neeeel

so ostracism is only ok in certain circumstances? what circumstances is it ok in?

I dont see why people would have a problem with this. Its just ostracism, after all

If you want "well behaved" children, then yes, maybe smacking them is for you . If you want children who are bright, full of life, rational, and loving everyone, then not smacking them is the way to go.

you could, although we havent played together yet.

so you are saying that as long as the phone you steal is of equivalent value, it would be ok to steal someone elses phone in order to make up for your stolen phone? someone steals £100 from me, so in return I can just go and steal £100 from anyone, because all pounds are the same worth? Im pretty sure thats not what you would want to argue, but thats what you seem to be saying, although its possible I misunderstood Edit :Ah, I think I understand. If a thief takes money from you, then you are entitled to take that money back, even though they arent exactly the same bills that you take.

No

Yes, this. compliance, thats what it seems to be all about. Get the child to obey. Of course, this is just me looking in from the outside with no real knowledge of the situation, so I could be wrong.

My first response to the 3rd video was "yuk". How annoying to have some woman constantly bombarding you with things, talking at you all the time, not giving you peace until you comply with her wishes. I couldnt even watch the whole of the 2nd video, the whole thing of compliance training says it all. Why does she want him to pick up a piece of paper, and put a banana back in the kitchen? All that stuff about being able to sit still in school. I hated how she stood there with a bowl of treats, and the man kept demanding one every few seconds. I dont know a lot about autism, or how often autistic people die or get injured through their own actions ( eg walking out into roads), that seemed to be the main justification they gave for this type of training I didnt like these videos, and felt a negative reaction towards the people in them ( the therapist and the mother). Not that that means anything, My reaction could be more about my childhood than the videos.

I dont have any position either, I am interested to learn more, and look at any logical inconsistencies. It still seems fairly arbitrary to me, You are stating that human life starts from the instant of conception, on no basis other than what you believe is or isnt human life/moral. I suppose I might agree that its the least arbitrary, but I have no good arguments against someone who says, "why not 1 month"

I dont understand this. You say that any arbitrary decision is meaningless. And then go on to make an arbitrary decision for conception?

Do you know the full story? Do you know the boy? Or the circumstances in which all this happened? Yes, there is more to it than just the media story, but you are talking like you know exactly what happened, and who is responsible. there is a lot of religious thinking in your post. You are ascribing motives to various people, of which you can have no idea. do you have extra information about this case that you would like to share?

I am saying that your argument isnt valid, the conclusion doesnt follow from the premises, and its possible for the premises to be true, and the conclusion to be false. I am not claiming anything, I am looking at your argument. Are you really arguing that later actions change the morality of a previous action?

I suppose it would be fair to claim that, since every effect we have seen has a cause, that every effect has a cause. Im not sure I would consider the universe as an effect though, but point taken, it is just speculation on my part

just because everything we observe has a cause, doesnt mean that everything has to have a cause. thats the argument from incredulity. Also, having a cause doesnt imply having a causer. Our minds probably cant grok the concept, but that doesnt mean that everything has a cause.

Why?

to put your argument into standard form ( as I understand it) P1) stealing something and spending it on something good, is better than stealing something and spending it on something bad therefore C) I cant be assigned an equal amount of moral responsibility for stealing stolen property, as the person who originally stole it Again, your conclusion doesnt follow from your premises. Are you trying to argue that later actions lessen the immorality of a previous action? That stealing something in order to do good is ok? I am not sure you want to go down that road. P1) I have been paying tax for years P2) The amount I get back is less than what I have paid therefore C) I am not stealing. This also seems a bit ropey. If someone steals my phone, I can go and steal someone elses phone of lesser value? I can see that you are trying to argue that its not stealing, since its "your" money that you are getting back, I am not sure I agree with that. I am not sure what you mean by "the money will be gone and not seen again" . Which money? The money that you paid in taxes?

I cant, Because you havent made any arguments. and are not arguments. You have made some statements, For example, your second statement above, is saying, in effect P1 its better for stolen money to be spent on something good, P2 I am spending stolen money on something good C therefore I am not immoral for taking stolen money ( implied conclusion) the conclusion doesnt follow from the premises, which is why it seems to me you are trying to justify taking welfare, to yourself and others.

"just you wait till your dad gets home"

I also wonder if you are feeling bad about yourself, or sensitive, because of some of the things said to you about you and your values and standards, when you first came to the site?

While I think that "white privilege" is a misleading term, is it not true that, in a country that has a "white" identity, identified as being predominantly white, that whites will prefer the company of, and employ more , people of the same race and/or culture as them, with the same belief sytems, common memes, and similar values?. When you are looking for someone to enter your life in some capacity or other, you would prefer someone of your "in group". you will likely have suspicion and dislike of the out group? Especially the more different and foreign they are? I would guess the same is true in black identified countries. You hear about studies where exactly the same CVs were used, but one with a white sounding name, and one with a foreign sounding name, and the white CVs got interviews, but the foreign ones didnt. So, isnt it likely that some sort of in group preference exists? I am not saying that its good or bad, just whether it exists. Perhaps that is not what people mean by "white privilege", I dont know

This seems to me, exactly the same as saying "Someone stole my phone, my phone is gone, I hope they sell it to someone half decent rather than it just being used elsewhere" Do you feel bad about taking welfare? To be honest, your lines of reasoning seem to be just flimsy justifications as to why what you are doing is actually all right. In order for you to be coming up with these justifications, it seems like you must actually think that you are doing wrong. So perhaps it might be useful to go into that here? Please note, this is not a condemnation, or trying to tell you that you should feel bad, or shouldnt feel bad.

The things that ( I imagine) you are thinking of as miracles, such as recovering from cancer,a or surviving car crash, arent actually miracles. They are just outliers on the bell curve. Things that would really be miracles, such as growing a limb back after amputation, or walking unaided on water, it is not possible to study with science because there are no examples to study.

I was thinking along mellomamas lines. Where did you come into contact with the idea of a gangster at the age of 4 or 5? Is the gangster just a concept you have applied to the cricket in the dream later on, or was it that type of feeling/idea even at the time you were having the dreams? I also was thinking that the large cricket is your mum, or an aspect of your mum. But, in that case, wouldnt the cricket be female as well? alternatively, is it possible that the large cricket was your brother? You started dreaming the dreams about the time he was born, right? He is now taking over your previously held position as mums baby, and I can imaging that younger siblings are very smug and in your face and haughty about supplanting your position. She was on the phone ( if you think about people on the phone, they are very much "somewhere else", as in, not able to give you attention, focused on something different, not able to engage with you), meaning, she was looking after your brother, he is on her back looking haughtily at you , and every time you tried to get her attention, to make sure that you were still loved and wanted, she waved you away with a "not now", she has no time for you. I can imagine that would be very scary for a child.

possibly, I am just trying to understand someone elses claim. But, if you dont give consent, then isnt that force?

the claim is, as I understand it I did not have full information when I consented, therefore, my consent is invalid. if I did not consent to something, then I was forced. Being forced is a violation of the NAP But this can be applied to ALL instances of consent, since you will never have full information in any decision, making consent irrelevant and useless.