dsayers

Nope.

I made an argument, not an assertion. You cannot apply "my reasoning" to theft, assault, rape, and murder because lies are not binding upon another whereas those behaviors are. If you punch me in the face, I can't choose to not have been punched in the face. If you tell me that your way is clear at an intersection, I can choose not to proceed as if what you've told me is true. And if I did proceed and in doing so caused a collision, *I* would be responsible for that collision, not you. If anybody were to blame you, they would be saying that you are more responsible for my behavior in that scenario than I am, which cannot be universalized and is therefore clearly false.

I've seen first hand what utilizing a therapist who has a blind spot where you need them to be proficient looks like. It can actually lead towards taking steps BACKWARDS! If you proceed, it needs to be for reasons that offset this. Only you can decide if the pros outweigh the cons. Have you shopped around? It seems like this is something that should've been spotted during the interview process. Maybe start interviewing others and see if you can't find one that doesn't have this or other pronounced blind spots.

This is true in the parent-child relationship. In all other relationships, in order for your claim to be true, a person would have to be less responsible for their own perceptions than others are. This cannot be universalized. The recipient of a lie is not bound either by the lie or its content and therefore it is ineligible for consideration as immoral.

Yeah. Not very comparable. But I get what you're saying. If a person wants to avoid X for Y reason though, that's not a problem. If somebody chooses NOT to watch a video you share because of the blurb you gave it, how much would they have gotten out of the video anyways? I know that I have passed on any number of shared links just because I had no reason to click on it because no reason was given. People share stuff ALL THE TIME, so the act of sharing is insufficient for me. The way I see it, if it's not worth somebody's time to write, "I enjoyed this and thought y'all might too for X reason," then it might not be worth my time to check it out. Unless of course the title/thumbnail intrigues me on its own. Which is exactly what happened when I created this thread: Two links with no blurb. One got watched because it looked interesting enough on its own merits, one got passed because I had no reason to believe it would be worth my time. A sufficient blurb would've changed that. So the bottom line is that a lack of blurb can be just as much of a disincentive. The difference is that if a blurb disincentivizes somebody, they're spared what they feel would be a waste of their time. Whereas if a lack of blurb is a disincentive, then it is antithetical to the very act of sharing it in the first place. Does that make sense?

I'm very sorry to hear about what you've been through and what you're going through. I can completely empathize and sympathize as I had a similarly abusive childhood and adult life relationship with my father. Why did your mother die? Do you have any recollection of life before that? Do you have any insight as to what their relationship looked like? How do you feel about the fact that she chose for HIM to be your father? While he doesn't sound like the caring type at all, I can only imagine how brutal it must have been to lose her. Not that this excuses ANYTHING he's done since. Still, I have a huge sore spot for losing one's life partner. Why would he think that you needed an anger management program? Was your method of approach hostile? I'm not judging you either way. It's very good to be angry at him for what he's done. That said, there's also the matter of survival to take into consideration. If he's violent and turns to threatening violence, provocation might not be an approach that has any chance of resolution. At least it sounds like you've received your answer that restitution will not be forthcoming. If you can accept that, it will be a good sized step forward for you I think. What is your situation now? Are you under his roof? And if so, what are your prospects for getting out of there? Or if you're not under his roof, how much of your life overlaps his? And what can you do to eliminate that? I do wish you well in your self-knowledge journey efforts. You don't want the trauma of your past damaging your happiness in the future. I lost my life partner because she was re-creating the trauma of her past and literally could not allow herself to be happy. And I wasn't completely free from the abuse of my history. And as tragedy would have it, I was "cured" the very moment she decided to throw me away.

Here's the last thread on the subject https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45471-do-you-like-tattoos/

The act of lying and the content of a lie are not the same thing.

My apologies if this practice is frowned upon. This continues to be one of my favorite FDR shows of all time and I wanted to bump it's initial thread, which has since been archived. I really enjoyed the physiological explanation. And the numerical comparison he's used a number of times. And the explanation that pain is processed the same regardless of source... The list goes on. So for those who haven't already seen it, enjoy.

Thanks for the share. I wish I had seen something like this earlier in life. The last seven months of my life, I've been learning a lot about these priorities and the importance of human connection; From fasting, to crack cocaine, to pure starvation, to recovering... it's been very trying. I'm a better person now and with a greater support network for it. I think I would add to the ladder he talks about serving your future self. If I had done that sooner, things wouldn't be so bad. Some people self-sabotage in order to recreate the trauma of their past. It's okay to be happy though if you've earned it. It's not okay to let your inner-abusers win.

More double think. When you make an objective claim, YOU are saying that truth is preferable to falsehood. So you would be "taking orders (poisoning the well)" from yourself. I didn't say what you say I said and you know this.

Show me where.

The only double think I see is "I'm done with you... except that I'm not."

It's okay to have preferences. They don't have to be noble or with purpose. I think people do want to escape more because of the brutality of their world, but I don't think the brutality of their world stems from what they turn to for entertainment. I say this despite my heavily abusive father watching nothing other than horror/gore, UFC type stuff, and war documentaries (read: all human conflict). Human imagination is the seat of innovation. I wouldn't expect it to ever go away just because we have control over our environment and peace is a thing. Also, if you're not into 'clearly made up nonsense' then why would you want for 'more honest political dialogue'?

Most parents abuse their child despite--or sometimes BECAUSE--claiming to love them. Also, it is a false dichotomy to speak of love and obligation as if they are mutually exclusive. I feel the MOST obligation to the people I love BECAUSE of my voluntarily created obligations to honesty, virtue, and integrity and the ways in which seeking out others with those values draws that love from me involuntarily. I am so sorry that you were abused to this extent.

Why do you call it an inner-bully? To me, a bully initiates whereas you're describing reaction to such initiation. It's a healthy FANTASY because in that it is your subconscious telling you that you are in danger. While eliminating the threat is one way to escape, I think you realize that we live in a society where you would be re-victimized for acting upon it. Unfortunately, we still live in relatively primitive times where children's rights and/or psychological abuse aren't yet fully taken seriously. So for your own sake, I think you'd be better off escaping by other means. I wouldn't count on this. Such a brain would have to be capable of empathy in order for such tactics to work as you describe. It sounds as if empathy is not present, which is how the abuse is. I'm so sorry that this has been your experience. As for what you can do about it, I think once you've escaped it, you will find the fantasies largely subsiding since what they're a response to will be gone. I know when I stopped having anything to do with my mother, the pronounced, deliberate absence of me in her life would've hurt her more than anything I could've actively done.

Other way around. I WANT for a parent who has the thought of assaulting a child to understand that they have created an obligation to do the opposite. That's why I won't let your bullshit stand unopposed: You are perpetuating the cycle of violence. I noticed too that you are not expressing curiosity or otherwise behaving with any integrity.

No. You used the words "tax" and "rent" as if they're interchangeable. When in fact they are exact opposites because of (lack of) consent. Most people get this when it's put in terms of rape because it's mechanically identical to love-making. Because most people are above the developmental stage where they're able to conceptualize, apply ideas, and comprehend comparisons. I've noticed that you continue to default to I must agree with you. Which only serves to reveal this is not a conversation.

Where does the concept of "race" come from? People are voluntarily trading across whatever spectrum you can imagine every day. If anything, the "race" is towards satisfying desire. I'm not clear on what the benefit of describing it as a race to top/middle/bottom would be.

I liked the writing and narration style.

It logically follows. People respond to incentives (fact) and providing more information means providing additional incentive.

Define oxymoron then. Because while I am not aware of your vehicle, domicile, or job situations, I do know that you're posting on these forums. Which means I can say without fear of contradiction that you have voluntarily created an obligation to adhere to the forum's rules. And I'll bet your every day is full of obligations you satisfy because you voluntarily created them. "4. the act of binding or obliging oneself by a promise, contract, etc." source: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/obligation?s=t

Nice deflection. If it were the same thing in practice, then you wouldn't need to erect a straw man to knock it down. You could just knock it down. The fact that you have to twist words to make it the opposite of what was said is proof that you understand that it's not the same thing. How very slimy of you. Where is the contradiction? People voluntarily create obligations to others every day. If you and I agree to trade my X for your Y, I am voluntarily creating an obligation to you for my X. The term "obligation" does not denote (lack of) consent, so is ineligible for contradiction of a term that denotes consent. I wonder why taking responsibility away from parents is so important to you that you would just make stuff up like this and triple down to maintain it.