dsayers

I am both honored and humbled. Thank you both for your feedback and your courage in looking inward. One of the hardest, yet most liberating thing I've learned to do in my life is accept my own capacity for error. So it ranks very highly in my opinion of others I felt a bit frustrated reading the rest of your post. Upon first glance, it seems as if you still view yourself as above him. Not saying I'm right about that or that it would be wrong to do so. I just think it will serve as an additional hurdle for you on the path to your stated goal. It also seems that you do not fully realize or appreciate how much you teach him just by the behaviors you model for him. Finally, I have no frame of reference for "doctor" in your post. Is this a medical doctor? A therapist? Why not? If he's trying to make such a decision, this is him communicating to you that he IS ready to make that decision for himself. Your job is to help him make the best decision he can FOR HIMSELF. This would start by you modeling that decision in your own life. If there's a fork in the road and one's less safe, does he see you exercising additional caution? Secondly would come direct communication. Help him to understand his options in any given decision. If one path is less safe, tell him so and why. Then you can always follow up by demonstrating being more careful for him. Finally, by approaching this "problem" in this fashion, you will be communicating a great number of things passively/subliminally. Humans are universality machines. If any of the things you model/tell him about here can be applied elsewhere, he will. So you're not only helping him with this problem in the moment, but helping him with future problems, his problem solving capabilities, and his self-reliance! This last part is key because not only does it fulfill your obligations to him, but it makes him that much "easier to parent." Win-win I want to push back on almost all of it. The one part I accept and agree with is learning by trial and error and exploring the limits of one's reality. This is a biological imperative and we all do it all the time. This is very healthy and left unstifled will make sure that he will grow up to be as independent, self-reliant, AND respectful of others as possible. Near as I can tell, the scenario you described is an example of a prior failing on the part of the parents. Does he know why he's there? Has it been explained to him how the doctor has other people he needs to see? Did you ASK him if he would be so kind as to focus on what you're there to do and that you can "play" later? And so on. His protest sounds just to me as he was overpowered. Which it sounds like you responded by doubling down/escalating. Can you imagine if someone ten times your size picked you up against your will? I also wanted to address the suggestion is trying to overpower/dominate you. It would be something to take high priority note of IF it is true. I would recommend checking out Alison Gopnik's book The Philosophical Baby. If you don't have that kind of time, check out Stef's interview with her. Her work reveals that humans are naturally empathetic and will co-operate, reward kind behavior, and reject aggressive behavior and a shockingly young age. Which makes evolutionary since as we are a social species. So if he is trying to overpower/dominate, it would mean he learned that by having it inflicted upon him and is engaging in it in an attempt to escape it and/or communicate that that is his experience. Which in and of itself would indicate that he doesn't feel as if he can communicate his experience directly and verbally. If that turns out to be the case, I think a good example can be found in this thread about how to go about reversing the existing damage. Finally, I disagree with the last sentiment of this quote. Asking him a question invites him to be himself in the conversation. It shows him he has a choice. Better still would be to negotiate in advance. Like not even needing to have to ask if he wants to go to the pool NOW. Ask in advance so if there's a need for negotiation, you'll have time to do so. And it will model planning ahead and/or deferred gratification. It's good to be assertive with things like how you feel, what your experiences are, what your preferences are. You can't really be assertive in how HIS time will be spent anymore than you could anybody else (sub the actors ). Nobody tells you how your time will be spent and you don't want him growing up planning his time based on what others expect of him (outside of his voluntarily created obligations of course). How do you know? This sounds deterministic to me. As if "2-year old" is a species that absolutely behaves in this way. Maybe it's difficult to stop because he hasn't been negotiated with, isn't listened to, hasn't learned how to defer gratification, etc. Which again, in the moment is too late. You are smarter and more experienced than him. It's YOUR job to monitor the horizon and negotiate things with him in advance. Then if he tries to go back on your agreement, you can remind him of as much. It would be helpful too if he saw you not going back on your deals or if you need to for some reason, addressing it with him and accepting your failure. That way you have a shared experience to call back on to help him understand why breaking one's word is problematic based on HE felt when it happened to him. I'm not saying do it deliberately just for the lesson, but shit happens. Life will shift on you in a way where you'll have little choice but to do so. This kind of goes back to negotiating in advance. The less you have to deal with in the moment, the less confrontational any given moment will be. Then as you negotiate with him more and more, the framework will be in place so that if you do have to negotiate in the moment, he'll understand you're trying to work TOGETHER rather than overpower him. Pretty key when you consider the ways adults have been subjugated to enslave themselves. How does he know it? How does he know what ice cream is? He didn't come into the world knowing it. Somebody must've exposed him to it Not saying that you were wrong to do so. Just wanted to point out that you knew when you did that exactly this could/would happen. This is where steering for the horizon is helpful. My first question would be what are you and your wife's diets like? I've heard Stef talk about how he would explain that too much junk hurts your teeth, your belly, makes your poops unpleasant. If you can connect too much sweets to these things, you will teach him to make better decisions for himself, including moderation and/or deferral. And you'll teach him what it means to put things into his body, the alternatives, and the consequences. I look forward to continuing this conversation. It's too late for me now, so I'm going to end it here. Thanks again for your time and sensitivity in such matters. You're taking steps towards saving the world, my friend.

In the realm of human interaction, that which isn't universal is subjective/opinion/preference and of no value in the consideration of whether a BEHAVIOR is internally consistent or not. Lazy is not a behavior. Microsoft is not a sentient entity. It doesn't appear that you're talking about philosophy at all.

I agree with neeeel. Something like a star chart will mostly condition a person to seek external validation. This is the foundation of a person ripe for subjugation. Please aim for the opposite of this. Pardon me that I didn't catch what Troubador was responding to during my first read. You say time to stop an activity... According to who? How do you know? Who tells you when its time to stop activities you're engaged in? If your goal is to condition your child to be self-sufficient, then I think it would be better to not subject them to this construct that they're not going to face once they're an adult. He's not there by choice, but you did choose to have him. If there's a disagreement about how he impacts your life, then it's something you could try to negotiate with him regarding. Otherwise, I would argue that it is you who needs to yield to him. Without specifics, it's hard to describe what that might look like. But for me, it would begin with halting thoughts like "time to stop." That's a conclusion and if you try to inflict it, not only are you inflicting, but you're also asserting that you are infallible. Neither one is going to be helpful to him, nor to you down the road.

Before you set out to change people's minds, it will help you to understand how/why people think as they do. For this, I would recommend the Bomb in the Brain series for yourself. After that, I would recommend Stef's Introduction to Philosophy series. It's long and of relatively poor quality production. However, he starts from first principles and shows how to think rationally. Which eventually, he applies to ideas like a deity and the State. If they're not thinking rationally, no amount of logic, reason, and evidence will change their minds.

Thank you for all of this. It is truly very impressive to me. I hope your son was present as you told your friends and family how much you were going to start protecting him even from past you. This a level of thoroughness that is very necessary, but I think some might overlook. Bravo to you!

I think shirgall's point is that philosopher's shouldn't focus on universals is stated as a universal. It's a performative contradiction. As RoseCodex pointed out, "Brian is evil" is not a universal. Universal means the same in all instances at all times. Here, "Brian" is not all instances. Also, the word evil is being while undefined. It's a term of judgement, so perhaps not the most precise. To me, behaviors can be immoral and in order for a person to be evil, they would have to frequently and deliberately exempt themselves from standards they put forth for others. Philosophy is a method by which to determine that which is true in the realm of ethics/morality. To arrive at the conclusion that Brian is evil, you must first define evil, then assuming your definition has a moral/ethical component, test to see the identity of that component. If Brian frequently and deliberately puts forth property rights as a standard for others, but violates them himself, then the absolute claim that Brian is evil would be true. Here, universality comes into play in that property rights cannot be valid and invalid at the same time. The fact that Brian could change isn't really relevant to the titular claim.

Thank you for your investment of time in helping to drive this conversation forward. It's very important. Of course we're talking about a symptom here. The actual problem is that two people who are lacking in the self-knowledge department it would seem chose to have a child together before properly preparing for it. This is a deal-breaker for me. ANYBODY that would sexually assault my future son will NOT be in his life. availuu89, one of the things that wasn't mentioned is that the mother and the father simply don't have the right. It's not their dick. If the kid wants to mutilate himself, that's for him to decide. They have voluntarily chosen to create an obligation to their son to nurture and protect him until such a time as he is capable to do so without them. This means delivering his adult self an as-intact and loved body as possible. It was a fool's bargain to begin with. If he lacks the self-knowledge to protect his son and choose a mate that would protect his son, he still carries the effects of the trauma that leads to him smoking anyways. He will be powerless to quit. Just as once his child is sexually assaulted in a very physically permanent way, he will be powerless to reverse that decision also. Finally, a little projection if I may. Either his son is going to be subjugated to be a mindless zombie, or he's going to be a free thinker, who will choose a virtuous mate, and he will experience INTENSE anger knowing that amid the beautiful life they have built together, his sexual abusers will be right in the middle of their bed EVERY NIGHT. Hope for the father's sake that he's not within arm's reach when his on figures THAT one out >

When somebody is using name-calling to harm you, they're saying more about them than they are of you. All they're accurately saying about you is that you made the mistake of letting such person in your life at the expense of your future self. I would only focus on that and only for the sake of providing future you with better opportunities.

Thank you very much for the ways in which you choose to protect your children from this vitriol and in turn, striving to save the world First off, I just wanted to address the titular nonsense. Namely that aggressive is a description of a behavior while NOT investing in something is the opposite of a behavior. So right away, the author of the meme'd post is telling you this is an emotional response, not a reasoned one. Secondly, many if not most movies are works of fiction. They are things people consume for the sake of entertainment. If I think a movie is going to be preachy, I WILL try to avoid it. Regardless of what's being preached. It's not a disdain for the message being pushed, but rather the contamination of my entertainment option. Finally, the very premise is self-detonating. It's ostracizing people for ostracizing people. Oops, Suzie! Shifting gears to address your post, I wanted to share that I personally do not care what a self-proclaimed feminist wants. The verbiage tells you that equality is NOT the goal. Even if there was a rights disparity and the movement only set out for equality, the pendulum swung way the other way. There are a number of strong females (the very role models feminists claim to want for equality's sake) who have spoken out against feminism. Even to the point of addressing the very term as I have here. There's only one way to meaningfully divide people: Those who are willing to initiate the use of force to achieve their goals and those who will not. ALL other divisions of otherwise reasonable folks only serves to allow for the former to continue to get away with it. If so-called feminists would put that energy into revealing that NO human can exist in a different, opposing moral category, we could end the State and us upstanding, virtuous men would make sure that our sisters are cared for and treated for the equals that they are. Besides that, there are very real ways in which men and women ARE different. And I don't know about the rest of the heterosexuals, but I LOVE that. Look at all we have created as a species, all of which is predicated on the genders working together!

I agree with your last sentiment. However, there's one element of consent I don't think you took into consideration: reasonable expectation of consent. If you found somebody passed out on the street, you could pick them up and move them to safety. Because it's reasonable to expect that if they could consent they would. Whether this leads to okay sex between the conscious and unconscious is going to be different on a case by case basis. However, I think there's a more important question to be asked. Why would somebody WANT to have sex with their not-present partner? I've never been one for one night stands and having tasted virtuous love-making, I could settle for no less. I would make love WITH my partner because it's a sharing and expression of our love. Something that cannot be had without my partner. To have sex with somebody who's not there, it's not about them at all. It only about getting off, which can be done by one's self, where no possibility of violation can be found. In other words, its morality is variable based on the state of the relationship between the two people. However, I wouldn't want people in my support network that would want or submit to unconscious sex.

Kudos to you for walking out on principle. Kudos to you for sharing this with others and inviting armchair quarterbacking. I agree that walking out after asking for the consequences of you being a hard narcotic user would only serve to dilute the message you were trying to send. Which is fine; I think we all should evaluate our successes and our failures, combing for ways to improve ourselves for next time. I would also agree with the sentiment that the walking out came a little late in the game. Perhaps this is to your credit of being less judgmental, more understanding, what have you. If you were aware that feminism MIGHT have been a red flag, why not ask her what she meant by that before booking the date? Unless she's patrolling for the lesbian hookup, it seems like an odd thing to claim while trying to put your best foot forward while attracting a man. The other thing I personally would've done differently: If she talks good/bad about any political candidate, I'd try and shift focus to the throne itself. I think it's a very rational conclusion that humans in general cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories. Assuming this is accurate, that WHO sits on the throne is a distraction from the important question of is the throne valid? I don't want to raise my future child with somebody who would cheer on the enslavement of any person, let alone 300 million. And I don't want to spend my time going out with somebody that wouldn't be somebody I could trust alone with my future child.

Isn't this a false dichotomy? Oh and I agree with Pod that conflict resolution is key. Which by extension (or perhaps as the root) a common methodology for determining what is true.

Thank you for getting involved. I'm curious though: Why not photograph the child's face? Even the tattoo on the woman? In the even that the car was not hers, police could use such information to find out who she is anyways. There's a difference between threatening a child and (as you described) evidence of an assault. Not the way the brain receives it obviously, but in our current socio-political climate, it's way more important that we intervene with the physically abused because we know (as you prescribe) that the systems in place are more likely to follow through.

Great post! These are all the points I wanted to make too. I did want to pick one nit though if I may: To me, the word manipulation means being dishonest for the sake of altering somebody's thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. I think if a person raises their voice to intimidate, they are being honest in the moment that they aren't willing/able to be rational instead. To put Tyler's post into my own words, yelling to intimidate is aggressive. Yelling to express anger is healthy. I'm reminded of a time somebody who loved me had been actively verbally attacking me. When she escalated by way of adding manipulation (doubling down), I ceased to be gentle and became angry. My vocal pattern became more assertive. She described it as raising my voice. It wasn't meant that way, but even if that's how it manifested, it wasn't for the purpose of a threat. It was for the purpose of communicating that I would not be further victimized in the moment. Which was precisely how it was received, thankfully. It precipitated the unilateral de-escalation that the situation required. We grew ten times strong having survived that together. Finally, I also agree that the power disparity in the parent-child relationship rules voice raising right out. The power disparity is so great that there simply isn't a way to raise a voice so minutely as for it to not be received in a way that would invoke fear in the child.

I agree with Drew that you should not "let go" of the anger you're experiencing. It's righteous. We experience anger as a motivator. So this anger should not leave you until you've done all that you can to process all of the things that you were victim to that leads to you feeling angry in the first place. Call things by their proper names, identify who is responsible, acknowledge the ways these things have altered your behaviors and thoughts, and then try to reshape those thoughts and behaviors towards what you would want for yourself. It's not something you'll ever fully exhaust. However, there will come a point where you are so free of those shackles that the anger will leave organically until such a time that you revisit such things and feel a more temporal reaction to it. Being angry at the vile evils of the world can only serve to inoculate us against them and smother those who would engage in such behavior. This is for the betterment of us all, so by all means, let the anger run through you. Let it motivate you to break free from your captors and all the seeds they planted in you to keep you enslaving yourself for their benefit.

First off, let me thank you for taking the time to try and provide a better life for your child. You are a pioneer in a time when this is a new idea for many. I don't think this quote is accurate though. I think it would be more accurate to say, "I have created an environment for my child where they feel they need to resort to physical aggression in order to be heard." Your child came into this world a veritable blank slate. Any habits they develop they either observed or adopted for survival's sake. If you don't model physical aggression, then I would wager that they perceive you as unavailable or unattentive. This is why I really like Drew's idea of hugging them. It's a way of letting them know first and foremost that they are being listened to and acknowledged. Unfortunately, this means there won't be a quick fix. You'll essentially have to recondition X amount of time of inferior conditioning. If you can reflect and identify the ways in which prior to the physical aggression, they were trying to communicate and you were not receptive, it would be a good idea to admit as much to them. Apologize for it. Let them know they are being listened to. It is good for any child to learn that adults are not perfect. And it would help to precipitate a behavioral change by initiating that environment change not just by altering his environment moving forward, but deliberately addressing it. You can let him know that people don't hit others to communicate and that you're sorry you weren't listening to him communicate before then. If you demonstrate this, it shouldn't be long before he will feel the need to hit. It's easier to cast a sentence than it is a fist. I am glad that by the end of your recount, your positioned shifted from had to to thought you had to. The only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence itself. I'm pretty certain you did not have to. But let us suppose that you did. I would argue that if he is biting you, or if exposure to the neighbor child resulted in a physical fight, YOU failed HIM. So to physically dominate him would be to punish and further traumatize him for your own failing. I think you also misspoke when you said he was consumed by anger. Anger is a healthy emotion. It's only when somebody chooses to act upon it by way of wrath/fury that a problem arises (which doesn't accrue to the anger). Where did he learn that fury/wrath is a valid way of addressing anger? Have you modeled for him the ways in which anger is healthy and ways in which you can respond to it in a constructive fashion? We experience anger as a motivator. If he doesn't see you get angry because you're trying to project perfection, or he sees anger only leading to destruction, he'll have no model for choosing to act on anger by improving himself or his situation. Counter-force needs to be proportionate to be productive. An adult vs a child literally lacks the capability of physical counter-force that is proportionate. Because even if you had the gentlest touch imaginable, you'd still be executing it from a position of enormous power disparities over them. All you are teaching is might makes right and/or consequence avoidance. I also wanted to point out for those open-minded enough to consider it: Saying no is the inflicting of a conclusion. It does not demonstrate curiosity, foster a bond, or open a dialogue. What if you're wrong? You'll never find out. They won't even get to see you behave as if you COULD be wrong, and that's a problem too. If they're old enough to be reasoned with, reason with them. If not, they won't understand the reason you're dominating them.

First, let me commend you for having enough integrity to seek out ways to live your values. Especially ones as essential as peacefully raising a child! Anytime you want to gauge your contribution to a relationship, start subbing out the actors. Imagine this read that you had granted your spouse too much freedom in the past, which now MAKES them quite uncooperative? My spouse expresses their own will and it takes a lot of NERVE and PATIENCE to get them to cooperate. The word COoperate means working together. However, your manner of speech seems to seek conformity, not cooperation. I don't know what "too much freedom" looks like, but I know that patience here only references out-willing somebody. Which in the parent-child relationship means leveraging your power disparity. Do you wish to model such behavior for your child's adult self to live by? Do you want to condition them to occupy the submissive in a win-lose relationship/interaction? I don't follow your pool example. Is turning the way you don't want mean approaching the deep end? Can you not explain to them the dangers they will find over there? Can you not train him the skills so that the deep end is unlikely to equate to death? As somebody who is undoubtedly larger than him, could you not save him from a mishap in the deep end? Or outfit him with floaty arms? That's just off the top of my head ways that would be better for him than simply overpowering him, which is what I view holding the bike and/or out-willing him equates to. Parenting is about preparation. You create your child's entire world. If he is not doing what you call cooperating, then you have failed to incentivize him to do as you would like him to. Which in this case might even go so far as to indicate that your expectations were in the wrong. If you were to negotiate with him as much as possible at any given age, he will be communicating his needs to you and you can speak to him in a way that better reaches him. You'll be developing a bond between equals, preparing him to seek out win-win relationships and not be dominant or submissive. Would you like that for him? You can give it to him. All you have to do is sub out the actors in your mind and treat him the way you would want to be treated by somebody 10 times your size, who is keeping you where you didn't ask to be, and you are dependent upon for survival. Does that make sense?

Pardon my late arrival. Thank you for sharing. I enjoy being able to see through bullshit, but hate partaking of how wretched some toxic people can be. Difficult due to an alcoholic husband? As if one day her foot just sprung this alcoholic husband that she would die were it to be surgically removed? No, she chose him! And continued to stay in that situation. That's not pass-worthy at all. Regarding your question of going back to fix things: By time I learned to think rationally and started processing it all, my mother had already died. I had left her years prior, knowing that her living without me in her life was the most effective "revenge" I could exact. As for my father, I did make an effort. I believe in giving a person a chance to reveal if they truly care about you or are sadistic. He made it clear he didn't want a relationship with me, only my labor. And that it's different with friends because you can leave friends. In other words, he made it clear that forward progress wasn't possible. It sucks, but I got the answer I was looking for and washed my hands of any effort to try and connect with him/get restitution.

I wanted to resonate this sentiment as I agree with it. When we praise ourselves for our accomplishments, we invite people of quality to join us and diminish the space in which toxic people can thrive. I am very proud of all the virtue I exemplify present day. especially when you consider the decades of unanimous trumpeting of ideas to the contrary. Such a severe current I swam against DELIBERATELY, by choice. OP's process becomes absurd when taken to its conclusion. If you use your arm to help somebody, can you not be proud of your choice just because some people don't have arms? Also, empathy develops after a child is born, and can be retarded by trauma. I'm just curious what OP's motivation was in trying to convince virtuous people to not self-praise was.

I don't think technology is the only variable. Parents abuse their children and Statism is alive and well. This increasingly pervasive level of coercion will skew everything it touches. Trauma displaces reason.

Being "good" and Christian are not mutually exclusive. Except in the parent-child relationship where the parent has voluntarily created the obligation to nurture and protect the child until such a time as they can survive without their parents. In this paradigm, inflicting a belief as factual is antithetical to this obligation. I am biased as I was a severely abused child by way of Christianity being inflicted upon me by my "caregivers."

Humans lack the apparatus with which to detect radiation, but we can perceive the effects of radiation. If ghosts existed, they would either similarly impress upon our senses or they would not. If they did, then we could measure them or the effects of their existence. If they did not, then for them to exist or not would be functionally identical. Doesn't this serve as disproof of an omnipotent Creator? IIRC, Stef once made the case (paraphrasing) that agnosticism is intellectual sloth. I found it to be convincing. Because of the internal inconsistencies in the description of a deity, they simply cannot exist. Saying they exist in a dimension where X, Y, and Z is also meaningless in trying to determine what is true in our dimension. It's all a distraction anyway. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. These behaviors are carried out every day by bad parents and in the name of the State. Things we can actively influence for the salvation of humanity. Surely that would count for something to any deity worth our worship.

Pedophilia is a preference, not a behavior. Did you mean child rape?

Originally published here. Across every moment of your life, there will be a single constant: you. Your time, effort, and life are the most valuable resources on the planet. Why then do so many of us squander them, seemingly without purpose or deliberation? As children, so many of us were and are abused and neglected in one form or another. It used to be socially acceptable to assault defenseless, dependent, not-there-by-choice children. Today, it's not hard to find parents in public places doing this, threatening them, or otherwise neglecting or abandoning them. Children in these scenarios learn how to erase themselves for the preferences of their abusers for self-preservation's sake. During the formative years, these human beings develop habits that make them ripe for subjugation. Which our society at large has been forcibly arranged to take full advantage of. If you know nothing about automobiles, I would wager that you still wouldn't try to drive a four-wheeled car with only three wheels. Or put sand in the fuel tank. Yet metaphorically, so many of us will put "sand" into the fuel tanks of our bodies. Also, it seems a lot easier at first glance to pass up opportunities for calibrating our own behaviors and thought patterns. It's not easy accepting that perhaps we've made a mistake. Even more difficult for many to face the possibility that their care-givers possibly made mistakes. It can be an inconvenience to have to stop and change the oil on your car, but it will last a whole lot longer if you do. One way to describe this phenomenon is to say that traumatized people re-create the unprocessed trauma of their histories for the sake of comfort. To wield control in a situation (or perhaps even in a life) that feels out of their control. Most of the time, this decision is subconscious, leaving the victim virtually powerless to overcome it. This is actually an example of another phenomenon: Engaging in a behavior that has the opposite effect of one's stated goals. Assuming the goal here is to wield control, the re-creation of the trauma is actually relinquishing control retroactively to whomever had provided that trauma. In this way, self-care is actually a way to take back that control. Building yourself up for a healthier, more rewarding life when those who abused you were trying to diminish you for their sake. As with the vehicle's oil change analogy, the process looks a lot more attractive when you look at it from an effort:yield perspective. Sure I could eat this (insert unhealthy food here), but if I eat this (insert healthy food here) that might not seem as rewarding in the present, the long-term yield is far more rewarding. A little over three and a half years ago, I was awoken to ideas such as my own capacity for error and rational thought. It allowed for me to begin my journey of self-knowledge. Which includes processing the trauma of your past by calling things by their proper names, identifying the ways in which it makes you feel, and how those feelings alter your behaviors. This understanding is what allows for us to have the power and control to do something about it. Sadly, out of the phenomena mentioned above, even after pursuing self-knowledge and tasting the joys it brought to my life, I maintained a defeatist attitude. I did NOT eat properly, care for my body, develop my human capital, or work towards developing a higher-quality support network. My life was continuing to be lived for the benefit of those who trained me to live my life for them. Thankfully, I have since been sparked out of that rut. Due to the work I had already done, I was able to provide value for and attract other high quality people. People who had overcome as much and understood the value of healthy living. Healthy from our diet to the ways in which we interact with other people. They encouraged me to love and care for myself, lent me their strength, borrowed from mine, and enjoyed a brighter life from this sharing and having me in their life. It's a breathtaking sight to behold. I feel as if I am twice the man I was half a year ago, in every way. And it's so much easier than you might think. Okay, I'm not being honest there; In and of itself, it's the hardest thing you'll ever do. However, the rewards will let you know right away that it is worth it. To bring this message full circle, we are people who have interrupted the cycle of abuse. We now build up those in our lives up and champion causes like children's rights. This is tantamount to saving the world and it's the most wonderful feeling. Best of all, it doesn't belong to me. You can have this too. More than that, I want you to. Because my future child's life will be brighter the more healthy people we have breaking free of the chains of subjugation that have plagued mankind throughout recorded history. So please, take a chance on caring for you, in turn those around you, and ultimately the children that you bring into the world or even just have access to. In closing, I wanted to provide an action plan of sorts. One that I've used and think I've had tremendous results in. A long-time best friend of mine had shared with me a book by the title of The New Rules of Lifting: Supercharged. From within his basement gym, he described a lot of the basics, the approach the book took, etc. I was able to try a few things and the results I saw, both physically and mentally, were instantly noticeable. As a result, I invested in my own copy, along with some basic equipment to get started with. Which I later found out wasn't entirely necessary since you can actually accomplish much with just your body weight. I've been at it for almost two and a half months now. You can see the results thus far, and read a bit more about the book's approach here. Thank you for taking the time to learn more about how you can contribute towards saving the world simply by loving yourself in defiance of all who wish to subjugate you.

Am I not calling for help? How could you stop it? It's a GANG rape! You're outnumbered. Voting/cheering on a gang rape isn't the initiation of the use of force. Also, "morally obligated" is irrational. Morality identifies whether or not a behavior is binding upon another and/or whether consent is provided. The only obligations that are "moral" are those that are voluntarily created. A better idea than cheering on gang rape? Yes I do! Accepting that people cannot exist in different opposing moral categories and therefore rape is immoral. Accepting that since rape is immoral, to cheer it on or legitimize it in any way would be evil. And then speaking accordingly. Which is a protest movement by the way. Look at the number of downvotes I've racked up from people who cannot mount a rational counterpoint to justify their emotional NEED for cheering on rape to be tantamount to ending rape somehow. When you say that you are willing to overlook morality for arbitrary reason X (simple assertion), THAT is not an argument. So anything offered up to reveal this doesn't HAVE to be an argument. Not that you adhere to this standard you insist others live by since "boring" isn't an argument. "non-voting people" is poisoning the well if not begging the question. If there's house on fire across the street and I don't blow on it because I know that it will have no effect, I'm not an anti-putting-out-fire person. If I accept that rape is immoral, for me to not cheer it on doesn't make me a non-cheering-on-rape person. The question is a distraction. It matters not whether persons X, Y, and Z would or would not have done A, B, or C. Voting doesn't work. Violence doesn't achieve one's stated goals. You do not own other people and nobody can. These are objective claims whose truth value are true. When you champion political voting you are brushing these aside for an arbitrary, subjective purpose.