dsayers

In the abstract, I would say that it depends on why you want to date a person. If you're looking for somebody to have a life and/or children with, you'll want for it to be based on honesty. If you're just looking for companionship or sex, you'll still want to be honest enough to determine if they're looking for somebody to have a life/children with. Specifically with regards to somebody you've known for nine years, I can't think of any reason to not be honest. While it is true that being honest about wanting more from a friend than just friendship could push them away, not being honest about it is just going to torture you. If you're going to be tortured either way, I'd rather have the peace of mind that I did everything I could.

If it's somebody you care about, ask them, "Would you steal from me to buy something for yourself?" If not, "Would you hire somebody to steal from me to buy something for you?" If not, "Would you hire somebody to injure or kidnap me for disagreeing with you?" If the answer to any of these questions is yes, I would recommend cutting that person out of your life.

Thank you for your input. I actually had a longer response typed out talking about how this isn't accurate or constructive, and how that contrasts with prescribing giving somebody a break, which shouldn't apply differently based on tenure on one forum. However, I'm well aware of how easily I get goaded by appeals to insecurity and need to work on this. Suffice it to say that calling something X doesn't make it so and there is a difference between initiating and responding. I've reviewed the thread a couple times now and I responded to attacks with assertiveness and curiosity, not passive-aggressiveness. Even here, where you make an accusation with no substantiation and no effort to actually help, I'm thankful for the opportunity. @marius: Thank you for the clarification.

I've looked over the thread once more and only find two sources of hostility. Wiltin has already explained the one, even if he did so with the baseless, demonstrably false accusation of unwillingness to discuss my adult life. And now this even more severe accusation of hostility. I am not a hostile person. Could you explain what it is that you're referring to? Can you explain why you'd make such an accusation in my presence, but not to me? That's hostile. Also, sharing self-knowledge is not the same as self-attack. Your post strikes me as inciting a situation that was already left alone. I'm not saying that's necessarily an accurate description, but that is my experience. It leaves me wondering why a person would do that. Any clarifications you could offer would be appreciated since this undeserved friction is part of the reason why I've stopped visiting the site as often.

Self-knowledge can take a lot of the surprise out of these sorts of things. Still, if an emotion catches you by surprise, it usually means you're not going to be able to explain why in the moment. It's something you can think about or in the case of interacting with somebody that truly cares about you, something you can explore together.

I share your lack of interest in small talk. However, in a job type situation, small talk is a way to keep things stable among people you're not otherwise invested in. You won't be selling out or dumbing yourself down by catering to the masses in this fashion. I'm not saying that their behavior is right, but this is the kind of instability I'm talking about. Is it any comfort that their behavior actually has nothing to do with you?

I don't know. The interrupting call being proxy child care definitely seems like an odd choice. Like, I cannot ascertain what their message actually is. "We'll have booze at the theaters soon," okay. What does that have to do with a babysitter's call? I don't see how it adds to the advert. If somebody with child wanted to enjoy a night out/alcohol, they certainly wouldn't need booze at a theater to do so. In fact, while marketing to women is always smart money, I would see adding in that phone call, potentially limiting your audience to those with child, as being a smart move. I'm not a marketing guy though. I don't see anything wrong with the advert itself. I think it would be much better to leave the child in the care of the other parent or at least somebody that you could explain a nap ritual to before leaving and they'd care enough to retain it an not need to verify by phone. I feel that's being unnecessarily pedantic on my part though.

Is this normative? Is it objective? I happen to find it incredibly exciting to debate with somebody who accepts that the moral consideration is paramount. If more people that understood this led with this, could it not become that debates would be that much more exciting for everybody? The way I see it people who unwittingly argue for aggression did not arrive at their conclusions by way of logic, reason, and evidence. They enjoy comfortable company in most people because most people do not encourage them to examine their conclusions. If more people made it more uncomfortable to maintain such positions, and to do so only required that we never let others forget that there is a moral consideration, then I think people would be less likely to green light aggression. Also, you can make the moral argument without bothering with abstractions. I usually ask such a person who owns them. Nothing is less abstract to a person than themselves.

I'm one of the lucky few apparently. I hadn't even heard this phrase until a couple weeks ago and still only have a pedestrian understanding of what it's supposed to mean. Ignorance is bliss!

Then the matter is closed. You originally spoke about the word intimate in the context of the common misconception that it means physical contact. My pointing out that intimate doesn't mean physical was a correction of that. Which it appears you accept. As for using the downvote as a weapon, I suppose I spoke out of turn in that it's not outlined anywhere (that I know of) how/when to use the voting system. I would hope in a place like this, it would be due to reasons such as somebody being dishonest, aggressive, using faulty methodology, not being open to correction, etc. You know, philosophically based motivators. As opposed to, "This guy annoys me, so I'm going to zing him not by exposing the flaws he embodies that lead to my frustration, but by zinging his rating." Since you eluded to chronology, I thought I'd share that from my perspective, the first step in anything that's transpired between us began with you posting in a 3 month dead topic to say little more than "you've lost my respect." I hope that my current perception is correct. Namely that this is mostly in the past now. Or at least the non-productive, irrational aspect of it. If you'd like to continue this in private, I'd be open to that.

If somebody voices a complaint, even if it's in the form of an attack, I at least consider it. If there's validity in their gripe, I won't let their flawed delivery prevent me from improving myself. If it turns out to be hokum, I toss it aside. That's after the fact. In the moment, I'll usually just point out that ad hominem isn't an argument (mostly for the benefit of others) and walk away. Like Brent said, there's no point in talking to somebody who isn't listening. Or, perhaps more importantly, there's no point in talking to somebody who isn't interested in the truth despite pretending to be engaging in a curiosity-based conversation (two-way).

I'm curious why within a 24 hr period, there have been 3 threads with videos about socialism? I'm interested also in why the videos offered are titled works or doesn't work when is or is not immoral is the more important question.

Did you call in to the show once? Your story sounds VERY familiar to me. It was a while ago though, so I could be wrong. Either way, I did want to thank you for your sensitivity in these matters. You may very well be saving their lives and brightening the lives of everybody they touch. That said, is there a way to get them away from your mother? My concern is that the children's formative years are not yet over, so there's a great deal of potential in rehabilitating them as you put it. Even with your mother around, they'll at least have the benefit of seeing a contrast in how you interact with them and others, if you can manage your frustration in the moment. Does the girl still have tantrums? My advice would be about the same. To talk to her to find out what her issue is. To let her know that if she wants something, there are ways to go about seeking them without such hostility. When you're talking to them in this manner, trying to connect with them, try not to be standing over them. Like have a seat or kneel down so that you're on their level. Try and make them feel as if they're safe, including safe to express how they feel. From their perspective, using violence is exhausting compared to peaceful pursuit of desires. If you can help them to engage this way, they'll likely favor it (in time) just to save themselves the trouble. Are you able to encourage productive playtime with the both of them at the same time? Like get out some building blocks and see if they can work together. It will be hard to make progress with one if the bad habits of the other continues to antagonize them. If there's a way to be nurturing to both simultaneously, they will soon drop the hostility and eventually even look to each other for support, which will amplify their peaceful behavior.

Some people aren't aware of the amount of effort they put into escaping the truth. Resistance was provided to make it more evident since to be aware is to be accountable. For me, this has been about your child. I'd like for you to benefit as well, but that is secondary. To not even be curious as to the potentiality of harming your child is truly frightening. I thank you for supporting the show and hope your are able to get more out of it, for your child's sake.

Absolutely. In fact, since I've demonstrate I'm aware enough to view and refute these, he's much more careful about when and how to be aggressive towards me. You might be right, but I'd like to challenge this theory. First, the obvious, that morality is practical. Initiating the use of force against others causes harm to self in the moment and increases risk of harm in the future. Secondly, if practicality were their aim, they'd take the time to understand and a moral argument would not put them on the defensive. Most importantly though, my explanation would be that they simply don't realize that what's being discussed is immoral. "There are two things that are certain in life: death and taxes." If this is what you grow up in, it doesn't even occur to you to question taxation. "It sucks. The end." You tell somebody who thinks this way that taxation is theft, most people will not even consider the possibility. It's the world they grew up in, everybody else does it and accepts it, it MUST be righteous. Which makes you nutty for suggesting otherwise. This is why I've always adored the phrase, "the gun in the room." I don't think it's that people believe they're being practical. I think it's that they don't see the gun in the room.

If this were true, and you see yourself as untarnished/above this as it appears that you do, you wouldn't have shared here. I don't think you will find lots of people willing to talk with you once they learn that you've judged them before meeting them. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail is what I'm trying to say here. How important is truth to you? And how important is it to you relative to comfort?

You cannot correct a problem by managing a symptom in the moment. Where did this 2 year old learn to hit? What circumstances precipitate the assault? Whose 2 year old is this? Assuming this is somebody else's child, I would recommend against, "No, don't hit." This is a conclusion and will not aide the child at all. In fact it could exacerbate the problem by giving him undeserved attention or encouraging to unleash his wrath more secretively. Instead, I would recommend asking him why he is hitting and see if the two of you can figure out a way to achieve his goals without harming others. It's essentially a boundaries issue. If violence is modeled for him at home, it's likely that he's not familiar with the concept of the other. I think that would be a good place to start. If you could share more details of who's who in the story, perhaps I could offer a more specific answer.

No. I know my neighbors. I am not intimate with them. By this I mean that I do not know their hopes, their dreams, their desires, their dedication to self-knowledge, etc. It is entirely possible for a parent to kiss their children, even just on the cheek, and not know who they are despite knowing them. If frustration leads you to the potential conclusion that somebody is actually saying that kissing is not physical, Occam's razor would suggest your interpretation is far more likely to be wrong that for it to be that somebody is actually taking up the position that a physical act is not physical. The only time I've spoken in the context of "not physical" was in reference to the definition of intimate. In your frustration, you went so far as to suggest that bothering with definitions is pedantic. Rather than expressing curiosity or a desire to hone your own understanding of the world around you, you condescended others for doing just that. I view that behavior as not accepting one's capacity for error. I took care to phrase it in such a way as to make it clear that I was speaking generally, even if you specifically fit that bill in that moment. Not the same as an attack at all. I appreciate you being honest with your experience. On a side note, I noticed that my rating started plummeting to the tune of about a philosopher king's daily complement the moment you began to attack me in your posts. I hope that this transition into being honest and open (dialogue) is indicative of what is likely you using your downvotes as a weapon will stop.

Ah, I was wondering if that's what you meant. There's a fine line. If you are normally affectionate with somebody who has since wronged you and you withhold that affection, I think this still comes down to not giving of yourself that which you are not required to. However, I do understand that there are some people out there that intentionally do that sort of thing in an attempt to manipulate another person. As this isn't an actual behavior, but rather a form of inaction, it's not immoral. The suffering the person being manipulated experiences is proximal. By this I mean that this is suffering that they're actually allowing for by allowing somebody capable of that not only in their life, but so close to them that such inaction could be used as a weapon. This is something I've been thinking about lately. So I'd be interested in hearing what people have to say to support or challenge this stance.

Check out her video history. She has lots of gems, most of them high octane, and all of them relatively short.

I don't know you. I only know of your words and the behaviors they represent. Perhaps you made it personal as a way to justify marginalizing it? It was my mistake. I approached this thread under the assumption that somebody that would post on FDR sought the truth, understanding, precision, etc. I apologize if this was in error or a result of my own wishful thinking or projection.

Is your question, "Why is it wrong to punish children but not adults?" I own myself, therefore my time and the effects of my actions, therefore my car, etc. There is no positive obligation for me to give of these things to anybody else. I don't agree that the withholding of these things could be classified as passive aggressive. If I avoid a statist for example, I'm not trying to punish them, but rather just trying to protect myself. It would be different if I created a positive obligation to somebody, say by consenting to them borrowing my car. Likewise, parents create an enormous positive obligation to the child when they have the child. This includes modeling the capacity for reason and negotiation. It's important that the parent understands that anything they view as punishable is in fact a failure on the part of the parents. One they should confess to their child and have a dialogue about it. This addresses the actual issue as well as models things like it's okay to fail, how to make amends, etc. I hope this is helpful. I sort of went on the presumption that you were asking how I interpreted your question (before getting confirmation).

How do you know this is a reflection upon me? Do you understand that ad hominem won't alter the truth value of any objective claim I make? Such as the fact that the word pedophile references a predeliction. The phrase I think you were looking for is child molester. Also, do you realize that a movie poster is not an argument?

surgically deconstructs the modern faces of feminism, cutting through the propaganda with laser precision to address the real issue.

You misunderstand, which ties nicely into my inquiry from the beginning. Her father chose her mother to have children with together and vice versa. If one of them is abusive to their offspring, they both are because the other chose to reproduce with them before making sure it was a secure endeavor. This is precisely why I asked about self-knowledge in the first place. If you or your partner lack self-knowledge, or do not commit to peaceful parenting, then the other one has endangered your offspring by choosing to mate with them. Crossing your fingers and hoping for the best doesn't work. A human life is too important and has unbelievably far reaching consequences if done wrong to just wing it. Being a parent is more than just stacking some cash and having a house already.