dsayers

How do you control anybody and not control anybody simultaneously? Police, military, and courts are not creatures that we need to tame. They are people. People that control other people through coercion.

Well at the risk of projecting, allow me to share my interpretation. I too was exposed to loud fighting as a child and I too am very sensitive to noise pollution in general. In my pursuit of philosophy, psychology, and self-knowledge, I think that a lack of self-soothing is a more likely explanation in my case. Maybe it's different for you as I can certainly see the logic behind the correlation you're drawing. If you're interested in this possibility and haven't already checked it out, I'd recommend the first half of . I think part of the reason I'm inclined to attribute my sensitivity to noise to a lack of self-soothing is that I also have trouble falling asleep and can be a bit fidgety in my waking hours.

Link for those who use browser addons that alter appearance. Embedded Vimeo seems to not escape it the way the actual video's page does.

So not only did they not nurture you which led to something you're taking responsibility for, they might have even soured you to the very idea. It could be that on a subconscious level, you equate working to neglect of human contact/nurturing. Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not trying to talk you out of working to get past all this. Just trying to help see things for what they are so that they can be processed. It's really frustrating trying to work through something without knowing what it is you're working through.

I hope others follow their example. If the enforcer class said no to the masters, we'd have a revolution today with no bloodshed.

The name Yes Parenting implies permission being sought. In that context, yes (and no) is only a conclusion. Children who are inexperienced in this world, who rely on their caregivers to guide them in the world, benefit much more from understanding how those conclusions are arrived upon and how to rationally arrive there on their own. In this way, Yes Parenting is almost as damaging as No Parenting, and is in fact no parenting.

If you know for sure that the people in question have no interest, then this would be akin to letting a torturer know where your sore spots are. It's not a good idea.

It's a difficult situation because communications isn't all that competitive due to State interference. As a result, without State interference to provide net neutrality, we may very well see ISP's gouging as statists predict would happen in a free market. Since ISP's taking steps customers do not like would not accrue to them by way of competition thanks to State interference.

I read this like saying that if she punches you, some of it is your fault for not dodging it. If you had the choice, you wouldn't have been there and therefore couldn't have made the decision to drop out or not. As for going out and getting job skills, I'm going to assume that your parents didn't model for you good negotiation skills given that you were forced to go to a school you didn't want to be at and were likely never consulted in regards to. Did they do anything to prepare you for life in the real world? Just because you can go out and get job skills doesn't mean that you wouldn't be doing so as a battle that is uphill against a couple decades of bad programming. Does that make sense?

That's not behaviorism. That's a voluntary contract.

Fair enough. I felt the verbiage framed the hypothetical as if to presuppose the conclusion.

Conditioning isn't passive. You have to inflict punishment to discourage the unwanted behavior. This is coercion, which is the definition of lack of choice.

I'm so sorry to read about this. I too was inflicted with government schooling only to come out the other side broken and incapable of functioning in the world on my own. It's so very sad that so many parents send their children to school thinking that they're providing them an education when in fact they're robbing them of the very life they gave them. Do you still live with your parents? Do you give them credit for your current lack of marketable skills?

We don't need hypotheticals. Allison Gopnik has already exposed how humans are born before they are traumatized into conformity to our coercive society. Your hypothetical disturbed me (transporting, inducing amnesia). You're talking about people. Other people are not ours to arrange, transport, or tinker in without their consent.

I'll have to watch it again sometime. I didn't pick up on that stuff at all

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39593-worlds-toughest-job-viral-video-about-moms/

Perhaps you mean we cannot quantify why they act. We can surely qualify why they act. This is why things like self-knowledge, peaceful parenting, and family histories are so important.

The way I see it, to qualify for moral consideration, you need choice and other people. Behaviorism takes the choice out of the equation. Teaching somebody to say 2+2=4 isn't the same as teaching somebody how to add.

Were you at all involved in the process by which she arrived at this conclusion? Because this isn't a conclusion you can arrive at about somebody without them. I would say based on the repetition and timestamp, that yes, ignoring (blocking) them is probably the best course of action. She's goading you into a confrontation. One whose details and outcome will likely not matter to her. From her perspective, it looks as if just getting you to betray your own instincts would be victory enough. I mean, don't have the balls to explain yourself is an outright taunt. How could anybody willing to speak to you that way simultaneously get to claim that you owe them caring about them? If you haven't already, I think you'd benefit from checking out

Not fathers. Just mothers. I should've watched until the end just to see if it said who funded that crap. The ones who would need that information the most aren't seeking it. They believe they can just abort, or their parents will just take care of it, or the State will give them money. In that regards, I think the video does more damage because while it says that it's a full time, all-encompassing job, it doesn't say that it's one that requires a father as well.

I value Stef's perspective. More than that, I value his methodology. It helps me think for myself. I never just take what he says as gospel. I think about it for myself and proceed accordingly. This is one of the reason I mostly try to stay away from quotes or even citing specific individuals. One tip I would offer: re-read your post and look for the word belief. I'm not saying it's your only problem, but I think it is problematic. We live in a society that assigns the rank on incontestable to beliefs, especially if they're organized (religion). This is very dangerous. Start with first principles and use rationality to test a belief. It doesn't pan out, discard it. Belief is like anger: it's not the end of the story. It's motivation to strive towards the end of that particular story, hopefully in a productive fashion.

I certainly agree with this. I don't think sharing a secret and sharing your body are comparable. Also, I could offers examples of how divulging information that was shared in confidence would be the initiation of the use of force.

Why do you ask? We cannot achieve a free society without people being raised in nurturing homes and accepting the property rights of others. Under that premise, this sort of thing would hardly ever happen. When it did, the consequences would accrue to the perpetrator and people would refuse to have anything to do with such a person until such time as they've made amends to their victim. If you're speaking logistically, then yes, there is nothing physically obstructing somebody from doing with it whatever they want. I assume this thread is a moral consideration. Under that premise, one does not have the moral right to do with it whatever they want, especially for the purpose of harming that person. Even if your ex is a porn star, but is clothed during normal discourse with others, there's no reasonable expectation that who their unclothed body is shown to is your decision. A person and their body are inseparable, so we know that any access they give you to that property of theirs is temporary. Just as a person who lends you their car is not giving you the right to share that access with others, a person who has sex with you isn't allowing you to pimp them out, and a person who gives you nude depictions of themselves isn't allowing you to share it with others.

Very gripping. It will take time to sort through all my feelings about it. Did you notice that the comments section is uncharacteristically rational?

How would that aide in your pursuit of being a thief? That would make you a terrible thief. As for the rest, I don't know what you're talking about. John suffers, CO2 emissions... there's no need to obfuscate. Or to keep it relevant: If you wish to communicate effectively, then you ought to keep it relevant and concise.