dsayers

I am so sorry to hear of your miscarriage! I was on track for having a child not long ago and I can totally empathize with the devastation that must've brought! For this woman to use it as a weapon against you? Reprehensible! Thank you for having the courage to share all of this, as well as the love for the child to try and do what's right by him. I think it's awful that this boy has a mother that thinks that hostility and attack are valid forms of conflict resolution. It doesn't sound like she was listening at all and was just out for blood. Such people are so very dangerous. I think encouraging a fresh mind to believe whatever they want is unhealthy and tantamount to fostering intellectual sloth. The ability to differentiate fact from fiction is paramount to our survival. If you meant to communicate to him that he can make believe whatever he wants for the sake of fun, that this distinction is very important. In the adult world, many people think belief is a valid tool for determining what is true and therefore could try and tempt him to do the same. Does that make sense? This to me reads as if what she's actually saying is that she understands that she cannot compete with you, so rather than upping her human capital in order to better do so, she's just going to try and tear you down because it's easier. She carried the boy, should've breast fed the boy, and had a head start on bonding with you. Never in a million years should anybody be able to outcompete her for her son's devotion or loyalty... unless she's a shitty mother. I'm glad that it sounds like you are sturdy enough to not let such things sway you. Though I can certainly understand how the very accusation could be upsetting. As such, I would like to challenge you further. You paint a very ugly picture of this woman while appearing to not be doing so with the intention of besmirching her reputation. Assuming your portrayal is accurate, this says something about the boy's father--the man that chose that woman not only as a life partner, but as the mother of his child. A man that you are attracted to to the point of being engaged to. Was he the father of the fetus you miscarried? I don't recall reading that. Anyways, my question is: Why did he choose her? What has he done since then to improve himself so that he would be immune to choosing such a person and/or be equipped to do better by his son than he did in choosing his mother? Were these questions that you addressed before deciding to move forward with him in your own relationship? Bottom line: What value do you and him place on self-knowledge? The boy in the story is in a very precarious position. He's going to need a lot of love and rationality to overcome the mistakes his parents made in the past. And probably the ongoing abuse of his mother. I don't know how long they were together, but finding another one month after splitting with a co-parent seems reckless in the extreme. Especially for a woman you say already had her own career. Which probably damaged her connection to the child at her behest. I hope you're handling all of this well. It's such a mess I don't think I would be tempted to get involved at all. He'd have to be one hell of a guy, which would indicate one hell of an effort to improve after the huge mistake of having a child with such a woman. [EDIT] Almost forgot to add that no, I don't think a person is ever in the wrong for speaking the truth. Perhaps there are ways of doing so, such as age-appropriateness. However, the mother/parents made this mistake when they tried to portray Santa as real. If she needs it that badly, chances are it was done for the sake of manipulating the boy into "behaving" instead of setting a good example and negotiating with him to foster such desired outcomes in a healthy, organic fashion.

We can't move forward in the discussion until we agree where we are now. If you would kindly refresh your memory as to the flow of this discussion, you will find that you had challenged "Not getting STDs or having unwanted pregnancies is not self improvement" by saying "I suppose that depends on what we are considering self improvement. That seems subjective." I have since pointed out that it is objectively true that identical states are ineligible for language that denotes a difference. If you won't circle back to address this correction, I cannot see how progressing in the discussion would at all be productive.

How do you know (that is your role)? It sounds like a limitation. An inflicted division. Which by the way is a necessary descriptor since there is nothing wrong with voluntary division. It fact, it can be quite healthy.

I don't think what I'm communicating is being fully received. You provided examples, not a definition. In both examples, we have two states that are different. This was precisely my interpretation of the point being made before. No STD compared to no STD are not different, and therefore any behavior that leads to no STD when the person is already no STD could not be described as an improvement in the context of having no STD. I mean, right?

Requires no explanation is not the same as unexplainable. If I understand his point correctly, he was pointing out that it is the origin. We are born unemployed.

Deflection and doubling down. This only further reveals your quest for bias confirmation. Though it is refreshing to see a theist accuse rational thought of being fanatical, belief, and heavenly. I've openly stated that "belief" is of no use in determining the truth. And that "NAP" is not beneficial shorthand as 1) shorthand is only valuable if all parties agree on its meaning (which on a worldwide stage is impossible) and 2) it often leads to people losing sight of what it's shorthand for: "People do not exist in different, opposing moral categories" is an objective claim whose truth value is true. THAT has been my position. Saying 2+2=4 is true is not saying that 2+2=4 will solve all problems. Though when the BELIEF that 2+2=5 is widespread, your accusation does nothing to demonstrate how it does NOT impact the problem.

Nothing I've said has anything to do with what you wrote. The point of contention is when you said you don't have a right to a job, but you do, which I pointed out is inconsistent. You asked me to point out where fantasy was encroached, I did, and you've agreed. It's all right here. Here, you've entered a new variable while also not answering the question. You've described WILL NOT get a job, not cannot.

I believe you. I don't think I've ever seen you exhibit an acceptance for your own capacity for error. The other would be all that's left.

No idea what you're talking about. It was put forth that masturbation could be viewed as improvement in the context of continuing to be STD free. When you compare STD free to STD free, these states are identical, and therefore ineligible for any language that denotes a difference, such as "improvement." Savvy? The movie Fight Club is 17 years old and considered to be a classic. It is reasonable to assume that anybody who had an interest in partaking of the movie would have done so by now.

We need to define our terms if the discussion is to be a productive one. What does real/exist mean? Comprised of matter and energy? Illusions exist in our brain, though what they are an illusion of does not exist, hence the word illusion. What does can be measured mean? Does that mean there is a unit of measure assigned to it, with a tool to determine amount of units present? Let us assume for the sake of argument that free will is valid. As it is a concept, is "can be measured" even consistent language? You cannot measure a forest, though you can measure an aggregate of trees. How do you measure a concept? What does religion mean? I haven't heard a lot of propaganda regarding free will. It was a provocative claim by you with no accompanying rigor.

You either have the right to force somebody to trade with you for your labor/service or you do not. The fact that there are other people pretending they have power and stealing from you doesn't change this.

Your 2nd question seems to be a different question while the 1st is still in contention. Can you define improvement? I'm almost certain it would involve two states that are in fact different. Thus disqualifying persistence from being described as improvement, no?

Presuming self-defense, the killing would be anything but deliberate. It'll be the fastest, lowest deliberation you'll ever make. My instructor prepared us by basically saying to not carry unless you're willing to draw, to not draw unless you're willing to fire, and to not fire unless you're willing to kill. The first time I needed to pull, I actually choked out of fear of what an overzealous prosecutor would do. Thankfully, the three others times I've needed to pull, I didn't even need to put my finger in the trigger guard as the mere presentation was enough to diffuse the situation.

Immoral vs immoral. I see no "edge." You've already seen what happens to the economy when coercion and forced wealth re-distribution is in play. Do you know how many man hours go into the production of a car or a house? What is meant by "cannot get a job"? This reads to me as "In the real world, I do not have a right to a job. But in fantasy land..."

No it doesn't. If you didn't have an STD yesterday and you don't have an STD today, you didn't take a step in any direction. Source? Because it's well established the ways in which the opposite are true.

Shoot to kill is a misnomer. Any malady a human suffers is potentially lethal. You could potentially survive a headshot or bleed out from being hit in an extremity.

Which is it? Is it that I am unwilling to consider the "proof" or that you don't have any logic, reason, and evidence to provide as "proof"?

In the context that both are a form of self-love, then certainly. Calling things by their proper names, staying in touch with your emotions, identifying WHY you feel certain ways amid certain circumstances to not only process the trauma of your past, but empower yourself to be more in control of those emotions and how you act upon them. Your point is valid, and a useful one. However, your claim isn't entirely accurate. There are physiological and neurological benefits to regularly making use of your reproductive system, even solo. If by this you mean there aren't units nor tools, then this is correct. However, I think there are ways to test for the characteristics of self-knowledge. Things like an acceptance of one's capacity for error, curiosity, open-mindedness, being in touch with feelings, etc.

This is the opposite of the truth. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The religious are the ones who are under a spell. For your claim to be true, you would have to prove a deity.

I guess it's easier to peddle bullshit and get away with deflection when there isn't somebody around to point it out to others, eh?

One of these things is not like the other...

Stef once said that to see the farm is to escape it. I think he's right about that. And yes, it IS a spell. See also:

I should make use of my body because of the love of man? What does that even mean? I don't know how one could choose not to use their body. Especially when you consider they'd have to use their body to make such a decision. Hence my claim that it is the default. Something your question continues to deflect from.

You're asking me why I'm peaceably using my capital to try and help somebody who is my equal understand the truth as if my efforts to do so contradict these observation when in fact they embody them.

You're not making any effort to understand what was said. You said you have no power, I pointed out the power that you have. Namely, to love yourself and understand that the State doesn't exist. None of what you've said refutes either of these claims. Why would they build a church? Who cares?! The construction of a church isn't the initiation of the use of force, so it doesn't matter to me why they would. I asked you a series of questions about the differences between a mugger and police showing up at your door. You've done nothing to address these. This in no way appears to be a discussion for you. So I'll leave you with the following thought experiment: What do we see here? One man disrupting a sporting event. People who are there to "keep the peace" respond and everybody is fine with that... Until the successful 4 against 1 escalates by adding assault to the already restrained interloper. The people there understand that the 4 are just people and at this point, are behaving unacceptably. Now they respond. Magically, the 4 no longer have their super powers and in fact cower at the idea that they might suffer the consequences of their actions. Perceived legitimacy is the lifeblood of the State. If you insist their power is real, then it is. If you accept that it isn't, then we're one step closer to the days when they cannot continue because people will regard them for the organized criminals that they are. Step one on the road to wisdom is calling things by their proper names. There's no such thing as government. There's just people violating people in the name of government. They can get away with it because you tell them they can by insisting they're real and wasting time asking why people would build a jail.