neeeel

An annoying habit? Do any of your friends have an annoying habit? Do you hit them in order to stop them having the habit? I would mention that I find it annoying. I dont know, I would see what happens from there. Maybe its me that needs to look at why I am annoyed? You seriously think that a child having an annoying habit warrants hitting the child? Dashing out into a busy street? This is a pathetic and insane attempt to justify hitting. What does hitting achieve? On the one hand, I expect you say that they arent old enough to understand reasoning, so you hit them to instill something ( I dont know what) into them that will stop them running into the street again On the other hand, you assume that they are so supremely capable of reasoning, that they can somehow deduce from you hitting them, why you hit them, what they did wrong, and how to stop it from happening again. Do you see how insane this is. A 3 year old doesnt know why you are hitting them. Even if you explain it to them ( which I would guess is hard while you are hitting them and shouting at them), they may still not understand whats going on, and they will be upset which makes it much harder as well. All they know is they were happily going along and someone 2 or 3 times their descended on them , extremely angry, and starts assaulting them and shouting at them. Yes, they might eventually learn to associate the street with assault and fear, but they also learn to associate YOU with assault and fear. As algernon says, it is down to you to keep them safe. If they are running out into the street, you havent prepared enough. perhaps it takes hours, or days, or weeks, of explanation, preparation, talking to them before you go out, pointing out how fast cars are going, talk to them about a time they were hurt running into a chair or something, and how much more running into a car would hurt. Children arent stupid, they can understand all of this. And if this fails, you dont go into the street, or you carry them on your shoulders, or you play a game of "stay on the pavement ", an almost infinite amount of options to try out, and you want to go straight to hitting them, Why? What does hitting them achieve in this scenario, and what is the mechanism by which it achieves it?

Depends what you mean by discipline. Im not sure what you are trying to say here. Muslims still kill goats, therefore we dont know whether spanking is bad? its irrelevant when the argument appeared. Its not

False dichotomy. You are saying "either you spank, or your children turn into hellacious brats" and thats just not true this was my dads "reasoning" for why he spanked me, or was aggressive to me. I was "difficult" or I "answered back" or I "didnt toe the line" I really want to give you a big FUCK YOU, although I know thats not an argument or supporting anything. Do you really think of your children as nuts to crack? I feel sorry for them What do you think you achieve by physically hitting your children? And what is the mechanism by which this is achieved?

what does this even mean?

You arent making the analogy that child care and marriage are the same, you are making the analogy that taking on a task ( Eg child care, marriage) where someone expects you to meet some or all of their needs, and then dumping off some of that meeting of needs to a random stranger, would not be acceptable to an adult, so why would it be acceptable to a child. So if you are someones spouse, but never do anything spousal, instead paying someone else to do it, then can you claim that you are really their spouse?

they arent always descriptions of physically real things, eg santa claus, god, are concepts that arent physically real

My post was in response to yours. Its possible I misunderstood what you were saying, but I am not moving on, I am continuing the conversation ( at least, I thought I was, if you think I have missed something, or moved on without addressing something, please let me know, and since its not clear to me what it is I have missed, please be clear about what you think I have missed out) In answer to this post by fersitar you answered So what you are saying is that "I am free to make use of my property as I see fit" and "you are not ( free to do the same)" are internally inconsistent ( ie you cant logically say both in the same sentence, have I understood you correctly?) my point is, that you CAN say both in the same sentence, and still be logically consistent.

Yes, they prefer property rights for themselves, but not others.

the explanation would be "I want to make use of my property, but I dont want you to make use of your property" I dont think this puts anyone in separate moral categories. You would certainly not be saying you were better, or that the other person was worse. So, personal preference.

Its perfectly possible to say "I am free to make use of my property as I see fit, but you are not" without needing to put anyone in different opposing moral categories.

Ok, how is it nonsense? Its not an argument against property rights, for sure, but he was asking me how I would personally feel if he came round and tried to steal my stuff. Are you saying that I am lying, and was actually pissed about my motorbike being stolen? Or what?

So instead of answering me, you downvote me?

I feel like the quality overall of sound etc was a bit better than the previous vid. I dont know why you are still cutting half way through a sentence though

Dsayers, is there any reason you arent answering my last post?

I answered your question perfectly fine. I dont believe that self ownership is a real thing, and therefore I dont KNOW that its MY challenge( and, I need to use words in order to communicate with you, words like "me" and "I" and "mine"). Im not sure whats not clear here? I dont believe theres a self that can own things, and I dont believe that theres this physical property called ownership. Ownership happens in peoples heads. Nothing changes in reality when an object changes hands ( I suppose you could claim that the structure of peoples brains change, I dont know) You are using circular arguments to try and support your position. you are assuming the existence of self ownership, in order to prove the existence of self ownership. It is perfectly possible for challenges to be brought up, without self ownership being real. There being a challenge, does not automatically validate self ownership. Gravity is inescapable. Self ownership isnt, since it is just a made up concept. With regard to my possessions,like I have said, is it possible that I can understand the concept of self ownership ( a concept that doesnt exist in reality) and accept that, if everyone accepts and uses that concept, life is much easier? And, and the same time, recognise that its not a real thing? It depends what you tried to steal? I have had my motorbike stolen, and I wasnt that pissed, because I didnt use it that much. There is a drive to survive. Surviving is easier with things than without. Not having to defend your things constantly is easier than having to defend your things constantly. So sure, if you want to put forth property rights as a system to base things on, I would probably be all for it. But that doesnt mean its a real thing, that its observable and empirical.

It does sound like theres a lot of "you" in your post, and not much of your kids.You are reading things into the situations you describe, that may not be there ( of course, they may also be there, but it might be useful to find out). Are you in therapy? Perhaps, if you work through your shyness, and become more confident and open, that will naturally communicate itself to your kids. The general idea is that kids relate to others , how they were related to by their caregivers. Do they have a problem when playing with other kids? Are they always on their own? Do they have a group of friends( either big or small)? Do they generally mix well with people they know, adult or child? Or are you more talking about adult social skills, which, while they may be useful to an adult, I can understand why kids would dismiss these arbitrary seemingly stupid rules.

Self ownership is also made up. Its not a real thing, in the real world. It is exactly the same as saying "america is a concept" Asking "Who owns you" to someone who doesnt believe in self ownership, seems to be a leading question. Pretty much whatever I answer, you are going to go "ahah! so you DO believe in self ownership then". I dont believe self ownership is a thing, and there isnt a who that owns me. And, There can be an understanding of a concept, and its usefulness It is perfectly possible for challenges to be brought up, without self ownership being real. There being a challenge, does not automatically validate self ownership. What observable empirical evidence have you put forth for self ownership?

No it doesnt. nowhere in the real world does self ownership exist. thats like saying "America is a concept we have because it accurately describes the real world", I think you would agree that America doesnt actually exist, and doesnt accurately describe the real world. You keep asserting things like this in other threads, I challenge you, and then my challenge seems to get unanswered.

Those sound the same to me. Whats the difference?

seems like a reach to me. As in, you are changing meanings to support your argument, and your argument doesnt really follow logically

Its hard to say. It sounds like you have all fallen into a pattern, so doing something different to break out of the pattern would seem like a good idea? Does he have to do his homework? What are the repercussions ( for him, and for you) if he doesnt? It seems like its a really big thing for him, that he has to write something really good? Or perhaps he just doesnt want to do it? Does he actually like creative writing?

I have to wonder how much your passion and joy and ease for reading and writing, has made him extremely anxious about his own writing.

I still dont know what you mean.

I think this gets across much clearer, the feeling I had that the mum in the example wasnt being fair or peaceful.