dsayers

Welcome to FDR. I'm really happy that you found a good therapist and are willing to share your experiences here. For me, this really says it all. It's like walking into the room with a severed limb and all the person can focus on is how disgusted they are at the blood spilling as if that even compares to having a limb severed. "Get your courage back"? Look, you're talking to somebody that were you to tell them you're scared to be in their presence, all they'd do is focus on how that makes THEM feel and (re)victimize you by making you feel as if you're a bad person. To say to such a person that you are in fact scared is VERY courageous. I wouldn't recommend talking to her for as long as she's just going to use it as a way to victimize you further. That said, if you do talk again and she asks what she did, tell her to look into a mirror. She's withholding something you want to force you to do something you don't want to do. For what it's worth, I am going through similar experiences to this day. I won't go into any details because it sounds like you have enough people responding to what you want to talk about with what they'd like to talk about.

Overreacting means a reaction that went to far. As I made no accusation, it would be more accurate to classify it as bringing past trauma to the table. Allow me to demonstrate: 2+2=4 regardless of whether Stef says so or not, regardless of how certain I am or am not about it. This is the second time you've mentioned this despite it having no bearing on the truth value of what's being discussed. The implication being that if I don't meet some standard (in this case, skepticism), you can discard my input based on that rather than on the words themselves being false. Because you are willing to shift focus off of the topic and onto the individual, perhaps this might explain why you'd expect others to similarly make things personal. Of course not. "My idea was that someone could teach parents to be better teachers of rationality for their kids and/or help kids learn to be rational," which you described as "a hell of an entrepreneurial opportunity if someone could figure out how to teach these skills effectively." This is precisely what Stef does. How does that go for him? He releases a video about spanking and it is met with tons of resistance. Why? Because we live in a world full of people who were spanked and who believe that spanking is necessary and good. Which means that the moment you teach a parent that you need to rationalize and negotiate with your child, they are going to go on the defensive. Either because they've already begun to parent from an authoritarian position, or they were parented from an authoritarian position, or they live in a world where it's viewed as normal, necessary, and good to parent from an authoritarian position. A product/service that instantly sent almost all of its customer base on the defensive against that product/service could not be classified as a hell of an entrepreneurial opportunity. This was all I was saying. I was disagreeing with you, which is not the same as attacking you.

If only "Utah" had apartments to give that didn't come from stealing them first. How much maintenance will have to be stolen to manage the effects of people not taking care of that which they do not own/did not earn? How many people will be near the threshold of whatever guidelines is required that will choose to stop earning in order to get a "free" home? The working to help become self-sufficient is a good approach, but again, those caseworkers are being provided from stolen monies. This is one of those things that's passed off as a really great idea while ignoring the unseen costs or the immorality of holding guns to people's heads to fund it.

Self-knowledge is beneficial and empowering regardless of what anybody else does, says, or thinks.

That doesn't answer the questions. "Eat a cactus" wouldn't urge you to identify the true source of your annoyance.

You asserted moral relativity as if it is a given then made a few statements based on that assertion. However, there is no such thing as "society" and morality would be meaningless if it were subjective.

When you park your car, it doesn't cease to be yours just because you're not making use of it in the moment. The way you're referring to self-ownership, you are saying that slavery is moral because the slavers' use of coercion to reduce the freedom the slave has equates to the slave no longer owning themselves. A normative examination of this practice is how we are able to determine that coercion and slavery are immoral, even if they happen. Specifically, the slavers are exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. The owned by somebody else is persistent while the ownership exerted by the slaver is temporary.

How does "rite of passage" differ from "explain pregnancy and disease, the ramifications, the long-term impact" or "taught what sex is, the benefits of it, the consequences of it, etc"? My "rite of passage" for multiplication was when I was taught to memorize single digit multiplication tables. This was not at an age (I happened to be 3), was not a formality, and did not require social approval. May I be so bold as to suggest it's a lacking of self-knowledge to accept self-ownership, approach any subject as if it requires external control, but not realize the incompatibility of these ideas?

Why are you guys still engaging somebody that uses personal attacks?

Well the original thread was goofy on two counts. For one, it spoke of an entire continent as if everything was the same within, and didn't identify what it was that was being addressed specifically. Secondly, it was asking what the non-violent solution is to something. Unless the problem is not enough theft, assault, rape, or murder, the answer is pretty obvious. The thread hijack isn't much clearer. Wages isn't an issue because a wage is what two people are willing to pay/work for. If a 3rd party thinks it's low, they can offer to pay more. Sweatshops and child labor aren't problems. There was a time when the US was poorer and they utilized "sweatshops" to amass wealth and capital. Children work in these places because it's a way to help their family. If they didn't have a sweatshop to work in, they might turn to prostitution which is no good. So what is the non-violent way to help this? First of all, don't foist subsidies on them, which ruins local economies. Second, and I love pointing this one out, shop at places like WalMart. They make use of this labor which brings you lower prices and helps them (the children/sweatshop workers) to amass wealth and capital. Everybody wins. Which addresses the poverty issue.

I don't know. I think the first step would be being honest with yourself as to whether or not assault is moral. I really am glad that you posted here and that you're taking the time to share and consider the input of others. This is also an important step.

What this says is that because he was assaulted, it is okay if he assaults others. By making this excuse for him, you allow this excuse for yourself. If you have this excuse and you have children, you will not take the time to negotiate with them and treat them like human beings because that's a lot harder, takes more time, and assaulting them will be okay because you were assaulted worse than you'd be assaulting them. In the meantime, it is okay for you to retaliate against others because retaliating against others is the source of the assault that was leveled upon you, which doesn't anger you. You literally cannot break the cycle of violence until it angers you to the point of saying IN THE ABSOLUTE that it is immoral to assault. It's not even a good excuse. Who knows better that being assaulted by your caregivers is horrifying than somebody who was assaulted by their caregivers? Also, the phrase "poor parenting technique" significantly minimizes the destruction it causes directly and against others through you. He has done an excellent job of providing for the family, including kickings, but not including emotional growth. This is not an excellent job of providing for the family. The one thing a parent needs to provide above all else is a safe environment. Food on the table and a roof over your head is part of it, but so is protecting you AGAINST people that would kick you. He did the exact opposite. He doesn't get points for the food on the table and the roof over your head. He's SUPPOSED TO provide that. He made that commitment when he decided to have a kid.

This would mean that they were not surrounded by truth tellers. Part of the truth is that people are fallible and therefor things that they say need to be scrutinized. Besides, how does trusting somebody to tell you the truth translate into being okay with somebody trying to touch you between the legs when nobody has ever done that before? Or telling you to take your clothes off when nobody has ever done that before? This is where the language analogy holds. Your use of the phrase social pressure here reveals that we're talking about two different things. A responsible parent would not leave their child with people who wished to prey upon them when they're young. Through modeling and rational thought, the child would not accept friends that did not value them as a person and an equal when they're older. You're talking about two paradigms concurrently despite their incompatibility. To clarify my reply, I understood your point, particularly your use of the phrase "entrepreneurial opportunity." In order for what you're describing to be profitable in the existing paradigm (your context), it would have to be a service people want. Which, when you sell it under the label of making your children immune to predators, of course there would be a huge push for it... Until the parents realized that they would be categorized as predators. Or that they'd have to come face to face for the first time that so many of their own childhood caregivers/authority figures were predators. Suddenly, it's not so desirable. I remember this from my own childhood. My mother just adored having a real live doll to play with... Until it was old enough to start scrutinizing her irrational commands. Abusers aren't comfortable with lights being shined on them.

The latter avoids mortality, which likely isn't age appropriate for a 4 year old.

Is it your argument that because adults cannot figure out morality, they should inflict their work in progress on others? This seems like you're trying to argue against me while arguing for my position. Oh and adults have gone back on forth in terms of nutrition as well. Also, I don't feel you've addressed the moral component you referenced. The morality related to sexual interaction is to not assault, which even bad parents teach their 3 year olds, at least with their words. I'm not even sure what you mean by adults have gone back and forth on morality. This too is arguing for my position of teaching people to rationally think. What is the qualifier of "physical" doing there if it has no bearing on what it's qualifying? Are you suggesting that people need to wait twice as long as reality tells them? Are you aware that people used to reproduce and have families at the age of even 13? As our life expectancy and irrational social norm of age of consent has increased, has the age of human physical maturation changed at all? As I understand it, the anti-progress crowd has been arguing that the age of human physical maturation has actually been decreasing. So I ask again, for the third time, why is it that in philosophy, when our perception conflict with reality, our perceptions must give way, but this doesn't apply to physical maturation? The disagreement is in regards to when that is. You say child, but we're talking about adolescents.

In the presence of somebody who is grieving a fresh loss, I don't take issue with whatever they need to help ease their pain. Otherwise, I totally agree with you. Than again, I am a stickler for precise language.

The time a person could rationally weigh the risks, the counters to those risks, etc comes before physical maturation. It's no different than teaching a 3 year old how to choose food that's good for them over food that tastes better but isn't as good for them. The only real difference is that sexual interaction requires another person, so there's a moral component. Considerations and peaceful coexistence with others is also a lesson that is learned well before physical maturation. When I invited you to sit down and make a timeline to see for yourself, I was trying to be helpful. So all you end up with is abused people's repression leading to a desire to repress others out of artificial righteousness. It's the same reason why psychopaths get off making legislation to tell you how to live your life.

I think a parent has more contact with parents taking their child to playgrounds and such than they do by letting other people take them to government schools. I agree that being an example isn't enough, but it is vital. Abused children will either internalize, normalize, or repress the trauma in order to survive. Then they're shipped to government schools, which only serves to reinforce the abuse and strengthen the way in which it is dealt with. To see somebody, ANYBODY offer an example that their abuse is NOT all that there is, it can help in exposing how wrong it is. This could make all the difference in the world.

How is "a person who is never exposed to French cannot speak French" at all assailable? On what basis? To accept this approach, almost everybody would have to accept the evil and sadism of their caregivers or other childhood "authority figures," up to and including the very people that claim to own and protect us as adults. So many people reject the possibility on the basis of this (dis)comfort alone. Look at this thread, where it is, and how laden with presupposition it is. This is where such a topic should receive the most rational treatment.

Why does this matter? If you go to such a place to meet people and then you stop trying to meet people because of what other people think/say, you're letting them control your happiness. It's not like what you're doing is immoral, where a 3rd parties input would be relevant. We are sexual beings, so being attracted to a person is part of a relationship. However, I think you'll find that if you enjoy a person, this will actually enhance your attraction to them. When I was younger and lacked virtue, I had met a couple girls through friends of friends over the phone. We'd talk a bit and decide to meet. Obviously since they were meeting people blindly, they weren't lookers, and neither was I. We ended up being attracted to each other more than my first impression would've suggested. I imagine now that I do prioritize and embody virtue, this enhancement to attraction would be that much stronger. Have you tried other avenues other than bars? I hate to generalize, but I don't think that's the best environment to meet Ms. Right. I once worked with a guy that had a theory: If you pick a girl up at the club, that's not your girl. She belongs to the club and she will leave you for the club as soon as she can "better deal" you.

I can understand not telling a 4 yr old about death. Not saying they were right, just that I could understand. I don't think outright lying is the way to do it. Then of course as you persist with it as you get older, the need for the whole truth becomes that much more important. Once you're old enough to use the internet, it kind of goes without saying that "age appropriate" would be just about all-encompassing. The way your mother just blurted it out is like using words to stab somebody. It wasn't very considerate at all. I'm sorry you felt abandoned as a result of this keeping the truth from you. I cannot relate directly. The first death I experienced, I was already 14. It was my father's mother, the gentlest family member I had. He picked my sister and I up (they were divorced) and drove down the road to park and talk. He told us what happened. We only saw her about once a week, so it didn't hurt as much as it could've. Well that and the fact that I was abused into suppressing my emotions anyway. As somebody who was raised Christian, I remember also getting angry that she died because I saw it as an act of cruelty by somebody that supposedly had the power to look over me. I can't offer any meaningful advice as far as whether to confront your mother or not. It sounds as if there's not really any potential of her taking you seriously, which would only add to your pain. I would say that if you do, do let her know that you felt abandonment. Ask her at what age she would say a person's feeling of abandonment trumps being protected by a grown up concept such as death. In fact, I hope this thread sparks a discussion on that because I can't help but think that understanding that death is a part of life would be beneficial for emotional growth. Maybe not at 4, but you get the idea. I think it would also help a child understand a parent's concern for situations that can be physically harmful if the child understands that permanence is a very real possibility.

Because I don't fully understand a story that you are communicating or because my perspective of the story you're communicating conflicts with yours? If this conversation was taking place face to face, would you be tempted to assault me as a result of this annoyance?

Ugh! You know what really pisses me off about child abuse in general? The arrogance in believing that the party that is not the child is automatically right because they're not the child. That somehow we come into this world a blank slate, yet when we describe what we see, it's that we're seeing wrong. Seeing it wrong in a way that would be harmful to us. Here we are, the abused, asking honest questions like "how do we know?" and in the face of empirical evidence, these monsters cannot even consider the POSSIBILITY that MAYBE they were wrong. I weep just thinking about it. I admire you for your courage. You can rest assured that you did what you could. When we're abused, it literally might be that they didn't know any better. It's not a valid excuse, but exposing them to it can lead to genuine apology, remorse, and efforts towards repair. We don't know until we present it to them, which you have. She made it clear that she wasn't as interested in how you feel as she was in preserving her own comfort. I was in a similar situation myself not long ago. Do you also find that even though it's not the preferable outcome, it's better than not knowing for sure? If your mother is anything like my father, I expect you'll find her tune changing REAL quick the moment she comes to face the reality that you can escape her. I hope you will not let this fool you as it will just be an indication that she had the capability all along and chose to torture you simply because you couldn't evade. For these reasons, it might be better for you if you formally sever the connection AFTER you've already made the move. I could be wrong. Thank you for sharing. I know it's not easy.

I'm sorry that your mother doesn't have the integrity to take responsibility for her actions even when she sees it's troubling for you. It sounds as if you've already done what you can. You can't make people care about you as a person. I did have two questions for you. What did this look like exactly? By that I mean how did you approach it and what defenses did she utilize? Your title and topic seem to contradict one another. The title makes it seem as if the moving was to evade while the topic makes it seem as if evading would be a side effect of moving.

That's really good to hear! Just to be clear, I would definitely say that attending therapy is the pursuit of self-knowledge.