dsayers

Did you find fault in the detailed unpacking I provided? If so, I'd be interested in fleshing it out. I see way too many people who get lost because they're too busy saying "NAP" while their brain isn't processing what it represents. Kind of laying saying forest for so long that they forget they're talking about trees.

I think that correction resonates my point though. If you have a bracelet and you want to know what it is worth, you would take it to a jeweler or somebody that deals with the melting of precious metals. A pawn broker is in place (in the context of selling things) to get less cash now as opposed to more cash later by way of being more selective with to whom/when you sell. If a potential seller does not understand any of this, that is not the responsibility of others. @TheAuger: Knowing I am of an opposing position, can you logically explain how you arrive at the conclusion that that would be immoral?

Compared to the real world. I had already stated this, so it is unclear as to why you'd anticipate a different answer without any attempt to refute/correct. Theories are attempts to accurately describe the real world, so it is axiomatic that the real world is the gauge by which to test their accuracy. Also, you just said, "It is absolutely accurate that absolute accuracy does not exist." This is a performative contradiction; the very act of making the claim is demonstration that you accept the claim to be false.

My mistake. I still find myself resisting the conclusion that this is necessarily indicative of sociopathy. Clearly a person who could be aggressive towards a defenseless, imprisoned, dependent child is a victim of abuse themselves. Add to that the societal belief that such "parenting" accomplishes things such as building character, teaching respect, etc and it's not unexpected that their brains would indicate satisfaction. I wish I could remember how she worded it, but I remember Allison Gopnik saying something along the lines of using aggression to condition behavior is destructive to the administrator as well. Primarily because it makes it easier to do again, which fits in with what you're talking about.

Theories can be more/less accurate relative to other theories. However, any given theory's absolute accuracy is derived from the real world; the consistency of which is the basis for logic.

I accept that violation of a contract is theft. I've never understood fraud to describe that. dictionary.com say fraud is "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage." This has always been my understanding of the term fraud. Like in the bracelet scenario above, where the broker offers 1/1000 of its value. This could be construed as deceit for profit. So allow me to clarify my question. Is it immoral to deceive somebody for the sake of personal gain? If any of my previous posts in this thread were unclear, please revisit them under this premise.

Unpack it. Where aggression is present in the parent-child relationship, we know that the child is not being given proper nurturing and attention. IN THIS SCENARIO, the reward centers light up because it's attention. Not as desirable as positive attention, but better than no attention since neglect at that age is akin to perishing. So while trauma is a requisite for sociopathy, I wouldn't say that pleasure centers of a neglected person lighting up at SOME attention would be indicative of this necessarily. This also likely explains why when aggression is used as an attempt to correct behavior, the behavior can be exhibited again as soon as 10 minutes later. When your world IS your caregiver, attention is validation.

A child who has a strong bond with their parent is emotionally "tougher" than a child without. If the child with a strong bond is taught rational though and win-win negotiation skills, they will become stronger as they seek out bonds with others and avoid people who would compromise what strength they have (abusers). As for when is the time, this is something only your child could signal to you. It's going to depend upon how protected, nurtured, and treated like a human being they are by you. Based on your other thread, it's very good that he felt he could talk to you about it. Even better if your interaction with him at that point could in no way be interpreted by him as you being unavailable or uninterested. I guess what I'm trying to say is that not allowing him to "run to mommy" would actually compromise his strength, not develop it.

I pointed out that theft is without consent and that fraud involves consent. Do you find fault with that contrast? In the context of immorality, would you not agree that the definition would have to be a behavior that violates the property rights of others? And that to violate property rights, you would have to make use of the property of others without their consent? This is saying that the defrauder is responsible for the defrauded's acceptance of their capacity for error, but the defrauded is not. How do you logically arrive at this conclusion? It's internally inconsistent.

A strong parent-child bond is the greatest defense against being victimized. Abusers isolate their victims in order to reduce the chance they can escape the abuse. To malign "running to mommy" is to attempt to cut off an escape route. Parents voluntarily create an obligation to their children to protect and provide for them until such a time that they can do this for themselves. Part of that protection is not exposing their children to abusers. I mention this since this is your second thread in as many days that you're implying that you have a child that other children have targeted as primed for victimization. This is the sort of thing that is far easier to prevent than it is to cure.

That's an interesting question. I would guess yes. People change the oil in their cars even before their engines seize up. They do this to maximize efficiency and stave off complications that would arise from without this maintenance. Humans are born without filters. As we develop and our understanding of the world around is improves, we begin to take certain things for granted. When you first step out of a shower and put a shirt on, you notice the shirt. However, it would be a waste of time to continue to consider the shirt, so we filter it out. I imagine that even without dysfunction, there would be things we would filter out that we shouldn't. Seeking the help of a therapist could help to identify these things. Or how about this: Imagine a married couple. Both could be peaceful individuals, but this doesn't mean they would always agree on everything. Some disagreements might be relationship threatening, so they might employ a therapist to help them identify a compromise or whether the relationship is worth continuing, etc.

This is theft, not fraud. If you and I enter into a contract, I have voluntarily created an obligation to you. To withhold that obligation is theft. In the pawn broker example above, neither party has any obligation towards the other until $20 for bracelet is agreed upon by both parties.

I know this was satire. However, I wanted to point out the internal inconsistency for those that don't see it as I've witnessed debates that got off track discussing this. The quote is basically saying that it is certain that nothing can be certain. Another common form is, "the truth cannot be known," which is to say, "I know it to be true that the truth cannot be known."

I think intentionally defrauding somebody is unsavory and I think most people would ostracize somebody who was known to be an agent of fraud. However, this inquiry is to whether or not fraud is immoral or not? I would argue that it is not because fraud is co-operative; it only takes place with consent on both sides. If one were to claim that fraud was immoral, they would be saying that one party in an exchange is responsible for understanding the exchange, but the other party is not. I find this to be inconsistent and contradictory. I think if a person does not understand an exchange, they should not submit to it. [EDIT] Later in this thread, a discrepancy as to the definition of fraud arose. To clarify, the question being asked refers to deceit prior to consenting to a trade, not after. To not make good on terms of an agreement after they are agreed upon by both parties is most certainly theft and therefore immoral.

We can easily and accidentally perpetuate abuse of the past even with the words that we use to frame our approach. For example, what is meant by too assertive? Until you can answer that, there's no way of knowing if it's even problematic, let alone how to proceed. To me, being assertive is simply accepting that we are generally equals. I cannot fathom how somebody could be "too equal" to another. It sounds like something an abuser would say to encourage you to erase yourself for their convenience. While using language to program you to abuse yourself in the future. It's really quite sinister. So I reject your premise that you are guilting yourself. I would say that the way to proceed is to identify who is actually doing the guilting of you. Processing that would entail being honest about what it all actually means and getting angry that somebody you trusted or was even dependent upon would manipulate you like that. Imagine aggressively removing somebody from life by likening their presence to a fault. It's outrageous. This is so widespread that there are people out there that will claim that something offends them just for the sake of manipulating others. With people you are intimate with and care about, there can be a fine line between being empathetic towards them and erasing yourself for their benefit. With strangers though, there is no reason why they would be so emotionally involved in you stating something factual that they could actually get offended. To make such a claim, they're revealing their own unprocessed trauma.

Why is the child being subjected to such a destructive environment? By "said something wrong," do you mean provide an incorrect answer in class? Has it been explained to the child that making mistakes can be frustrating, but it's what motivates us to seek out the correct answer? He's only able to walk and talk after a long process of mistakes in trying. Has it been modeled for the child that making mistakes is okay? Does the child view his parents as fallible? Does he see his parents following up mistakes with rational correction? Or instead is there rage as if error is truly unacceptable. The acceptance of one's own capacity for error is the foundation of humility. We are powerless to seek the truth until we accept the possibility that we can be wrong. It's not a handicap, it is a strength and it is completely normal. The children doing the laughing have parents that answer these questions incorrectly. They've created aggressors looking to recreate what they see at home by aggressing against others. So the question remains: Why is the child being subjected to such a destructive environment? And remember, folks, this is what anti-home/unschoolers are referring to when they talk about "social skills."

If you guess that the answer to 2+2 is 4, you're no closer to understanding maths. If you guess that government involvement in only specific areas is bad, you're no closer to freedom. Either theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral or they are not. If they are, then there's no reason to accept any government. If they're not, then there's no reason to dial back any government. The people voting could be using that time to either study morality themselves or if they have a grasp, to make the case to others. Until it becomes unfashionable to advocate coercion, you cannot trust any steps towards freedom to be lasting. It needs to be a principled conclusion rather than a lucky guess.

Better for who? You realize that these two courses of action are polar opposites, right? I think that if you are unclear as to where you stand and acknowledge that she has difficulty declining invitations AND is spread too thin, then to ask her to move in with you would be predatory. I don't even see how based on what you describe that moving in could be viewed as an alleviation for her or for you. Unless you live significantly closer to her school. Even still, for you to take that step while being unclear as to where you even stand seems like erasing yourself for somebody else. I'm also curious as to why she lives so far away from school? It's a big commitment anyways and to make that sort of trek numerous times each week doesn't make sense. The way you describe how thin she's spread, it almost sounds like she's trying to avoid something. Presumably there was a point ahead of this overloading that was uncomfortable to her. Instead of dialing it down, it sounds like she cranked it up. Also, if it was a 180 as you say, then I'm curious as to what happened. Did a loved one die, did she get raped, etc. People cannot voluntarily change that rapidly, which suggests a powerful outside influence. And what about you? This doesn't seem like the sort of complicated life somebody would choose for themselves. Again, I don't know either of you. But it doesn't sound like you're close enough to put up with this sort of thing. Either something horrible happened to her that she's not comfortable with talking to you about it or nothing happened and she's willing to overload her schedule at the expense of spending time with you. I still don't see how one could go from all that to even contemplating moving in together.

Racism is a way to keep us fighting with one another instead of questioning whether or not it is immoral to have a gang of thugs that can commit theft, assault, rape, and murder without consequence, regardless of their skin color. Even if the message was sound, the fact that they're using children to deliver it is deplorable. The youngest of which appear to be far too young to even be exposed to the idea of racism or a gang of thugs. The easiest way to break any cycle is to not perpetuate it.

I don't know her or you, but this sounds like you're in love with a fantasy. Also, the combination of pushing away, only spend a few hours a week, but when together seems open could easily be an act. Or allowing a fantasy to cause you to misinterpret the time you spend together. I think that instead of spending your mental energy trying to manage her (if only in your own mind), you could instead be learning more about yourself. Namely why you would be attracted to somebody who would "change" or push you away while lacking the self-knowledge to be able to understand why even after a month. I'm also curious as to why her time has to be her friends OR you. Have you met any of her friends? Have you spent any time together with her friends? I also found your opening line of being "everything you were looking for in a partner" to be a red flag. Especially since you do not elucidate what that refers to. Finally, a 19 year difference in age wouldn't be a big deal if you were 60 and she was 41. But if you're 40 and she's 21, there's a very good chance that she couldn't possibly be everything you're looking for and/or even compatible with you.

Humans have an upper brain that can conceptualize the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences for behaviors. We use this to inhibit the more primitive parts of our brains. Short of an illness that compromises these inhibitions, neither drugs, hormones, nor stress can make us behave in ways we otherwise wouldn't. If I'm stressed and I interact with somebody in a way that I feel is less than ideal, then this is an opportunity for me to pursue self-knowledge. For example, I used to manage a restaurant and treated those who were working "underneath me" as equals. However, during times when we were slammed, I did become more snappy towards them. It revealed to me that my treating them as equals was a matter of convenience to me and not the result of a principled acceptance of their property rights. If a person accepts their own capacity for error and wishes to live virtuously, then this sort of thing should serve as a preamble for self-improvement. As opposed to serving as an excuse to allow for treating others in a less than ideal manner on an ongoing basis.

Theft, assault, rape, and murder are behaviors where the assailant accepts their own self-ownership while rejecting the self-ownership of their victim. To identify this as internally inconsistent cannot be described as a belief as it is an accurate description of the real world. This is precisely why it is important to understand that a belief is not a matter of fact. To the rational individual, belief is fleeting; It is motivation to test the theory that it may either be upgraded to an understood truth or discarded as disproven nonsense. Those who use the word "belief" in a long-term context are confessing that they need for it to be true even if it is not. Those who use it as a matter of fact reveal they reject their own capacity for error. It is when people allow their belief to motivate their behaviors that millions of humans get murdered in the name of State/religion. In this scenario, it is the behaviors of those responsible that influences reality, not the belief itself.

"How can I trust my own thinking to be true?" is a performative contradiction. The rest of his "proof" is predicated on it. Not being an "X or anything else" is a logical impossibility. "(paraphrased:) I cannot explain it, therefore it's God," is neither an argument nor rational. "Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought," begs the question of if God exists. "I can never use thought to disbelieve in God," is a falsehood. Faith is believing something without consideration and thought is consideration. The only way to disbelieve in God is by way of thought. His premise makes the fundamental error that belief has any influence on reality.

People offer/take out insurance for things they cannot plan for, which is not an accurate description of pregnancy. The correct way to deal with the problem of unwanted pregnancy is negotiating with children and teaching them things like rational thought, deferred gratification, and long-term planning.

I do patrols alone, in a very large, dark, seemingly alive factory every night as well as other, similar scenarios less regularly. As such, I have to be very careful when it comes to thrillers/horror movies. The first time I saw the original Paranormal Activity, I was alone in a hotel room with the lights off, movie playing on my laptop, laying down, drifting off. When the first night time scene came, I sort of "woke up" due to the sudden, conspicuous lack of any audio. I watched intently, knowing it was supposed to be a horror movie, to try and see what they were trying to show me. Nothing happened. The entire movie went on like this, escalating a bit here and there, but mostly in a peculiar (not scary) kind of way. Being that it was dark, I had no sense of time. All this combined, the ending literally came out of nowhere. I give credit to the movie since the ending would otherwise be mundane, but the pacing of the movie really made it quite horrifying to me. For a couple weeks afterwards, my patrols were coupled with a cold sensation and hair standing on the back of my neck as I couldn't shake the imagery from my mind. More recently, I got my first taste of a true panic attack. I had begun to watch a movie called Banshee Chapter. I had to turn the movie off 10-15 minutes in because I knew I had already seen too much. For over a month afterwards, I would remember the imagery I saw and the way it made me feel and would have the same cold and hair standing up as before. But for the first few nights afterwards, I also had a near inability to breathe and I literally fled (abandoned my duties) in order to be able to calm down. The irony here is that my job puts me in situations where I might very well go up against another person who would mean me bodily harm. While I've been in near misses and it's shaken me up something powerful, the thought of it in advance doesn't frighten me because I'm equipped to fight back. It's when my mind plays tricks on me and entertains notions of supernatural (despite understanding there's no such thing) that I can become frightened.