Prairie

Oh, so you only targeted other groups. Carry on then!Reminds me of the time my father saw some kids taking tomatoes from his front-yard tomato garden. He confronted them later and accused them of taking several tomatoes, and they retorted that they only took one.

I didn't see any mention of letting you know that he was canceling. That to me is an essential component: If you make a commitment with me, either keep it or let me know in advance that you have decided to break it. If you do neither, then you have some explaining to do or I will conclude that you aren't worth my time in the future. And obviously if you consistently make commitments and then break them (even if you let me know each time), you'll also have some explaining to do. Note that every situation here is entirely avoidable by the other person: they can either not make any commitments to me, or only make ones they intend on keeping, and in the occasional circumstance they need to break, let me know.

Some thoughts/ideas that came to mind while reading your post: In my experience, the abuse is often only hinted at or done a few times, where the victim learns to give into the nagging rather than get abused again. After a long time of this, the victim might wonder whether the nagging is really abuse, because they never see the major abuse, subconsciously always anticipating it and avoiding it by giving into the more minor abuse. A big thing all these evasions rely on is the warped idea that having someone empathize with your experience is detrimental to them in some way. So what if they only meant it as a joke? If you took it as otherwise, then you need to talk about the experience and be taken seriously. Same if it was supposedly for your sake. "Well, I do not like it and I need to tell you how it felt to be on the receiving end." Someone who cares WILL want to hear how you received it. That's the other thing these rely on: you coming back for more rather than cutting them out of your life. This is one benefit I see of physical abuse over emotional abuse: it's much easier for the victim to recognize is and trust their perception of it. I think that all abuse is emotional at its core, and some also comes with a non-essential physical component (though it means that the abuse can become fatal, which adds the emotional component of mortal threat). If a tree fell and broke your leg, it would probably not be experienced as abuse. If someone didn't see you and ran into you and broke your leg, it also probably wouldn't be experienced as abuse. But if they did so seeming intentionally, and then didn't acknowledge it or let you talk about how the experience was, then it denies your existence and value on many levels and is abuse. I've learned to not discuss objective reality with such people, because it'll never go anywhere. I stick to statements about myself and how things are affecting me. That gives someone who cares all they need to respect me. If they try to argue with me about those internal things, it's pretty easy to just laugh and ask if they are claiming to be a mind-reader. If they don't respect these statements about myself, then the Socratic method is a nice fallback that allows one to disappear and become a mirror.Reflect back what they say, then let them say more, then reflect that back, etc. If they said I did something wrong, I'd reflect back, "I hear you saying you think that doing it this other way would be better. In what ways would it be better than the way I'm doing it?" If they cite some authority, or say that it just is better, I'd go back to myself, "Well, until you can offer some reasons, I'm going to continue doing it the way I started." Once they offer reasons, scrutinize them until you have something compelling. This constantly frames things so that they have to justify their advice. If they're doing it for some psychological reason, they'll often get annoyed for this scrutiny and then you've got them complaining about you, and you can just continue with the Socratic approach, reflecting back things like "I hear you saying that you'd like me to be less scrutinizing of what you request of me." If they are still being an asshole, you can just reflect those but never agree to them or comment on them. It's like just shutting off part of yourself around them.

Think Free, it could also be decreasing in density, and thus keeping a constant mass. I found some videos showing how bubbles could migrate to the axis of rotation (rather than simply to the surface and dissipate), as one possible explanation for how the volume could increase/density decrease:

Some I can think of:"Learning to endure pain is a sign of maturity/discipline.""Enduring pain builds character.""You're weak if you cower from pain.""If you don't learn to accept pain, you won't grow."More deeply, I find that most people view themselves as defective and unwanted feelings etc. as something to try to get rid of. So when a child starts to accept their abusers as healthy and OK, they naturally turn on their own being as wrong and to be fought with. The pain it signals when being abused gets treated like a challenge to overcome, where victory means winning against the awful self.Ignoring pain also seems to be a general sign of being an adult, which many people strive to be seen as. They talk of "childish ways" etc. A child is what gets locked in a cage and abused by the adults around it, so that is not something one wants any association with.In a more charitable way, there seems to be at least two psychological responses to continuous pain: "toughing it out", and breaking down and wanting it gone immediately. The latter, in my experience, involves more suffering because of the constant desire for it to be gone, to try to flee from it. Maybe not glory, but a satisfaction in accepting the pain one is feeling and staying present so that it doesn't turn into a larger thing in the mind's projection of the future.

Appropriate force. In this case, putting the knife in a locked container/room. If he continued trying to get dangerous things, confine him to a room where there isn't anything dangerous. If he continued or started trying to harm himself, restrain him. And all the while, of course, try to be receptive to anything he's trying to communicate. That he stopped when you spanked him doesn't show that it was the only way, simply that it stopped whatever behavior you were having a problem with in the moment. If this were the only criterion, then spanking could be claimed the only way to solve anything unwanted by adults: child eating dessert first? Spank him. Child speaking out of turn? Spank him. Child running around when you don't want him to? Spank him. etc.

Seems like it's because the arithmetic mean gives more weight to later values, since those are inflated more than earlier ones in terms of value.

Yeah, the questions weren't to offer evaluation, just to get out in the open why you want to do it, so that what approach you take won't be subconsciously trying to meet a hidden goal. It sounds like you genuinely want to acknowledge how you were and talk about how you've changed, regardless of whether it means a continuation of whatever was happening between you and her before (if that happens, so much the better). If I were in your situation, I'd work on holding the intention in my mind to communicate the changes I'd made and apologize, but be sure I wasn't trying to make her feel a certain way if she was annoyed about it, not trying to influence her. It'd be like delivering the message to an audience of all the people I'd abruptly stopped communicating with. I'd just deliver my message, then quiet down and listen carefully to whatever she says in response, reflect it, keep listening until she's expressed anything about the experience she needs to. After that, perhaps on another occasion, express the desire to relate more again. I know I've had people seem to apologize, but then "tailgate" me if I don't immediately act like I'm all fine and over it. Like I try to express my experience of it and frustration and they're like "Oh I understand and I'm sorry, bla bla" instead of quieting down and listening to what I'm saying and sitting with that while I elaborate. This sort of un-empathetic approach comes across as emotionally manipulative and turns their apology/amending as something merely to feel less guilty.

What do you hope to get out of the apology? Feel better personally about how you interacted before? Mend what you imagine to be some hurt she has from it? Turn the clock back and pick up your advancing relationship?

Almost all the responses show the adults to be insecure, projecting, angry beings. They consistently ignore that the child is trying to communicate something important to the parent. They display great fear that the child can hurt them, and responses to try to ward off this threat of being hurt deeply by their child. They frame the child as trying to upset their domination over the child. They punish the child for not expressing themselves in the approved way (using words, expressing hatred? nope, you have to do it in a way that mommy/daddy find pleasant). They tell the child that he/she doesn't feel anything important and that it's not nice to express things.A couple at the end aren't like that, and are correspondingly voted up about 1/10 of the others:

A third party has to hold the gold, so in the event of a collapse you might not even be able to get possession of it.

I find it difficult to be myself. Almost everywhere I utter anything about myself, I have someone subconsciously bothered by it and saying things to me in order to change me or my view or my feelings. It's usually hard to get the person to acknowledge that they're bothered and trying to change me. I spent some time with a group that would break up into pairs where one person was the listener and the other could talk about whatever they wanted. I got a lot out of not having someone constantly give their two cents on everything I said. I've wanted to set something like that up less formally with people. I experience this in general as a strategy people employ to ward of anxiety, that of controlling others, either in what they do or what they think. I've found some interesting things in a search for heteronomy (the opposite of autonomy) on the subject.

tl; dw: kids crying outside (in rain?). At end person recording yells that they were left out for 8 minutes (not sure what else they said).

Michael Bader's Arousal offers an explanation for sexual fantasies: neutralization of anxieties etc. that make one feel unsafe. In this explanation, wanting to be dominated might be to offset a sense of being obligated to bring pleasure to the other person, to be in a position where you are merely along for the ride while someone else runs the show. I liked this line of explanation because it first of all is a benign explanation that doesn't take the fantasies as literal desires, but as strategies that are employed because of some side-effect that gives one peace from the effects of mistreatment earlier in life. It offers a starting point for all sorts of creative inquiry into what the fantasies are offsetting, places to start in lines of a self-knowledge expedition. The feelings are so intense that it can make breaking through to deep things easier once something is decoded. Once things like this are seen as crutches, it's hard not to want to find and heal the injury they were originally taken up for, so they can be a temporary part of life as crutches should be.

Or rather regain the skill that was pounded out of one in childhood when having to believe the endless parental lies?

Post the hash of the file so the hosting service can't tamper with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrAcV2ywnqc I had to watch this in segments due to the rage that came up. So much is wrong here. The father expects the son to handle the news without any emotion, even though the father has already had time to process it on his own. The son is just left isolated there without any warmth, only cold disgust from the parent. I can only assume that the father's dismissive reaction is due to the son bringing up unresolved issues around the child that the father doesn't want to deal with (maybe he didn't want a fourth child either). On top of that the father hopes to make money off the video.

There's an interesting hypocrisy in people who call for solutions to global problems. They preach that we're all in this together, that we all need to think of one another, and they support systems where they can push the costs of their personal choices on everyone. Questioned further, these people have serious feelings of entitlement, that a whole laundry list of things are their right to have, and that using force to make others provide these things for them is fine. They employ the worst kind of thinking for others, the kind that is made out to be helpful but is really attempted slavery.

How would changing density along with size (and slowing rotation) violate this?

Sounds exciting. What practical things would you suggest that people do to prepare, weighed against the credibility of your assessment? Alternately, what have you done to prepare so far? I figure it's the standard stuff one should have anyway: enough food for a week, water, matches, defense, a radio, batteries.

If I understand, you're saying that a first post in a discussion by someone is a one-way communication, therefore it doesn't give us any information about how the person will interact in reply (first post is not a reply). Then, once we've seen a reply, we can determine the nature of all future replies. If we infer anything about what their reply might be based on their first non-reply posting, we are being purely assumptive. Playing devil's advocate, how can we infer anything about their second reply once they've made a first reply only? The first might be more of the same, but then when you say the right thing, their second reply might be one of cooperation. Therefore, we must let everyone stay in a discussion for however long they want, regardless of the effect on the discussion. If I understand, you approach this like a missionary, wanting to spread the idea of liberty to anyone you encounter that is willing to engage in some form of dialog (they say something, you say something, they say something, etc.) because that is a form of engagement and therefore shows their interest in what you're saying. Further, you had hoped that this board was open to basically anyone and wouldn't ban people because that might mean the difference between someone who can be reached and someone who can't.

When is banning justified, since it's a prediction of their future response? For all you know they'll see the light on the next response and completely become respectful in the discussion.

I see Stefan's primary purpose not of philisophy, but of people healing. So I see this board as having a support aspect. A common theme of support boards is banning of certain things because they are the abuse many participants have experienced. Abusers justifying their abuse is probably the common thread to everything. This damages one's ability to see abuse and makes one susceptible to pseudo-justifications for it, so such things just don't work being accepted as valid positions in a discussion.If this were a board for pure philosophical exploration, I'd agree that all ideas should be given room to be explored. This would be an environment where there's no goal to it, nobody pushing the correct view because it's just exploration.alexqr1, I've now read all your responses in this thread in detail. It seems that a central point is that based on EBTX's original post in this thread (ignoring other threads for now), we couldn't tell anything about EBTX's intent, that we can only determine that by how the respond to a reply. I contend that there is ample to go on in the original post to evaluate EBTX's intent, character, etc. At the very least, any discussion would likely be unpleasant and contain put-downs. I know I don't have the stomach for that kind of conversation. The post ends with an appeal to authority, the Christian bible, and a bunch of put-downs and insinuations on Stefan. I would suggest that the blindness you have to all these red flags points to something unrecognized in yourself. In all your replies here you've treated EBTX as some kind of innocent being whom we've judged based on nothing but speculation. I agree that we can't really know EBTX's intentions, but we don't need to. We only need to know that EBTX is likely to be aggressive towards people and not further the goal of healthy children.

Here's what came to mind on the subject and in the situation you mentioned. I don't mean it critically, in case any of it comes out that way. Imagine a glass jar over the rest of this posting to keep it sealed in for safe viewing As for his fear, I think he just needs someone to listen and reflect what he's saying. Once he's done talking about it he will move to something else, and that is done. As for perspective, does anyone ever watch a movie and experience it entirely as flashing lights on a screen, or at least as just actors and editing? I doubt so (or else movies would be boring things for most). So I think that everyone watching movies loses perspective while watching. I often hear people talking about feelings, then discounting them and talking about "perspective" from an intellectual point of view, then switching back to feelings, in a conflicted manner. I don't see any conflict between feelings and logic/intellect, as long as feelings are understood. I think that it is an error to interpret feelings as the same as intellectually thinking something, and to respond to feelings as if they are thoughts is to further this. To me, feelings show things going on inside and their relation to associations happening inside/outside me. Something that comes up in a movie is something that was there before, not caused by the movie. So if I got really frightened, sad, or angry when talking about a movie experience with someone and they started to remind me that it was fictional, I would be annoyed with them because they reduced my emotions from a reflection of something going on before I came into the theater to a silly response to something I didn't realize was fiction. "Crying over spilled milk" is another example of this trivialization. No, it's not over the milk, it's over something else and was just brought back into consciousness when the milk spilled, because something about the situation is similar. On the subject of movies, if I wanted to explain what they are to a child, I'd start with a behind-the-scenes featurette that shows some behind-the-scenes shots. Then I'd comment how it's interesting that even though we know it's not real, we belive it's real to some extent while watching. And finally use feelings that come up after watching a movie as a start of exploring fears, etc. to demonstrate nonverbally that the movie being fiction doesn't mean that the feelings are equally fake or baseless. One way to emphasize the exploratory nature is to imagine variations on scary scenes. "What if the evil robot were only a foot tall, would it still be scary? An inch tall?" The scenes become experiments to map out one's fears (or whatever emotion is being explored).

There are no arguments that can be made for abuse. All supposed arguments always rest on a wink and a nudge somewhere, because the one making the argument has been abused into seeing these pseudo-arguments as legitimate ones. Read the last three paragraphs of the original post for the big wink and nudge.