dsayers

Well, getting a BA in any field will certainly get you massive debt and a profound loss of your time. What area interests you? Philosophy has so many offshoots: math, physics, science, astronomy, etc.

If you don't mind what might appear as nitpicking, I'd like to offer a word of caution. This quote here is you taking ownership for something that you identify as defective. It's likely more accurate that you were once subjected to abuse that required you to not address it outside yourself for the sake of self-preservation. This is really important because by owning it, you're letting whomever is actually responsible off the hook. In order to do that, you have to make excuses for them. At which point, you risk allowing those same excuses for yourself, which would only perpetuate the cycle. That is rough. In the running dialogue, have you been up front with them about your responsibility for his abuse in their life? It seems like a bit of a contradiction for them to understand the differences, yet long for the abusive environment. I'd wager that the 8 yr old is probably old enough to process the data linked to being exposed to smoking while they still have developing lungs. Same with the junk food diet, which I suspect might be part of a bribery. Or maybe I'm projecting. My parents divorced early on and I remember my father took advantage of having us less often than my mother by bribing us with perpetual fun (mostly). I too couldn't see the abuse that was there past the laughs and the happy meals. Of course I didn't have anybody reasoning with me, so they might not be comparable. I hope when your daughter clams up, you try and let her know that it's important to you that she's always free to talk with you about anything and everything. Obviously this isn't the kind of lesson that she can be told, it has to be demonstrated. For example, let's suppose the constant struggle you've had with their father is something he has already used to try and make them think you're manipulative. This would certainly inspire in your daughter a hesitation in being honest if there are perceived effects she would rather avoid. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you haven't already realized, but it's worth mentioning as it's just so important.

Thanks for sharing, Atticas. You covered quite a lot of reinforced retaliation. The part about your dad kicking you for kicking the dog was the most disturbing to me. He's partially responsible for raising you in a way that your brain could regard kicking the dog as alright. The fact that he was willing to kick you probably explains why in and of itself. So when you think back to that time, does it anger you that he kicked you? Does it anger you more if you accept that he was basically victimizing you for having been previously victimized by him? If you could choose between him kicking you and sitting you down to talk to you about it, which would you prefer? Was he justified in kicking you since you kicked the dog?

You said it yourself with your use of the word displacing. Different from replacing. A machine might do the work of X people, but now you need Y people to engineer, manufacture, and maintain those machines. It frees those X people up to do other things. Or makes it to where everybody needs to work that much less during the week since the labor can be distributed among more people. If there comes a time when all people want from one another is services, then sure. I cannot fathom how this could ever come to be. Either we have to manufacture the food from raw sources or we have to make the machines that harvest food from raw sources. As I see it, goods will always be part of the equation.

I made this same excuse for my father for the longest time. I also used this excuse for not giving my mother full credit even after I realized she was abusive. It assigns an analog evaluation to something which is fundamentally moral or immoral. Essentially bypassing the moral consideration. The reason this is a problem is because, what if he takes a step further down the wrong path? It would be easier to say "he's only taken 3 steps instead of 4." Then he takes another step and it's "he's only taken 4 steps instead of 5." You describe a bevy of abuse, and it's all immoral. Compounded by the fact that I'd wager he only treats/exposes the defenseless children this way. The problem is that it sounds as if the time to pull the plug on such things would've been awhile back. The children may have normalized these things by now. I bring this up because my first inclination was to recommend talking to the children. Get their thoughts and interpretations. See if they notice the difference between (for example) their diets in the two places. Whether or not they can recognize the value of the short term pleasure versus the long term side-effects. However, if there were years of inaction (from their perspective; I know you've mentioned an ongoing struggle) and they're being bribed by junk food, they may not understand how harmful the environmental disparities are. I don't think allowing them to be abused 1/4 of the time is worth any monetary compensation. Though I do recognize that financial assistance can enhance the positive influence you could have. It's a pickle for sure. While I wouldn't outright recommend a path that would have you away from them more often, they're already past the age where they need your constant presence. On the other hand, were you to try and fight for full custody by way of courts, it could end up being that much more harmful to them, especially since in the interim, it might be used against you. As a child of divorced parents, I know all too well what it's like to be used as a weapon against another person. I'll end my filibustering by reiterating talking to the children. Try to gauge their perspective. If they have the capacity to understand, be forthcoming and honest with them. Let them know that you made a mistake in choosing that man. That you made a mistake in allowing them to be exposed to this level of abuse. Let them know the abuses that you suffered and that it's your inspiration to protect them. It's the only way you'll be able to diminish his presence in their lives and not come out as a bad person/hypocrite yourself. It's clear you're honest with yourself about this, let them see this. They're going to make mistakes in their lives too. Part of it is going to be because of these mistakes. If you own them and model for them what it is to be responsible, I think you'll be doing well by them regardless of which way you choose to proceed. I hope this was helpful and I appreciate your sensitivity and honesty in this. If I could, I'd certainly choose you for a mom over the one I had.

This is what I was wondering the whole time I was reading YOUR recount of the situation. About 75% through, you called him a parasite. Otherwise, it was all vet vet vet. Not trying to be critical, just pointing it out that if it bothers you (and rightfully so), you might want to refrain from perpetuating it yourself. Though I suppose it's meaningful to mention once since as a vet, he's up for all kinds of resources free to him. The other thing that I was wondering is what your investment in the situation is. Again, for the sake of being honest with yourself. If she's a friend, that's a good reason to be there for her and help her with advice, somebody to listen to her, etc. But not really reason to take it upon yourself. Not saying that you shouldn't, but that's something to maybe explore, or even share here to help others offer feedback that might be more useful. At the end, you spoke as if (unlike the parasite) your friend is about to be back on her feet to the point of being able to move out of her boyfriend's place. Are you in a position to help her out by letting her stay with you in the meantime? Just out of curiosity, is the "parasite" doing things like housework, mowing the lawn, shoveling snow, etc to earn his keep at least? I'm curious because if so, then I can understand why the boyfriend is in such a difficult spot. Otherwise, I think it might be beneficial for your friend to re-examine her romantic relationship with somebody who lacks the fortitude to protect himself from being taken advantage of.

I know what you mean about the excitement. In my younger years, I hurt and pushed people away I didn't want to. I wanted so desperately to be able to stop doing it, but I was powerless to stop it because I didn't understand where it was coming from. Once I did, I was so relieved to finally be able to learn who I was and actually have control over it. The one thing I noticed was missing was an exploration as to how they decided that you were prepped for bullying. I'm not blaming the victim at all. But you were isolated by an abuser before the bully even knew of you and this isolation is how they knew their aggression would be better spent on you than on somebody who was not isolated, who had people in their lives that would care, listen, and intervene. Beyond that, I just wanted to add that wanting your abusers purged is an admission of lack of an alternative. I hope that present day, you have a better understanding that there ARE alternatives. From talking with them to simply not allowing them to be in your life in a position where they could victimize you further.

"Tough love" is the act of obstructing another in some way for what you perceive to be to their benefit. It IS the initiation of force and the rejection of their self-ownership. If you think somebody is going to do something to their detriment, you can certainly try to talk them out of it with rational counterpoints. There's two ways of addressing this. The first is: What was the context of the creation of such materials? Did she say you could take naked pictures (for example) so long as you didn't show them to anybody for as long as you were together? Did she say you could do it so long as you didn't show it to anybody at all? If 1) there was no such stipulation, 2) she owns her body, and 3) she wears clothes around almost everybody (even if she works as a stripper or adult film star), there still is no reasonable expectation that who her naked form is revealed to is your decision. The second way to look at it is: What is your intent in the action? To shame or harm her. So even if she said you could take such pictures and share them with whomever you like, you'd be doing yourself a disservice in doing so for the purpose of harming her. The fact that you're looking for a way to justify such an action would be enough to shock and inspire a morally conscious person to step back and get a grip. The thing I'd be looking for is where/how it was modeled for you that retaliation is acceptable. You made a bad choice in making yourself vulnerable to somebody who wasn't mature enough to handle that responsibly. You made a bad choice in continuing a relationship that was mutually harmful. It's pretty clear that these things would be the result of unresolved trauma, likely from your childhood. We could dig deeper into who from your childhood is responsible for normalizing these things that allowed you to make those bad choices. In the meantime, you are more responsible for the harm you've experienced because of her than she is. Retaliation will not change this. In fact, it will exacerbate it while simultaneously making you directly responsible for more destruction.

The Socratic method as I understand it is simply considering applications of a claim to test its validity and consistency. This is for the purpose of assessing its truth value. People who come up with man on the flagpole scenarios are not interested in whether or not what they're examining (NAP here) is valid. They are interested in seeing if they can either assimilate it with their preferred view and if not, can they outwardly disregard it wholesale to avoid having to admit their prioritization of personal preference (culture) over reality. Otherwise known as confirmation bias.

Agreed. To add to this, the making evil more efficient isn't something I'd be willing to promote.

I enjoy your insight. I've come to realize that when people use vague language (such as up the river, soul, etc), there's usually a reason. Specificity has a way of chasing propaganda away.

This is quite wretched and a profound betrayal of her trust. I think it's clear that the two of you do not have futures that will overlap at all. Much could be said for you even wanting one. At any rate, for as long as this is true, the longer you spend mentally absorbed with her is time you're spending NOT healing through/processing your own pain and/or pursuing things that would be more productive for you and your time. Like evaluating your values, identifying what about her allowed her to get close enough to you to hurt you, etc. Things that would protect you against such things in the future (that she's not going to be in). As for your title, "tough love" is an oxymoron. It's an ex post facto justification for abuse. This might be a swing and a miss, but your profile says you joined in 2010. Your post says you awoke from a dream and posted straightaway, without even locating your glasses. I'm only pointing this out as it seems you're not getting value out of FDR if you are in this relationship for about as long as you've been a member here. Your post is riddled with red flags. Flags pertaining to her and flags pertaining to you. For what it's worth, I was in your situation a couple times actually. As a result of my abuse, I was a glutton for punishment, in both directions, when it came to females. This was a direct result of unprocessed trauma. I seriously hope you will refrain from doing anything that will hurt anybody, including yourself.

If you have yet to process it, it manifests in the present and will in the future. For example: This is how it goes... with negligent parents. When you're brought into this world by your parents, THEY are supposed to control your environment. And then THEY teach you how to survive on your own. Has he apologized for those days? Has he tried to make amends? Has he gone through therapy and the extensive work of fixing what was wrong with him? If not, then all you're saying is that once you were large enough to fight back, he decided against provoking you to do so. This actually makes things worse, not better as it indicates that he was in control the whole time and understood that it was not okay.

Science is an offshoot of philosophy. Originally called natural philosophy.

"Assist the community" is an anthropomorphism and vague at that. "Good of the community" is similarly undefined, and subjective. "Best of your ability" would not be limited to 3 hours a week, nor would it be measurable. With no money, barter, or trade, the human race would go extinct.

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38437-post-removed/

How do you know? This quote is an assertion of a truth claim with no way to substantiate it. God didn't stop it from happening. If he is all-powerful, this makes him culpable.

I wanted to preface my post by sharing that it's commendable that you're approaching the subject with such sensitivity. Is this to say that you got divorced while the mother was pregnant or that you were never married to her? Also, am I reading it correctly that you got married to a different woman within a year or so of the first women being pregnant/birthing your daughter? Does she make noises? Does she favor or consistently make similar noises? It's not abnormal for a 1.5 yr old to not be speaking in words. I think it does say something that her attempts to communicate are traumatic. I cannot imagine that having your entire world change every other day, complete with different caregiver and different people to learn to communicate from and try to communicate with, would be anything short of traumatic. This might explain why just the event of somebody else showing up evokes a traumatic response in her. Perhaps for now, discouraging visitors on the days you have her would be more helpful to her. I don't think it's a good idea to try and get her to use utensils before she can talk. I would think it should be fine to have it handy in case she chooses to try and use it. But the way you describe it, just its presence seems traumatic for her. For that matter, until she can talk, I don't think there's anything wrong at all with holding her and comforting her when she's expressing trauma. It's not that you're reinforcing tantrums, it's that you're providing whatever the baby needs until such a time that you can communicate and negotiate with her becoming more self-sufficient.

I'm more interested in the context of "criminal justice." Ostracism is a powerful tool, but a serial killer would be unaffected. Such a person would be an ongoing threat so force used to apprehend him would be defensive and therefor moral. Somebody who has killed once may not be an ongoing threat and continues to own himself. Is ostracism enough? Can we morally apprehend him? In a free society, this would be a thought experiment whose application would be so rare, it wouldn't be terribly important. In the meantime, a LOT of people have this concern. They're so afraid of joe mugger that they think joe politician mugger who is larger and with greater reach is justified. It helps to be able to logically and consistently speak of self-ownership to help others understand that we don't need joe politican mugger to protect us from that which we could protect ourselves from. They tend to not be content with ostracism alone because they understand that some criminals would be unaffected or even empowered by this.

Are you exchanging thoughts or asserting truth claims, ignoring challenges to the contrary, and re-asserting those same truth claims? I'm seeing a lot of personal attacks for just being an exchange of thoughts.

You know what the nice thing about 2+2=4 is? If somebody doesn't accept it, I don't have to verbally attack them. I don't have to threaten them with hellfire or a paramilitary platoon.

Depends on how the contract is written. If you are bound by the decisions of a board and they enact something after you sign, that you are bound to without your consent, then it becomes no different. If you die while living in such a house, the person who inherits the house cannot be bound by the contract. So while HOA's can be a great example of people geographically coming together to live like values, there's ways they can easily cross the line of morality.

In the negative context you're inferring, violence got us to where we are. What you're advocating is more violence. If what I have I didn't use violence to acquire, what business is it of anybody else what I have and why I have it? I think this is what is meant by the recurring question of what the public interest is.

How? Do you take from those on a "higher platform" to give to the lower? Isn't this theft? Aren't you already making the case that those born into money tend to lack in personality? Wouldn't this make them the lower platform? Only if you ignore some of the feedback you've received in this thread and stuck to your predetermination.

If this were true, then you'd be making the case for poor being preferable, at which point no sympathy or special consideration would be required. Going from poor to middle class would be the path of least resistance and the poor would vanish within a generation.