Prairie

Something interesting I realized: the assumption that the child's nose must heal nearly perfectly so that it's out of the question not doing the stitches and some less-painful method of having it heal.

Thanks for your post, cobra2411. That is a courteous way of handling it. An even more benign translation is simply, "I'm not interested in this discussion anymore, because it's uncomfortable, seems to be going nowhere, seems to be pointless, whatever. It seems to be about one person winning and I'd like for us to walk away from it without declaring any kind of victory/loss for either one of us, so that there is no loss of face."

For each of the following, it is objective or subjective? Banana 2+2=4 The sun is shining somewhere They are bad Bob thinks that they are bad Language My sense is that language is in the same class as a banana; it is not a statement about things and therefore it is neither objective nor subjective. Language can be used to make statements about things, and those statements can be objective or subjective. As for how statements classify, it seems to fall on the line of whether it's projecting one's values onto the world, or giving context for them ("I think 'that is bad'" versus "that is bad"). Hmmm, maybe your question was about the meaning of a particular word. Meaning is clearly something subjective, because it's not a property of the word but of the people who use it, and can thus differ between people or the same person over time. The meaning of something is like the goodness/badness of it, just something projected.

We're in full agreement then. What a refreshing technology if it was allowed to exist, to be able to do whatever work one can find that people need doing now, store up the exchanged value, then save it however long one wants until one finds a good use for it, not having to worry about it evaporating between now and then! Yes, printing money is one of the best tricks government came up with. Even money stuffed in one's mattress can effectively be drained by the government without its agents ever setting foot into one's house.

Isolation Tank: lightless, soundproof tank inside which subjects float in salt water at skin temperature. They were first used to test the effects of sensory deprivation. Such tanks are now also used for meditation and relaxation and in alternative medicine.

I'm not entirely clear whether you're making a point, responding to some other one, so I'm just commenting on things you wrote. Preserving implies that something else is propping it up. Either it's fake money and it's a confidence game that will eventually end, or it's real money and you just have to get out of the way and not do things to destroy its value (make it illegal, confiscate it, etc.) Are you arguing for monetary inflation in order to prevent price deflation here? It seems that the value should decrease due to the increased supply/decreased cost of doing it. At some point a robot may do it for a few dollars. But if you hand-painted someone's house decades before when there weren't robots and it was of more value to people (they were willing to give up more of their own wealth for it), it makes sense that now you'd be able to have ten houses painted with the money you saved, rather than just one. You sacrificed something back then of greater cost/value and waited until now to get the end-product in exchange.

Wow, that's brilliant. Unless news stations let the secret out, the average abusive parent won't know that their kid is secretly getting a lifeline when they walk by. It's like the compassionate stranger who slips the kid the phone number for an abuse hotline.

There are a few movies that when I describe the story to a sympathetic listener, I just break into tears. Also some (all-instrumental) music that just listening to causes that, whose melody also evokes for me a story as I hear it. I've examined this and it's very clear that they are matching some kind of unresolved trauma. This has lead me to examine my watching of movies that move me less dramatically, and at this point I'm pretty sure that it's basically all just connecting with unresolved issues. That is, I don't anymore think that a movie can create emotions, that if I lack unresolved things around some area, a movie touching on that won't move me emotionally at all, and just seem a relatively uninteresting jumble of interactions between people.

Sounds like justice was served, as the original case was frivolous; they should be able to let him go for any reason they please (unless there was a contract and they violated it).

This assumes that money keeping the same value is "correct" or desirable. If some work is done a year ago when productivity was lower, it was more valuable then than it is now. If the money paid for that work is saved a year, it makes sense that it should be worth more now, worth more work than was done for it then. To me the idea that the money supply should be increased along with productivity sounds like a fiction to justify inflation and those who benefit from it at the expense of everyone else.

I was going to say that the newly-printed dollar has a hair less than a dollar of purchasing power, but remembered that the first spender of illegitimate currency does so before prices can adjust. So it really does take a dollar total from everyone else who holds dollars. So printing it to offer "aid" to other countries is just stealing it from everyone holding dollars without having to leave any evidence.

You mean where a society has a basically fixed amount of currency, said society prospers and becomes more productive, so that most products and services become cheaper over time as a reflection of the fact that they are in fact cheaper as things improve? What's not to love?

When these bulb people run out of that gold, silver, oil, gas, and copper, what happened to it? Is it still there? Was it transmuted?

So what if the parents were doing the best they could? If you're angry with them, hurt, need to talk about what they did, then the therapist's job is to shut up and listen. Talking about one's experiences or anger or rage will not hurt anyone, especially not the parents who aren't even present for the therapy sessions. Can the therapist not just tolerate but be open and accepting of your view that your parents didn't do their best, that they should have done better, that you deserved better? Does the therapist need everything you utter to be verifiably true objectively and by others' standards? Does the therapist think that any idea you express that they don't object to you will then hold on to as a firm belief for the rest of your life? <rant mode off>

Watch the first 2:30 of it as well as it sets up the situation and also shows the message the writers put into this episode.

The worry of messing the interaction up suggests that there's some consequence that's being feared. What are the outcomes you're concerned about? What rewards are possible that you could miss if you don't do it just right? Is this a situation where it seems it'll never come around again so you can't screw it up? Directly expressing these concerns might yield some insights about things going on behind the scenes.

Re: facts and future. My take: Statement about reality. It is either true or false. If true it's a fact. A statement can be about the past, present, or future. We have some means of verifying statements about the past/present (history, perception). For the future, our means of verification are fewer: prediction based on present/past. Likewise, for making true statements about reality, we have an easier time to make them about the past/present. I see trauma as like tying a weight to someone. It constrains a person's future actions, though doesn't entirely determine exactly what they'll do each second. They might pull something around with wheels to carry the weight, hold it in alternating hands, or tie it to a foot and walk oddly, depending on their choices and other limiting factors. Further, I see trauma as something we don't understand to a science, so we can't say exactly how it will constrain someone, just that it is a constraint of some kind, an extra cost to bear. I've encountered people who have pressured me to accept what they believe are limitations I have. I was explaining that I reject this, and consider beliefs in limitations of oneself being harmful because one may be wrong about them and thus avoiding exceeding imaginary limitations. Further I justified examining possible limitations in the context of voluntary self-work, where the goal isn't to accept limitations, but to find ideas of how to eliminate them. It has a different tone than someone else imposing a view to gain leverage over you. I gave up trying to read those tiny serif posts. Rich text editor for discussion board = fail. I just found that this nonsense can be eliminated when writing posts by clicking the cryptic unlabeled icon in the upper-left of the rich editor.

I'm not entirely clear on what you're asking, but I found an angle to approach the topic with my thinking.If you cut the water pipe in half, you won't be getting any water at the tap in the future until it's mended. No probabilities here.If you take a die and remove a sliver off one side, you know it won't roll each side equally as often in the future, but you don't know what will come up on a given roll. You can only state definitely that a side was sliver was removed.Some things are simple enough that damage has a clear effect. Others are more complex such that you can only know for certain the general effect. Human injuries can fall into both. A broken leg means not walking well/at all for a while. Emotional abuse can mean many different coping strategies and lasting effects. If there was a lasting injury, then by definition it has lasting effects until healed. I attempt to keep an open mind as to the effects of my own injuries; I might have an idea of how they hinder me, using this to guide useful action, but I may turn out wrong and find that they weren't hindering me in that way. I don't want to think I am limited and avoid actions but later find out that I didn't have to avoid those things. I refuse to think of myself limited to satisfy others' demands; I will only examine apparent limitations if it's useful for working through the injuries, shedding light on their nature.

"Well, you've had kids so you don't have the insight of someone like me who can step back from the situation."

It'll be easy to get possession of it during an economic collapse. Right?

For a while Google has allowed elimination of the http:// part in site: searches. So you can just do site:readfdr.wordpress.com "I like turles"

1:18 "You're not supposed to put your hand on someone else's child." So the problem isn't that they were dragged, but that it wasn't one of their parents dragging them? 1:31 "Now according to Dickson's attorney, those videos were supposed to be confidential. They were released to local news stations by the parents of the kindergarteners in the video. But Dickson's attorney says she's now calling for an investigation into how they were made public."

He sees depression as an unwanted distraction from his conscious-driven life, from doing the things that he thinks he should be able to do like other apparently-content people. He wants to get around it. He sees it as something which warps his sense of reality, upsets his idea that people around him love him. He is sure that he loves his friends and if they don't think so, they're deluded.

afterzir, do you mean a situation where there is no scarcity at all (infinite everything created by Star-Trek-like replicator), including human-like beings to do one's bidding like slaves? Outside that, with scarcity, tradeoffs must be made. To maximize wealth, some way is needed to predict which tradeoffs are best. Money is a system for making these choices. This is often referred to as the calculation problem.

To me it seems like adding sugar to a food to make it palatable, rather than letting the child develop their own appreciation for the inherent rewards of unsweetened food. These artificial rewards can block discovery of the natural rewards.