don't see it as an insurmountable problem. Though this is all dependent on the idea that the general state of things remains the same, if the world population declines greatly, or Statism is shrugged off, or many other possible changes in the basic social/economical environment of society would change the likely outcomes greatly. But to depend on this kind of change puts the cart before the horse in my opinion. I believe that for the most part, we'll see only shallow changes when the energy market finally revolutionizes, though on this point i hope to be proven wrong.

I can say nothing with surety. But with how visible and espoused peak oil and the energy crisis are, i find it hard to believe that not one of 7 billion? (or is it more now?) people have been able to, or will be able to, find an alternative means for energy able to supplant oil and other modern energy. That does not mean the switch from a fossil fuel based society to something else will be smooth or easy. But, i would ask those who believe it will be the end of the modern world, how many previous crisis have been billed as such during there times? I don't believe a problem such as this one can be insolvable, only that current power structures have invested so heavily in the industry's surrounding fossil fuels, that it will require a very specific set of circumstances before any solution is allowed to be adopted and applied. As long as oil is more profitable in the short run, it remains in the interest of those in power to keep the world dependent upon it. When either the oil supply dwindles to the point where extraction and refinement of the necessary amount to continue our oil based economy is of greater cost than profit, when prices raise to high for any but the rich to access it, or price fixing is introduced as the standard, it will be amazing how quickly new solutions begin to show up. The other possibilities i see, are the discovery of an easily controllable supply of energy that is more efficient in its gathering is found, one that allows the oil based corporations and governments to both increase profits without losing control of the energy market comes along, the same kind of shift will be seen. The other remaining possibility i see, which in truth is not really possible (at least not in any way i am willing to endorse) is the removal of those in control who benefit from the oil based economy. I am no energy expert, nor am i a scientist, i cannot speak to the efficiency or availability of alternative energy sources, nor any negative impact's their adoption might pose, but with the way technology and science have progressed in the past, i find it hard to believe that the same kind of improvements in the energy industry are impossible. This has all been a very long winded way of saying i don't believe Peak oil to be anywhere near the catastrophe it is often painted as, but merely a tool for both price gouging as well as pushing inefficient and expensive alternatives to those who have been convinced of the severity of the danger. In other words, while i do not in any way deny the limited supply of oil, nor the near unlimited demand for oil. I do deny that oil is the only source of energy which could run our world and economy. My personal believe is that the alternative energy solutions that have been found or proposed so far, suffer (in the eyes of our leaders) from one of two problems. Either economic inefficiency or they are too difficult to maintain strict control over. So for as long as oil provides a means of control, and a profit, it will remain, when these two things begin to change in any way the leaders cannot control or stop, we will quickly see alternative energy sources i believe. Because while the transition from an oil based economy to an economy not dependent on oil will be a staggeringly costly endeavor, attempting to keep the economy dependent on a resource that is no longer available, or for which the price of extraction, refinement, and marketing far exceeds the price the end users are willing to pay for the benefits it provides would be an even more costly and devastating choice. Again everything i have written here is about as far from expert opinion as can be imagined. So take it all with a grain of salt. I just don't think that those who benefit from oil are unaware of this problem, nor are they likely to simply choose to continue running towards the edge of the metaphorical cliff without some plan of action for what they will do at or before that fateful last step.

If there are other universes, but we exist in this one, then for those other universes to exist to "us", they would have to have a measurable effect on our universe right? If not, then anything we can think of can exist and cannot be dis-proven, because if it does not require a measurable effect in our universe to exist we have no way to verify or validate its existence or non existence. If this is the case then all possibilities exist, Unicorns, people with 5 heads and no bodies, etc. (or at least can be asserted to exist without any way to dis-prove or prove) So if a deity exists in another universe that does not effect our universe in any measurable way, then it is the same as non-existence to everyone in our universe right?please feel free to correct me on any errors i made in my logic here. thanks

Can you advise someone to commit a crime if your an expert (like a Accountant advising you to "cook" your books or some such thing) there are already precedents for people who are in positions of authority on a subject having to advise Legally accepted things (which law is suppose to in some way reflect or represent morality) and not use their authority to advise illegal things. Now hitting your children is still legal, i am aware of this, but it is not moral, nor should it be legal. I signed the petition based on the fact that these are people who claim to be authorities on the way to raise your children, advising people to do things scientifically shown to be harmful to their children, this to me falls under the same moral umbrella or area, as if a cop advised you to assualt/rob/kill someone you had a problem with, instead of advising you to follow the law and resolve it legally. I'm not saying the two are the same, but i am saying that the same principle, that those in a position of authority are required to give best practice advise (in other words they are not suppose to be able to advise you to do things they know to be wrong, or that will be detrimental to you) This does not mean they don't have the right to say they support the hitting of children, or believing in it themselves. But if they claim to be Authorities on parenting, (which by writing a book on how to parent, they are implicitly doing if not explicitly) so to me, they should be held to the same standard. They should be required to stay current on the studies and science of parenting, and if they want to advise spanking or hitting, they should be required to have a disclaimer saying "studies have shown spanking/hitting/yelling/etc may be harmful to the development of your child and their mental health going forward" I don't want them censored, i just want them to have to be honest when they are writing a book telling people how they should do something to get the best results, if these were fiction books, or books not claiming to have systems to raise good children, i would have no problem. With how important parenting is, and how important children are, this is to me important enough to have these sorts of requirments, now i know setting a precedent like that has the possibility (maybe even the surety) of turning into a form of censorship or invasion of our rights to free speech. I just want the same kind of thing we have with food or equipment, if something can be shown scientifically to be harmful, then anyone advocating it in a product, should be required to have at the very least a disclaimer about this, with information about how to find the studies/science that shows it, so parents can make an informed choice if they wish.

Thanks, and yeah sorry about that, i need to work on my formatting, always been a problem of mine. I hope the advice can help you make some progress, that's one of the worst feelings is the inability to even make progress. Dealing with these kind's of issues with parent's is never easy, but our parents do love us immensely in their own ways, it's just (at least in the case of my mom) she's never really had healthy love from those in her life, so i can't expect her love for me to be entirely healthy without some work. I hope whether this last bit applies to your mother or not, you can find a way to either get the relationship to a place your happy with (or at least not unhappy with) or can get the certainty you need to make the decision that's best for you. Good luck, and as always feel free to let us know how it's going.

I am very sorry that you and your sister had to go through this, and at the reaction your mother has to you bringing up your concerns with her. It's a difficult position to be in, it sounds to me like your mother is displaying the typical response parents revert to when their parenting methods are threatened. It's a difficult thing to be able to get past to their true feelings, my mother is very similar in this fashion, and while i have had a very shallow and small form of success in getting her to understand my position and the effects of her actions upon me (although in her mind it's still my fault for feeling this way, she just understands that certain actions she does add too or trigger these feelings in me and now does not act that way as much, not truly to protect my feelings but to protect herself from me being truthful about my feelings.) Now my advice or counsel on this subject should not be taken with anything more than a grain of salt, as i am still in practically in the same situation as you with the same problems. I have only managed to have conversations with my mom about her current behavior and it's effects on me, and am too anxious to broaden or broach anything about the way i was treated when i was younger. But in my experinces with my mother (relating to her current behavior) i found a couple of strategies to be useful, the first is to acknowledge that she does not conciously aim for these effects, they are unintended consequences of her lack of understanding about me as a person and the way my environment (her specifically) effects me. The second is to not allow distractions, subject changes, passing the blame back to you, etc. i would always try and tell my mother when she would use these tactics, that if these were things that she felt it was important to discuss that was perfectly fine and i would be happy to discuss these things with her, but could she please extend the same courtesy to me about the issue we were originally talking about. This normally required some focus and unwillingness to deviate from the topic until a real and true conversation can be had. It's also important to let her know that this is not about blaming her (even if getting her to accept responsibility for her actions is a key part of the process) as much as it's about clearing away the rubble of a dysfunctional relationship and trying to lay some ground work for a functional one. (of course for this to have any impact she has to be willing to accept the current state of the relationship as dysfunctional, if she doesn't or won't this likely won't have much effect) For me it came down to basically telling her, that this is how you make me feel when you do these things, this is how it affects me even when your not currently doing these things, and that if she wants me in her life she has to be willing to acknowledge these issues and at the very least show me she is making some effort to improve her actions towards me. I don't know about you, but i desperately want to be able to love my mother as more than just a condition of my biological family, I want to be able to enjoy and look forward to spending time with her, I want to be able to talk to her without having to censor my true feelings and thoughts, and i want her to be able to enjoy these same things, but this requires work from both of us. If she is unwilling or unable to work towards these goals, and actually take into account her effects upon me (intended or unintended) then there is little if any improvement possible. The other aspect, which for me, has been much harder is trying to show her there are better ways for her to get the things she wants from me then the strategies she's used throughout her life. This i have had an even smaller amount of success with than with getting her to understand the impact of her actions towards me upon my life. For the most part she simply disregards any alternative methods as anything from ridiculous to preposterous or simply speaks about the traditional methods of doing things within a family, even when these traditional methods have produced horrendous results. If i have any amount of success in this particular area i'll be more than happy to share my methods for achieving it, but since as of yet i have not, i don't have much to offer you here. I hope that some small part of my experiences can help to give you insight into ways you might deal with this situation, though in truth i expect that most of the methods i have attempted you have also attempted as these were all before i became involved in Philosophy or true Self-Knowledge seeking. Either way i wish you success in getting past your mothers reactionary defense's and in building a healthy foundation for future healing for you, your sister, and if possible even your mother. also i would like to point out that as difficult and painful as the process might be, i am in agreement with those who advise that if no improvement or resolution between you and your mother is possible, there is no reason to continue to subject yourself to a person who refuses to take into consideration your true and honest feelings, simply because you share genetic traits. i believe the term is DeFOO, as has been said on this topic before, i do not encourage this choice unless you honestly feel you have exhausted all possibilities for repairing the relationship and given your mother every Reasonable chance to admit wrong and work towards improvement. I hope some of the more knowledgeable members of this community can provide you with better advice than my poor pittance, as there are those out there who have managed to find success in this most difficult situation. Best of luck to you, and if you ever feel the need to talk feel free to message me here.