Bedouin

Thanks all for the very prompt answers Well, to be fair maybe I was being too brief - this has been my mission since not long after I started therapy and by directing me on that path he is only providing the service I originally asked for. This is also my more intellectualised response to the experience of therapy. He seems to have a handle on things and have good intentions but I can't shake this feeling that keeps revisiting me which says 'there's another way, this guy isn't right etc.' I agree and understand what you're saying. I definitely need to start taking more responsibility by journalling more consistently etc., and doing more of the work myself. By blaming scheduling I am just avoiding the perfectly possible opportunity to just start journalling every day. Thanks for pointing out the tone of the post btw, this kind of insight is exactly what I've always been looking for - honest candid evaluation of myself, which even my therapist is not really providing in a way I trust / like (not sure which it is.) That's great, I am glad for you. I hope to be in the same position some day. This really resonates. It is sort of what my gut is telling me to do and has been for a long time, but something I keep intellectualising my way out of or getting too afraid to do: just get outta the situation, have strength and find another therapist, or try self therapy for a time. It will save lots of time and money, for sure. I'm curious, could you tell me a bit more about your situation with your previous therapist? On a scale of 1-10, let's say, how helpful were they being and on a similar scale - if there were any trust issues in them or the entire institution of therapy - how did you feel about their credibility? I'm interested at the sound of that and I'll definitely give it a look in. Not sure I need help just with career; though that would help, I need more. Thanks a huge bunch for all the responses again ^^

Perfect! Thanks so much for sharing this, I have been hoping to come across something of this sort for ages.

Very good skit. It reminds me a lot of the movie "The invention of lying" with Ricky Gervais where people are completely honest about everything and Gervais decides to lie one day to get through financial problems. The film wasn't great, but the concept is very interesting and I always found it frustrating that the film really didn't explore the implications of a lie-free world in any depth. This skit shown does feel like it provides more insight into what such a world would be like. Except, of course, the bully wouldn't be a bully, and the parent wouldn't either, and most if not all dysfunctions would have been ironed out generations ago, at a guess. Goes to show how important truth is.

As the title paraphrases, I am in a very taxing internal feud of on the one hand thinking 1 - My therapist is right and safe. It is just my emotional defences that keep telling me otherwise. Maybe he is blunt but this doesn't make him incorrect. In his professional opinion, I need therapy and quitting at this point would be a bad choice. 2 - My therapist is wrong and manipulating me. He is a family apologist and I don't like some of his behaviours. He says I need therapy and that I may remain in some unhappy state of deadness for years to come if I don't continue. I highly doubt this though. Progress has been made - he and I have pressed specifically at me taking more responsibility, and I'm finally doing so. About to get my second proper job, first in a while, and considering looking for more. There was a particular friction at the start which always made me want to quit, which was that - and this made me embarrassed and does now - when I asked him how he was on entering his clinic for the first few weeks, which was sort of a reflex of mine, he wouldn't answer. And it made me feel very uncomfortable. But it also made me feel embarrassed, and angry at him. Maybe this was a bad first impression that could have led to my mistrust? I don't know. All in all, I would like to be able to quit. It's been a year now and I don't want to waste any more time if he, or I, are not up to the task... I want the freedom of having more space to do my own self reflection rather than have it scheduled in at certain times every week. I feel worried about being vulnerable with this therapist. He just doesn't feel right in some ways and hasn't from the start. I'm sure he could be worse but he just doesn't feel right for me... So, I'm not asking whether I should quit or not, but some feedback would be so helpful. Maybe I'm not dealing with things in the right way, and it's me with the problem?

It's easier to spend dozens to hundreds of hours creating an app than it is to have a conversation with your son and be curious, apparently. I found the news clip to be amusing, and not in a good way. It's just mad. Sad and disgusting when the son came on and didn't seem very happy about it, at which the anchors simply laughed. Ohhh ho ho ho, children feeling unhappy and misunderstood, hee hee hee!!

What better an opportunity then to point out his disregard for logic, reason and evidence. I think that it's always worth trying to appeal to any rational bone in an opponents body before moving on. That, or questioning them like villagewisdom said. It seems to work really well, in theory anyway, often there's little or no way of knowing for sure. Another technique I've used once before and, Idk whether it was a success or not but he certainly mellowed, it involved going quite deep and profound. YouTube provides this luxury. His comments were very aggressive and I simply hazarded to guess that his childhood had not been fun, I included this assumption in my appeals to his rationality and didn't take an aggressive stance myself but rather an empathetic/sympathetic one.

Hey Walt! Welcome to the outside world. I will put this up front; I am completely unfamiliar with this so if I say anything or act in a way which is inconsiderate or unempathetic please call me on it. I'm happy to see that your experience on here is nice. You definitely came to the right place. A lot of the time, as I expect you're aware, people just won't have the sensitivity to react in any kind of a nice way toward you. Has this happened, and in which case how have you felt when people don't react with sensitivity? I've had some thoughts. Now, you say you're a product of DID but to me, disorder seems a strange term. When people change their behaviours or perspectives in order to adapt to their environment we do not say they have a disorder. Disorder sounds to me like an insult to a person or alter who is a perfectly valuable adaptation. Does Sam appreciate your existence? Also, would you say your/Sam's environment is quite free of the sorts of situations from which you were 'forged' or is it still quite stressful for you both, and in which case does Sam simply defer to you to deal with that stuff or do you both share the load and take turns? By the way, answer these at your own discretion, I know it's a lot of questions! As a general question, how does it all feel so far? Entering the world as you have, meeting other people and in turn having other people meet you?

Nice one! Did he report back to you what he thought about FDR?

It is what it is; simply the absence of coercion. Not sure why the terminology matters, never saw this as an 'argument' just a 'holier than thou' sort of pedantic snobbery. 'Anarcho-syndicalism'/'real anarchism' illogical? Very well! We shall nitpick the label of our (supposedly) opposing philosophy! It's a real cop-out.

Ironically, she doesn't love her child because she doesn't love her child. Because of her lack of nurture and respect for her child, he is more 'difficult' to deal with, which combined with her inability to parent is a self reinforcing combination.

I'm no doctor and they know best but I find it hard to understand why they would wear anything short of an NBC suit when dealing with ebola patients. I would want an autonomous air supply ffs. A flimsy little cloth mask? Doesn't even cover the majority of the face, and still has large gaps for air to circulate in and out.

Indeed, one of the problems with trying to argue with these people, especially with the argument from morality, is that they were never taught that language of living by principles and abiding by them for the sake of being consistent. Instead, they learnt to adhere only to what didn't get them hit. Where they made and continue to make mistakes, they won't necessarily be worried about the fact that they've erred but instead the possibility that someone will find out. It's external discipline rather than internal discipline, at the core. Why go with 'non-aggression' if no one is going to punish me for not abiding by it? They might not think this consciously of course but it's gonna be a subtext, based on their 'jilted' understanding of the world. Also, I always get the strong urge to reply to these sorts of idiots, at least in the hope that someone a little more impartial will see the comments and be influenced by the arguments I am making or for the sake of boosting the morale of anyone reading the comments who happens to agree. Showing our faces sorta thing. That, and I can feel self righteous in condemning abusers . However, it looks as if some here do not advise that (Berlin and Rainbow Jamz specifically), can I ask what your reasoning is?

Perhaps I've not been around as long as some of you guys; to me this seems little better than the normal state of things. Virtually nobody speaking out against it, sure there are no major apologetics but some of the stuff in there is just eeeuuuugh "My mother punched me in the face when I was 30; I was holding my toddler daughter at the time, and out of pure instinct I punched her back. I also went to jail and lost my job for Domestic Violence. Never spoke other again." ................. "I once told my mom that the d I received was just a backwards b (the grade I promised to get). She half-smirked, then glared, and then told me I'm too stupid to be her child and that she's going to beat me with a stick until I die. She said it in our mother tongue in which it doesn't sound as harsh. For the record, she never once actually beat me! A few slaps by my dad on the other hand... The threats eventually became a running joke in the family. Fortunately (for everyone involved), I eventually did do well in academics when I understood why it meant so much to my parents. *Edited: cause I'm still dumb in turns out" This is 2 texts out of hundreds, and they are among the most shocking, but there are lots of other very disturbing confessions. For the record, the comments section on a CNN article that was posted on here the other day actually fielded a lot more opposition to spanking than this reddit thread.

That's true, although it is still nasty of him. Sure he wants to survive but if they banded together they could be a strong unit who could repel the force of evil that is their dysfunctional background. It's tragic how siblings turn on each other when they have the potential to share one of the strongest lifelong allegiances you could get.

It is definitely an interesting problem! I find it somewhat interesting anyway. However, in terms of its importance re: the libertarian morality... Support libertarian morality and you + condemn the murder of 250+ million people in the last century (alone) and all of the murders in the future + condemn the everyday, endemic theft of taxation and therefore can have a pretty sparkly clean conscience. What you do from there is your choice but you are one nicely moral side of a moral fence. - potentially cannot solve a small problem which may as an upper limit have affected a few million people throughout all of time. It's possibly a 'hole' but whereas it's quite a small little pothole along a fairly smooth, fresh road, aligning with the statist paradigm means ignoring the 20m wide sinkhole which has engulfed many households and led to people's deaths. Which side of the fence are you on then?

That's a fair point. In terms of real, tangible costs... If Stefan has been going for about 10 years (3650 days) and helped a round sum of 100,000 people to enact the beneficial practice of peaceful parenting then that makes 27 people per day, although it is likely that it is even more people who are being 'converted' currently given the increasing popularity, and assuming that the amount of listeners becoming peaceful parents follows the same trend (maybe 50 a day or more?). Given this fact, I can appreciate what you're saying. The only factor that might be used to counter that (although I agree with you) is that perhaps such a video encompassing all of the common lifeboats would not only persuade some people who see them as relevant (like the OP) but also look better than 'waving them away' which no doubt looks 'weak' in some sense. This is the impression I get anyway. I think that some people see the 'well lifeboats are trivial' response as a cop-out. This all depends of course on whether such people are seen as worth the time. But yes, what you've said is right and I agree. Whatever is worth more in terms of the number and extent of people's lives improved is the better option to go with.

Too right.Would you rather be helping reduce and speak out against child abuse, and helping children and improving the future that way, or be discussing small-scale ethical hypotheticals? It's not that they aren't relevant, or even important for that matter, but there are much bigger problems to be dealt with.I know Stefan has addressed certain lifeboats like the one where you're hanging from a flagpole, and his answer to those issues was the somewhat non UPB, i.e. aesthetic but entirely reasonable 'You're a Dick' (YAD) policy. If, for example, some walkers stroll onto a guy's land in the countryside and don't realise that it's private property, and the owner shoots them on sight... Technically, this is him 'defending his property' (unless it doesn't count according to UPB because of the walkers' lack of awareness) but for anyone to consider this as a reasonable and proportional use of defensive force I think would be very unlikely, and frowned upon by all. It's not the trolley problem but it's an approach to another lifeboat scenario.I would also like it if Stefan spoke to the 'trolley problem' specifically. While it is slightly masturbatory as a conundrum, if he's got some time then eh why not. Still, I doubt he will address it in a video unless it is something that is being bought up a lot.@ your original post, where you mentioned that war is full of such ethical dilemmas... Well, wars are products of states after all. You see the silliness in that statement?Btw, I appreciate that you have come to this forum to ask such a question, and you're actually trying to resolve this dilemma within yourself between statism and libertarianism. It is more than most people can even think of 'stomaching'. As I'm sure you're aware, it will feel a lot safer to stick with the status quo and remain allied to the state but obviously the easy position is not always the right position.

I think I have the same issue, UPB is understandable but I need more versing in the property rights aspect of UPB. Do children have full property rights or not? Because Stefan makes this distinction between children and adults when he refers to the contract parents sign (or rather, don't sign) when they have a child that means they should look after the child, and I get confused with where that leads re: children's property rights. Presumably they do not have full property rights or something because they cannot enter into contracts or consent in any meaningful fashion until 18?

Curious. I never really noticed this about him and actually I'm still not seeing it. I've noticed some holes in his ability to reason in the past but I think his videos are pretty informative. Lots of facts. Wouldn't you agree?

Single wake up moment? I can't remember, so I doubt I had one. It was a gradual process. I always leaned in this direction that I do now but just didn't follow it all through to a logical conclusion until some of the more irrational areas of mine were shown to be irrational. I guess though that when my friend and I started researching the fall of the towers on 9/11; that would have been illuminating for me. It made me realise that maybe the government ain't all that nice. That was back in 2008 or so though, and I've only just discovered FDR and imbibed an understanding and knowledge of voluntarism since about 2013. I didn't even know what a free-market was until about 2012 lol. No one told me. Of course, I already knew exactly what the bourgeoisie were though. Yuck. Speaks volumes about living and learning in the UK really.

Actually, I heard she was 15, not that it makes much of a difference. Still completely disgusting. When I heard this report on the radio my mum and I were in the car and we both cried at one point. I felt sick the whole time I listened, but couldn't pull myself away. Just unbelievable not only how a group can manage to, both practically and morally, commit such acts and so many of them but also how so many people can keep quiet about it! I can't believe that it wouldn't be down to more than just the R card; maybe they were being paid off, but if it is just the former then wow.

It would be unjust to the few good mothers out there to call her one... She's just some woman acting out dominance over the poor boy because society says it's ok. What a disgrace. This made me so angry, and sad for the torture victim. I wish I could talk to people like that and comfort them, problem is that once you've been abused that way you'll either normalise it and form a hard callous which will entail rejecting the truth or you'll stay awake and become disgusted at the outside world... i.e. Stockholm syndrome vs. healthy response. So appeals to people like him can go either way I beleive, which is bizarre given what everyone's just witnessed in the video. Brother laughing is a perfect example of the Stockholm type by the sound of it.

Ouch, talk about a lack of reiprocity... The moment you mention your own discomfort, after having listened to him talk about his own discomforts, he attacks you... Real nice.

Aw that's great

Actually as far as I know there is the option to opt out, it's just not easy. They get you when you're born in the form of your birth certificate, as well as being able to claim that you're consenting to their rule by residing or otherwise being within their boundaries. Supposedly, you can be a free agent of sorts who is not part of a 'society' if you are not registered at birth, which also makes it possible to not pay taxes. I wholeheartedly recommend watching this entire documentary: I think it's something everybody should know about in the FDR community. "By The 'Consent of the Governed'"