dsayers

To manage the symptoms is to manage one's own anxiety, not the actual problem. Even worse here since it's taking the place of what could actually be the solution. Not just for herself, but for others who might follow her example and feel content that they've done their part to offset the problem. She's not learning about the root of aggression. She's not processing the trauma. She's not being honest about her mother's culpability in exposing her to such a toxic environment. "Positive begets positive." -Peter Brown, Mayor of Airdrie. Is it "positive" to steal from and threaten the 42,000+ residents of Airdrie? Is it positive that the school seemed more focused on the victim littering than they were with the assailant breaking into her locker, stealing her property, and using her senses to inflict trauma upon her? I can't figure out what any of the people in the video are talking about.

Could you elaborate? Normally, you get an ought from an is after an if. However, in terms of morality, the "if you want to live virtuously" is a given. As for the chair, it wouldn't exist without you, so of course you own it. Ask your friend how he'd feel about you stealing his arm after he built and nurtured it all the years? When discussing property rights, it's essential to always delineate to the foundation of property: self-ownership. If you have exclusive right/ownership/use of your arms, then what you do with those arms belong to you also.

If your 11 year old is not capable of surviving on his own, than you have an obligation to protect and provide for him until he does. This means obstructing abusers' access to him. It doesn't matter what she's like beyond willing to aggress against a defenseless, not there by choice, dependent child. Also, what is the purpose of saying she doesn't beat him? She's not supposed to beat him! This doesn't make what she IS doing any better. I'd contact an attorney and try to get an idea of what the climate is like where you're at. He might tell you that legally, you can shelter the child immediately. He might tell you to set up spy cams to record the assaults. I don't know. But I wouldn't waste a moment while your child is at known risk of repeat assault. Obviously, the prevention (for the benefit of others) is self-knowledge, which will lead to choosing a co-parent that will protect your child, not harm them.

While not a movie and not something I'm at all familiar with, it is my understanding that show like the Muppet Babies and Rugrats are shows that model rationality, negotiation, self-reliance, co-operation, etc.

The initiation of the use of force is immoral. If person A and person B are voluntarily trading, then for person C to alter the terms of exchange under threat of violence is the initiation of the use of force. The end. How'd I do? Don't waste your time on utilitarian arguments. Not until the other person makes a solid case for how the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights is logically valid. Until then, you're essentially arguing the minutia of a fairy tale. What a fantastic waste of time.

I wish more people were taught to critically think. Once I was exposed to the idea of self-ownership, SO many things became both clear and simple to me. Including the understanding that what is referred to as capitalism really is just an observation of that which is naturally occurring as stated above. People own their own bodies, time, and effort. These are their capital, which is used to acquire more resources to make survival more efficient and pleasurable. Without the initiation of the use of force, nothing about this process is sinister. Meanwhile, where the initiation of the use of force IS present, this aggression is what is immoral/problematic, not the fact that humans own themselves.

Without providing any frame of reference or reason, hence the interpretation of a plea to trust you. I've never even heard of Yamashita's Gold. I don't need to know a thing about such minutia to know that: 1) governments are corrupt because they are predicated on immoral behaviors 2) corporations are fictitious entities created by government force 3) banks have no reason to exist in the absence of a State forcefully manipulating currency If the book doesn't make these points, then it would be little more of a focus on the symptoms. A distraction. If the book does make these points, well I just summed it up in three sentences. It is unclear as to what the purpose of this thread or that book is.

I don't know you except now I know that you are willing to take a conversation about something objective and make it personal. It is true that I find that to be off-putting, but this is something that arose as a result of your claim, not present before it. I never said one word about YOU before this post at all. For that matter, I have yet to say one word about Tesla or the D. Making your post full of assumption and accusation. Read: unprocessed trauma that I most certainly was not the source of.

"To the detriment of others" is not a standard. I'm breathing right now, which is to the detriment of everybody else on the planet. Not at all. The right to live is very different from the right to not be murdered. The right to live means you are entitled to my kidneys if yours fail. You do not have to trade with others to survive. It's just that trading with others makes your survival so much more efficient. Meaning that the people you're touting as victims benefit from the relationship. Also, the fact that I will perish if I do not eat is not a situation that any other human placed me in (except my parents). Additionally, the people you are touting as the bosses have to answer to customer demand, making them the victim according to your claim. Abolition is inherently immoral as it makes no consideration for consent. Also, your body, time, and labor are your capital. How do you propose to separate people from their bodies? How do you propose to survive to next week if you are unable to eat anything because in order to be able to morally eat something, you must first own it?

When laptops came out, people said, "It is extremely cool, but also extremely wasteful. Yay those of us who can look on in envy while snicking our abacuses." When cellphones came out, people said, "It is extremely cool, but also extremely wasteful. Yay those of us who can look on in envy while dialing our rotary phones." One of the biggest errors of the anti-wealthy attitude is that the wealthy help bankroll this stuff to recoup startup and further R&D, which in turn puts the technology into the hands of the less wealthy.

Morality is not analog. A behavior is either moral, immoral, or amoral (lacking a moral component). This is one of those times where it is imperative to define terms. You've arrived at the false conclusion that communism is moral because you're looking at the label instead of unpacking what the label means. Communism IS the State. It's the division of people into two moral categories where one set owns much more than themselves while the other set supposedly doesn't even own themselves. "Anarcho-communism" is a contradiction in terms. This is an example of the balloon analogy usually used to denote the relationship between the State and other religions whereby most people that denounce one clings to the other out of not being used to being responsible for themselves and their actions. Here, you've denounced the State for moral reasons, but cling instead to what you don't see as the State in spite of the moral reason not to. Theft, assault, rape, and murder are the only behaviors that are immoral. The term "hierarchy" does not denote if it's coercive or voluntary. Therefore, it is neither inherently moral or immoral.

First of all, it's important to understand that rage and anger are not the same thing. Rage is destructive, even within. Secondly, what makes anger healthy is that it's an opportunity for self-knowledge. WHY are you angry? Without this, the recurrence and unresolved trauma associated with it will add a layer of frustration and desperation. I'll give you an example from my own life. For as long as I've known my parents, they've tried to control and correct my every action and thought. As an adult, I've noticed that I get angry when neighbors engage in noise polution, when motorists make sudden lane changes, etc. When I started pursuing self-knowledge, I came to the realization that the reason I was angry in these scenarios is because these people were "getting away with it" whereas I was never permitted to "get away with" anything, no matter how mundane. Have you identified WHAT makes you angry? Have you considered WHY? Keep in mind that the realization in my example would not have been possible if I saw my parents as infallible. If you're not honest with yourself as to the root of the anger, you WILL be powerless to do anything healthy about it.

Disorder suggests a lack of choice in the matter. If she didn't treat everybody equally, then it was a choice. The "disorder" she suffered from was sadism. Thanks to society's protection of child abuse, she was able to be sadistic towards you without any resistance or consequence. That's why she chose to do it towards you and not others. A number of things here. First of all, you are not a perfectionist. It was inflicted upon you that failure was unacceptable. I mention this not only because you were owning your abuse, but also because you said happy and succeed as if they are the same thing. Failure is unavoidable, healthy, and natural. It's also a positive thing if we use it as a learning experience and/or motivation to improve. I would argue that being sorry and miserable would make your parents proud because it would be the ultimate victory for them. Choosing your behaviors based on what others would want you to do is erasing yourself for them. Plus, if you have no contact with your mother anymore, why would it matter how she'd view your station in life? I'm curious as to why you'd have no further contact with your mother, but don't seem to have made that decision with your father also. He chose for her to be your mother. He chose not to protect you, in violation of his obligation towards you. He's chosen not to take responsibility for his allowance of aggression in your life. It sounds as if he's chosen to repeat the process with a new child(ren).

Step one is calling things by their proper names. Labels are generalities, vague, and subject to interpretation. Even when they apply, they're summing up an entire person by one characteristic of that person. I would argue that there's only one meaningful way to divide people: Those willing to initiate the use of force to achieve their goals and those who will not. Not only are labels inherently inaccurate, but they can actually be backfiringly destructive. For example, by using the term anarchist, you're actually conceding that institutionalized aggression is valid. Labels like atheist suggests that theism is the origin and atheism is a deviation. The only label I willingly self-apply is truthist. If anarchy most accurately describes the real world, then one can interpolate that I am an anarchist. But only as a result of my adherence to objective truth and acceptance of my own capacity for error. I accept that when the interpretation of my senses contradict the real world, it is my perception that must give way. I think this is important particularly because the immoral have manipulated language to manipulate thoughts. Even the "good guys" make this mistake. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen somebody say "NAP" when they're so used to using that shorthand that they've stopped seeing trees and only see a forest, I'd be a rich man. Let us be precise with our words.

When I first read this, I felt apprehension. I think it was due to my bias. Before I had pursued self-knowledge, I actually sought out girlfriends that would nurture me like a parent. I didn't realize at the time that the unconditional love I was seeking was something only a parent could/should provide and that it's only beneficial during the formative years. I was afraid that such a service would be giving people false hope and/or preying on the damaged. Then I got to thinking about how many people avail themselves of things like prostitutes, 900 numbers, BARS, and do things like claim a belief in aliens, etc just for the ability to talk to SOMEBODY and feel listened to/appreciated. So I checked out that link. I'm not sure what their approach is specifically, so cannot know if their claim to want to spread empathy is realistic. But I was impressed by their use of a donation model as well as their understanding of how important empathy is. I hope that such a service if nothing else gets people thinking more about empathy and researching where it comes from. It might help to reinforce the importance of peaceful parenting.

I appreciate that interpretation. It has given me something to think about.

By speculation, do you mean logical conclusion? I don't have the right to assault other people. Meaning I don't have the right to--under threat of violence--physically detain people not initiating the use of force against other people. Since I do not possess that right, I am incapable of granting that right to others. It is logical to conclude that people who believe they are operating in a fantasy world cannot be bound by reality. It's like when children are playing cowboys and indians or cops and robbers or astronauts and aliens. One of the children might make a shooting gesture and say, "I got you." The other child might announce, "Nuh uh because I have impenetrable armor on!" It's a logical conclusion that you cannot simultaneously imagine that you shot somebody AND that they cannot imagine they have impenetrable armor on. This is really important to understand because a lot of people get stuck on this. I'm talking about the people that believe that X is right and Y is wrong because some rulebook said so or the Constitution says so. We have nearly unlimited empirical evidence that those who are playing make believe cannot be bound by reality in terms of what society will let them get away with. How could something backed up by logic, reason, and evidence be described as speculation?

I too took issue with the use of the word trend. I didn't speak up because I also took issue with the word pedophile, which I understand is an unpopular position (though accurate). Pedophilia is a preference. A taste, and one that's indicative of victimization. There are tons of pedophiles out there that do not molest or rape just as there's a ton of Corvette enthusiasts out there that don't vandalize or steal cars. I too do not understand what this thread is asking. What do I think about assault and rape? It's internally inconsistent and therefore immoral. People are attracted to such things in the form of entertainment because they have unresolved trauma of their own. Including not being taught how to rationally think or negotiate and not being nurtured enough to develop empathy. It's good that such things are open for all to see because we must never lose sight of how real, dangerous, and prevalent the effects of abusive parenting actually is.

+1 to your post and Dylan's post. To resonate what he said, it's VERY important for this things to happen. Even if the parent can withstand the ostracism, the child NEEDS a counter-example so that he knows it's not okay. It will help him to NOT normalize the abuse. For the rest of his life, that child (and his mother) are going to remember that a complete stranger cared about him more than his own mother. This might not fix her or bond them, but it will help him to understand that assaulting the defenseless is NOT okay. No surprise that her inability to negotiate with her son led to her inability to negotiate with you.

How do you know that courage is a virtue? What is courage? What is cowardice? I ask not just because I'm used to you providing such things. It's also because I usually see the terms used in an attempt to invoke a pre-determined response in others. In other words, I view it as vague and manipulative language. That it's vague tells me it's likely of no value. Certainly much less value than if the person using those words were instead communicating what they were actually trying to say.

As a PI, I have to work with the police on occasion. Talking to them in this capacity is of no risk to me. Otherwise, I now treat the police like the predators that their positions are. I will indulge them just enough to secure my safe passage and not provoke them. Beyond that, I say nothing. I did have a few issues with the video. The biggest one is that nobody mentioned that THEY DON'T HAVE TO PLAY BY "THE RULES". In the ruler/ruled relationship, the rules are in place for the benefit of the rulers and therefore are not meant to apply to them. Police act on behalf of the rulers, have immunity in the eyes of society, and often believe their own immoral actions to be noble. I'm talking about a lot of made up stuff here; They're not going to let something like reality interfere.

For those not familiar with Miss Wedler's consistently excellent work, it should be pointed out that it's largely presented in a farcical format. I enjoy videos like this because I don't do much to keep track of current events. I especially liked the part where she pointed out the way politicians and the media are using the phrase "boots on the ground" to gloss over the fact that human lives are occupying those boots.

Bump.

Rationality is derived from the consistency of matter and energy. Theft is inconsistent as it is the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights. So no, I don't find a premise that begins with stealing from people being described as good to be rational. I don't view an imposed unchosen positive obligation to be "the most liberty." This is begging the question. Theft is either immoral or it is not. If it is, that's the end of the whale. If it's not, then there wouldn't be a need to take bites at all. When you say that you need to bargain with your slave master to get a portion of your freedom back, you're conceding that they own you from the outset. If you are not free in your own mind, you can never be free outside of your own mind.

"the logic I present" is that doing something to a fetus is not the same as doing something to a person. How do you get from that to people in prison are not victims of violence in the name of the State? It was helpful for you to clarify that you were focusing on the force initiated upon the mothers not the fetuses. (Though that does raise the question that if you were trying to focus on the initiation of the use of force, why bother with just forced abortion or just China, or use just the creation of the US for comparison?) However, it's not helpful (and in fact insulting) to put words into other people's mouths. I've noticed that you like to use metaphors and talk about peaceful parenting as not being enough. Since we're talking about the language of aggression, the metaphor that best fits is that of a foreign language. It's as if you're saying that if you don't want people to speak French, then not exposing them to French is not enough, which is demonstrably false. Not exposing the next generation to aggression would in time eradicate aggression. If that is the goal, then perhaps it would be useful to deal with those who already speak aggression today. I would agree with that, but that's not what you're communicating. In this thread, you're referring to choosing being aggressed against as a step towards people not being aggressed against, which is demonstrably false. Accepting that people are not fundamentally different and therefore cannot have greater claim over others than they have over themselves is a step. It reveals that old method and new method are both immoral, and therefore the act of choosing it to be inflicted onto others (voting) is also immoral. It's something you can do today that does not involve peaceful parenting alone.