dsayers

In a vacuum, I would say that it depends on factors such as do they accept their own capacity for error, welcome push back, understand the value of defining terms, and mindful of their biases? If so, then they've earned my time if I have it to give. Which brings me to my second point. I said in a vacuum because it sounds like you're dealing with this on a much larger scale. As such, you shouldn't have as much time overall to give to every last one. As a result, let them show you that they are worth the extra effort. If I'm approaching staff, I am empathetic of the ways in which their resources and attention gets stretched and I present myself accordingly. People of reason and virtue will demonstrate as much. What do you think?

And mother. Don't forget that she chose for that man to be your father. it also has something to do with my father. This is vague though. Are you comfortable sharing what you mean by this? Did he (sexually) abuse you? I'm guessing so if you had attracted and accepted a man who was violent towards you. Which I am so sorry was your experience. Your parents were supposed to protect and nurture you, not groom you for such things. How do you feel about what your father did? Have you processed it? Do you assign responsibility where it belongs or do you instead internalize, normalize, or suppress the trauma? If you're not assigning credit where credit is due, getting angry about it, and processing it all, you might find that you inadvertently blame all men. For what it's worth, I was a self-described mis

This is an objective claim that is predicated on subjective valuation. Stating opinion as fact is a sure fire way of demonstrating that you understand that your position lacks the capability of standing on its own merit. This is an assertion. Instead of making such a claim, why not add the clarity that you think is missing?

The question is disingenuous as it poisons the well by implying that theism is the origin and atheism is the deviation.

I don't know about this. I assume you mean publicly called out. The problem with that is that so many people got in the habit in school of just yielding to bullies so as not to be next. If they're the scarier one, you might find people siding with them just because it's the path of least resistance. If you haven't checked out the Bomb In The Brain series, I recommend it. If you do not understand WHY a person has the conclusion they do, you'll never be able to change it. And will in fact bolster it by challenging it and failing to convince them. As such, there is no blanket approach because not everybody has the same (lack of) conviction to honesty, empiricism, etc.

One thing to consider is the various ways in which the State exacerbates the prevalence of mental illness.

I can't be sure what you've just said, but my interpretation is that you cannot be trusted and are not to be taken seriously. In the future, I wouldn't lead with violence or dishonesty.

In what way? Do you think history is important? If so, why? Why do your work mates say that it is not? Do your workmates buy cars that were previously in floods for example? I'd wager they know full well that history matters. What do they benefit from in pairing the two of you together?

Name dropping is an appeal to authority and not an argument. Whether UK is in the EU or not, they're still going to bully and claim ownership of people living within its borders. So I see this as little more than a distraction in an attempt to legitimize their claim.

I think you underestimate how much it would weigh on a person knowing that they didn't do enough and now it is too late. I speak as a man who spent the lion's share of the last decade not applying myself. I've been agonizing over this that past half year and taking many steps to make sure I don't squander all the time that I have left. I am extremely thankful that I came to this realization while I still have a good amount of time left. Also, living the good life now means that if you're fortunate enough to have a death bed, it will be a time of joy as you're able to say goodbye to all the beautiful connections you've made or perhaps even created. It's so very important to embrace and cling to that which brings you happiness and not throw it away.

What irony. I actually just had some success along this vein yesterday. A girl at work who normally behaves as if they are somebody who wouldn't hold a serious conversation had shared with me that she sees a therapist and has anxiety issues. This led to a short conversation, where I let her know that I'm available to talk about such things because I know a little about a little and enjoy such topics. Next thing I know, she's telling me all kinds of things. I was surprised. As I read your post, it occurs to me that the first dozen interactions we had, I was more or less playing along with the more jovial attitude she and some of our co-workers engage in. In addition to playing along, I made my own mark in terms of standing out and demonstrating my humanity and personability. I can't help but think that she would not have been as open if I hadn't already established such value. Reading your post helped me to connect the dots and qualify this, so thank you for that.

An ounce of preparation is worth a pound of cure. When a baby is born, their parents create their entire world. If a child could dash out into the street, the parent failed the child. My father is no role model. However, he did do one thing right. As a child, there was a point where they had to set up mouse traps in the basement. Even though we never went into the basement, they saw the importance of protecting us from the mouse traps. So my father armed one, triggered it with a pencil, which was snapped in half. I noticed the pencil was thicker than my fingers and decided that I had no interest in playing with mouse traps. It would not be hard at all to use a golf ball and a ping pong ball to teach children about mass and force. Then use a hammer and a melon to demonstrate the relationship of force initiated upon the flesh of the melon by way of a metal object and how the flesh does all the yielding. This would demonstrate to the child that you are willing to work with them and care about them.

If 2+2=5 was found in the Bible, that wouldn't make it true. Assault is immoral, a philosophically sound proposition. The source of false, contradictory data is irrelevant. @neeeel: I'm inclined to agree. It was too sudden and a couple of the things said seemed inconsistent. Plus the removal of one's selfie avatar... I'm guessing we'll never see that account being used again.

Don't tell me, show me how. Computers do not exist in nature. Therefore to see one is to know that it is owned. Property which is discarded is indication of the former owner's relinquishment of ownership. You invested the labor (your property) of extracting the computer that no longer belonged to anybody. It is now your computer. This WAS my argument, not contradicting it.

Sadly, this is true on both sides of the fence. Women dispose, so men reinforce all kinds of undesirable traits just for the sake of "getting some." Meanwhile, it's no secret that women have sex with and procreate with total douchebags. Both sides are reinforcing undesirable traits. All the more reason why we so desperately need peaceful parenting.

Welcome. Good on you to have the courage to question things you formerly held as true. Truth, as you know, welcomes and withstands scrutiny, so it is never a futile investment to double check. Who first taught you these contradictions? How has accepting the truth about them effected your interpersonal relationships? STL = St. Louis?

"YOUR version of property" is poisoning the well. A person engaging in theft, assault, rape, or murder are telling you that property rights are valid and invalid simultaneously. It doesn't matter what I say or what you say; THEY are telling you that their behavior is wrong. Still. This is not the first time you've heard this.

Please, I'm only allotted so many downvotes per day. It's been pointed out, in your presence, many times how this analogy fails. People own their houses. "Countries" can't own anything, let alone people.

In what way does this have anything to do with the fact that right to life != right to not be murdered?

No, the person with integrity would respond by circling back, taking responsibility for their projection, and making it right. "If it's a strawman -> seek external action" is intellectual sloth. I have already explained how the claim was objective. Objectives are absolute if not otherwise qualified. Providing one example that doesn't fit is sufficient to disprove it. "ups their game for most men" makes it an accurate statement. The irony here is that you're trying to correct me by saying I'm wrong for trying to be correct. If I were you, I'd be thinking about where such a visceral reaction stems from.