dsayers

Sure. Rushed back story: Lots of emotional and psychological and some physical abuse as a child, poor life skills as an adult, bankruptcy, living under the roof of abusive father. This past year, I've been studying philosophy and pursuing self-knowledge which provides a new perspective on what is mostly old tricks being leveled against me in varying configurations. There was one recently that your story reminded me of. My dad's house is ranch style, single story. I stay in a "wing" that was added on which is handy because it mostly means my presence doesn't disrupt their lives as this wing has it's own bathroom and the kitchen is between the two ends of the house. Shortly before xmas, they were gone for the night and I was using the opportunity to clean the house, including their bathroom. I went to go out the front door to flog the bathmats when I noticed that the deadbolt now required a key to exit, with no key readily available nearby. I've been incarcerated for brief bits as a juvenile as a result of acting out to try and get others to hear of my abuse. As an adult, I've been taken into custody several times, including having full auto rifles pointed at my head for not doing anything wrong, even by their own rules. So as you can imagine, I really don't like the sensation that I am in capable of leaving somewhere. Granted, the house has a back door and this is what I use almost exclusively. Nevertheless, in the event of intruder or fire, this can be a problem, especially for them, who use that door exclusively. To add to my anxiety is the fact that after I got into guns/carrying/self-defense once upon a time, he started to. We've had numerous conversations since he does defer to my being into it longer, and professionally (until it no longer suits him in the moment). He's demonstrated numerous times that he's dangerous in owning/handling a gun and that his sense of threat detection is way off. He's also demonstrated that how he aggresses against people he feels can escape him varies widely from aggression against people he feels cannot escape him. So I couldn't help wondering what he was thinking about that would lead to him choosing to take away people's ability to leave freely. I called my father up to ask how can I exit the front door. His answer was, "Go out the back door." A short conversation ensued as he was at church and wished to not be disturbed for non-emergencies. When he got home, he made sure to continue the conversation, but only for the purpose of letting me know he was right and I was wrong. The conversation was littered with logical errors, universality breaks, etc that I won't go into the details of them all. The one thing he went back to every time I was able to clarify the tricks he was trying to pull, which your story reminded me of was: "This really means a lot to you, doesn't it?" He wasn't saying this from a, "Gosh, my son whom I claim to love is expressing a concern for something with a perceived enthusiasm, maybe I should consider it." He was saying this from a, "You're really weird and I'm concerned that you have such a fixation with what I do with my own door." I can't tell you how many times in my life he's tried to convince me that I think weird. Some of that was because I thought differently from him and some of that was because abuse he was responsible for warped my sense of well-being and safety. That's not even the best part. During conversations like this (conversations where he includes me formally, but immediately removes me from the conversation in his own mind), there inevitably comes a point where I have to stop showing "resistance" or else I risk having my home taken from me. This conversation got to that point and he was standing there, thinking, not saying a word for over a minute. Usually he just leaves once he's "won." You know what he did next? He took me into the other room to show that there was a nail nearby that the key was hanging on the whole time! After he spoke about how I knew he was "out for the night" and how he was at church and felt disturbed by receiving a phone call that was not an emergency (which was never a problem in the past), I couldn't help but think about how if he had just said that on the phone, he could've managed my anxiety and saved himself a lot of time. It also means that the reason he didn't was out of a sadistic desire to torture somebody he believes cannot escape him. It also means that during that minute of thought, he was actually contemplating continuing to conceal the fact that there's a key right there. He tried to point out that when I'm sleeping, they can't make use of the back door. He also pointed out that it's his house, his door, his decision. The part he kept glossing over is that unlike/despite those ideas, changing the deadbolt to one that requires a key to exit (in the context of no key being present) is binding upon me. So of course I'm in a position to acknowledge it and talk about it. So yeah, you're not the only person whose abuser uses "concern" as a weapon to hurt you with. Sorry for the length.

I don't know. You stopped mid-thought and I'm asking you to finish your story so I can evaluate its truth value. As it stands, you're saying that "you don't own you" disproves self-ownership when it in fact only describes such a disproof, which doesn't prove it exists.

Thanks for asking. It's been a little over a year since I encountered the concept of self-ownership, which led me down the path of studying philosophy and pursuing self-knowledge. I've heard people like Larken Rose and Stef talk about how these concepts were a struggle for them. For me, no, it has not been difficult at all to stay on this path. For two reasons. The first being the "I don't belong in this world" feeling I've had for over two decades. Back then, I felt like the reject. Now I realize it was that I was damaged and that being repaired is preferable than being damaged, even in a world of mostly damaged people. The second reason is because I was an abusive boyfriend. Not physically, though I did once put a hole in the wall to avoid assaulting the person who I was blaming for my rage in the moment. Anyways, I had a few girlfriends (including a couple that lived with me) just take off to escape me. Back then, I didn't know why, but I kept it in mind and tried to stop it. I was powerless to stop it and as a result, I had hurt a number of people I cared about. It left me feeling desperate. It was clear that it was my fault. I was aware of it and that I didn't want to do it, yet it seemed I was powerless to stop it. Now I understand why it was happening, where it came from, how to prevent it even in my thoughts, and so on. I'm about to turn 38 and I feel like having a life and happiness are options for me for the first time. After 36 years of misery and suffering, I find nothing hard about staying on the path at all. It's been a real treat meeting me and getting to know me. It's wonderful that the well-intentioned, gentle person that I am can finally come out and play with others without "demons" on my back weighing me down and altering my actions in a way I don't want. I hope this is helpful to you.

Just for the sake of clarification, you mentioned that the two of you have discussed moving vs being moved and you mentioned your feelings of ambivalence, but it's not clear if the discussions you've had with her include this ambivalence. If not, I think that's important. Pardon my projection, but I would be exhilarated at the possibilities in taking a risk for the first time in my life to be with not just somebody, but an entire family that would be nurturing to my values and peaceful co-existence. For me, this would be after a life of abuse and isolation with relationships and families of those I've had relationships with being against me. Do you think the ambivalence could be the result of taking a large risk for the first time? Do you think you have reservations about her abandoning you after having gone your separate ways in the past?

It's natural, even experienced in the animal kingdom. It's the result of mirror neurons. Those without empathy do not have properly functioning mirror neurons.

Out of curiosity, on what basis do you feel the person is dangerous? Not saying you're wrong to feel that way, I just personally don't view state accusations of non-violent behavior to be an indicator. This seems to be the root of your dilemma. It sounds like you've spoken to others you work with and they feel the same way. Are any of you willing to withhold your services until such a time that your employer isn't endangering you? If your concern is valid, then I think your employer would be willing to forego the expense of training five new people in order to pay to retrain one. For what it's worth, I can relate. I was once a manager at a pizzeria in not the best part of town. I handled cash when I was managing and I also delivered. I was armed despite company policy. I remember being consumed by guilt. I was actually ready to quit to evade the guilt. Luckily, the store manager was former military police and armed pizza deliverer, so he was comfortable with firearms. It is true that you're violating an agreement you made. However, the agreement stipulated something that has no bearing on the party who required it. If you own a firearm, I assume you understand that it's better to avoid conflict than to survive it (prevention vs cure). What you're doing now enables you to provide for your family while minimizing risk to your well-being. However, working elsewhere would reduce the risk even more presuming your concerns for this person are valid. You might want to remind your boss that the people responsible for flying planes into the world trade center and killing over 3,000 people were caught on camera before doing so. Somehow the camera didn't save those people. Just as a manual saying no weapons will not save you or anybody else there.

Go on. Who then owns my body that gave me permission to use it since before I was old enough to communicate with anybody?

If somebody asked me if I'd rather be stolen from to pay for prisons or stolen from to pay for shelter, I'd answer that I'd rather not be stolen from at all.

Wouldn't that be appealing to insecurities? A lot of marketing I see preys on those who cannot think.

Before my parents divorced (I was 3-4 years old), I had a couple solid years of being nurtured. As a result, the decades of abuse (parents, teachers, priests, government) afterwards felt odd to me. I used to categorize this as "life telling me I don't belong here." Once I learned about self-ownership, propaganda, subjugation, etc everything just seemed clear to me. It's actually kind of saddening because I can see so many things that so many others cannot despite it being "obvious." Including my former self. That takes tons of effort to break the wills of other people and that's sad. But I'm happy understanding more about myself and finally having the power to break the cycle of violence. It used to be I hurt people close to me. It's not what I wanted and I couldn't figure out how to stop it. It led to me becoming very isolated as to not hurt others.

Well it can also be used as an ideological weapon, as seen here. Prior to this occurring, I had received a PM from a 3rd party saying my interaction with Cornellius was "very empathetic and understanding, but being honest in your feelings of puzzlement." I had already said all that I could on the subject. Cornellius claimed to wish to disengage, but then re-engaged for the purpose of harming me in order to coerce me into doing what he wanted, which I already was by letting it go.

13.5 hrs after the last reply here with no response from me, Cornellius sends me a PM saying: Three minutes later, he sent me another: He's referring to the ability to vote down my comments, which he has in fact done here twice (when I went to sleep six hours ago, my profile's rating was two higher than it is now). Cornellius, self-knowledge is the purpose of this place. If this disturbs you, you should run from it, not hang out where people encourage it. You're using the rating system as an ideological WEAPON against another person to avoid it. You're also provoking attention in this regard when you perpetuate that which you wish to not be pursued.

How do you know? I specifically asked you... well, lots of questions. The most recent was in regards to who could claim ownership over your body that you are cultivating even as you read this? A surgeon doesn't own you even though he's exercising ownership over your body. Your father owns the computer but allows you to use it. There is a difference between owning and exercising ownership over something. Yes, control is part of ownership.

Slavery was accepted for millenia. "You own yourself." "I contest this." "That proves it." "That's descriptive." "How is it not the normative?" "I said so." I'm sorry if I'm coming off as confrontational, but I cannot ignore that I'm trying to explore truth values while you're eluding every question being asked of you. If my understanding of the truth is wrong and you have a more accurate idea of what the truth is, this isn't a good way to convince people. So my final question of you is the one I should've asked first: Are you interested in the truth?

Thank you for the clarification. As a result of abuse done to me, I have a bias against inflicted structure and your initial description of rite of passage seemed to be this way. Your correction seems more like criteria, which seems more informal. I apologize if my bias towards structure caused a communication degradation. In a way, we are in accordance in this regard. Earlier in the thread, I invited vze to enact a timeline. The reason being that my understanding of developmental psychology suggests that a human is capable of possessing the intellectual esteem in regards to sex even before their equipment becomes available. I think the reason we've "forgotten this" is because of how government schools are structured. Ironic when you consider that this level of abuse might actually drive unprepared teens into doing SOMETHING that feels good and is within their control.

I asked you if your case for subjective moral relativity was not forthcoming for this reason. This marks the third request I've made of you to substantiate a position of yours that has gone unanswered. Why do you speak as if the descriptive cannot be the same as the normative? Why do you speak as if the descriptive is a deal breaker for you when in the other thread, speaking in the normative was the deal breaker? For as long as you are alive, you are nourishing nearly every cell of your body. On what basis could anybody else claim to own your body?

First of all, you did not answer my question. This is the second time I've asked you for some rigor behind your claims and you've ignored it. This could be an indication that there is none to offer. Do you watch for confirmation bias? Secondly, this is a philosophy board. It doesn't matter if person A CLAIMS to own person B if that claim is invalid. We use normative analysis to determine the truth value of objective claims.

Your contesting of it is proof that it cannot be contested. Unless somebody else used your fingers to type that. I'm assuming that the case for "subjective moral relativity" isn't forthcoming due to this inescapable axiom being rejected by you, eh?

I realize that religions claim morality and lawyers are said to operate ethically, but I'm not talking about that. Objective morality and ethics, is there a difference? My understanding of the terms was that they were interchangeable. In a recent video with Stef and Steph, Mr. Kinsella was talking about these terms as if they differ. So I thought I'd ask the community to elucidate the differences in a philosophically consistent manner please. Thank you.

It breaks universality in that in order for murder to be murder and not euthanasia, it has to be unwanted by one of the parties. In order for murder to be universal, it would have to be wanted by everybody, everywhere, at all times but then it's no longer murder.

Your posts have had a fair amount of sarcasm in them. This is confusing to me. Even before I began to study philosophy, I watched as people got downright mean with each other arguing over the origins of life. What confused me most is that whether I came from retard fish frogs or something created me, it doesn't effect my daily life. So I question people's desire for this information one way or another when it leads them to mistreating other people. It just seems as if the latter is well within our reach and far more productive and important than where we were thousands or billions of years ago.

The purpose of philosophy is to (in)validate objective claims. Positive obligations are inherently immoral as they disregard consent, which violates self-ownership. How can something that is universal NOT be objective? Not at all. You own yourself. People are not fundamentally different from one another. Therefor everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. That is the objective case for morality. Meanwhile, you continue to make assertions and just as with my last post, I challenge this conclusion of yours. Actually, I haven't spoken of UPB at all except to say that I haven't yet tackled out it of misconception.

If slaves are conscious humans capable of reasoning, how do they go from this state to property? You're skipping over the step of coercion to claim that the same coercion is valid, binding, accurate, and capable of altering fundamentals.

I'm not sure why you said you accept that YOU need to be peaceful, negotiate, etc. I was not (at any point) talking about you specifically. If a parent does not abuse their child then their child will not seek abusive people. If a parent negotiates with their child, treats them as an equal, and models rational thought then their child will be put off by abusive and/or predatory people. Yes, in light of these claims, the child will grow up to be able to manage their time, problem solve, plan for the future... all of the things we need to do to function independently. This means that whether you're talking about cake vs carrot or protected sex vs getting into windowless vans with strangers, that person will make rational decisions.

I am so envious of you! What I wouldn't give to have a special someone who was philosophically minded. I say this both because it's true and to emphasize it's importance. All the things you're thinking about are intelligent and rational considerations, so that's not to say that they're unimportant. Just maybe not as important as having somebody to share it all with. Which brings me to the one question I had through reading most of that: Have you talked to her about any of this? What are her thoughts? She knows you better than I do I'm guessing. Where did you both grow up? Where are your families and friends? Are these people that would strengthen your bond with her or detract from it? Not saying any of these are deal breakers. Just that if it were to come down to a coin toss, you might as well weight the coin usefully.