neeeel

Thanks for the podcast. It is very very relevant to my situation, and things I am discussing in therapy. Ie, my parents were good, and I was the irritating, argumentative, disobedient, bad one. Stef says towards the end of the podcast "Either my parents were good, in which case they wouldnt reject the child. Or, my parents were bad, in which case they would reject me. There is no way that this doesnt all come together logically." There is one way in which good parents may reject a child. If the child was inherently, unalterably, bad. I dont believe in inherent unalterable badness, and yet, strangely, this reasoning still pops up when I ponder the question of my childhood. I will look into the john bradshaw book

I have a lot of problems making decisions, even for the most simple seeming tasks I will give an example. Christmas cards. I get very worked up about them. Should I give them, or not? Firstly,I dont like that it seems pretty much obligatory to give them. Its like saying hello when you meet someone, you pretty much have to do it, otherwise you are seen as socially inept or even bad. Perhaps it says more about me, than about the rules, but I hate having to comply to all these little social rules. Perhaps they do make the world a better place, and social interaction easier, but there is something in me that rebels at "having" to do anything. Second, lets say at work, you are expected to give christmas cards to all your colleagues, and you expect you will receive one from most or all of them. I dont really care for any of my colleagues, I have no real interest in them or their lives, and I really do not feel like, or care about, giving them a christmas card. So for days before christmas, I go back and forth over whether to give cards or not. I dont want to, but maybe I should because of what people will think, but I think its stupid, why should I do it, but they will be giving me a card and will expect one back, but I dont feel like giving them, but I dont want to upset them or make them feel bad, and so on and so on. I will buy cards, write them out for people, and be going round and round as to whether I am going to give them or not, right up to travelling to work on the day I am giving the cards. In the end, I usually end up giving them, and feeling crap about it. Family is even worse, its almost impossible to contemplate not giving them a card. I think my fears about not giving cards, is about my honesty, and how it will be interpreted. If I go on my feelings of resistance to having to do something, and distaste for giving cards to people I dont care about ( which I assume are my "real" genuine feelings about the situation), and decide to not give cards, I worry that I will be attacked, or looked down upon. By not giving a card, I am basically sending the message, "I dont care about you, or social rules and traditions" which is a difficult message to be sending out. If I do give cards, I feel like I am being dishonest and weak and cowardly. so I end up in a bind, in which, whichever decision I make, I feel bad. Either scared, paranoid, socially awkward ( if I dont give cards) or dishonest, weak, cowardly, like a slave , obeying tradition, and lying to people about my feelings for them and just going along with things in order to manipulate people ( if I do give cards) I also dont really know which decision is "me". Are they both me, neither me? Which one is the "true" decision, is there such a thing? This also adds to the confusion and general turmoil around the decision. "I want to, but I dont want to, but I want to, but I dont want to, but I want to, but I dont want to" does anyone understand what I am talking about? Maybe its just a problem with me, I read too much into things, am too sensitive to social cues, and no-one would care if they got a card from me or not. Maybe giving or not giving a card means none of these things, and I am just doing too much "religious" thinking, as stef puts it. And it seems to be the same with any decision I have to make. Either action makes me feel bad, so I end up waiting till the very last possible minute before deciding.

Im not sure thats needed. JD claimed he could disprove god

I would like to see your dis-proof of god, yes.

No it isnt That is, it has never been proven, and, as far as I am aware, it is impossible for anyone to prove that there is no god. So therefore it cant be an empirical fact. Note, this does not mean I believe in god, just pointing out that its not a fact in any way.

You could argue that without the rest of humanity to provide resources, the tiny number of smart men would have not had the time to do what they did, because they would have been too busy gathering food.

I replied but its being modded

Hi, I can sympathise with your frustration. Your hatred for your parents and their hypocrisy are colouring everything for you. I know that, with my parents, I could not accept or listen to anything they said, because I didnt trust that they had my interests at heart, even though their advice may( or may not) have been useful. They werent interested in what I wanted. So for example, when your parents say "You won't be PERFECT at whatever job you get, you'll be new, and they'll train you" , this might sound perfectly rational and reasonable to an outsider, but because of your history, and your knowledge of them, its unacceptable. It sounds to me like you are basically saying "I want to move out and stand on my own two feet, and my parents arent letting me do that " ( or alternatively, "I want to move out and stand on my own two feet, and my parents arent helping me to do that") . Correct me if I am wrong? It also seems like you think that taking their money is immoral? And I would say, no its not. At the moment, their money is being used to infantilise and control you. How much control do you have over the money? Do they hand it over to you to do what you want with? You have a monthly allowance? Or do you have to go to them and beg and justify what they give you? Why cant you save up the money they give you until you have enough to move out and support yourself? Perhaps that takes a year, or two years, and so be it. Maybe you feel that you arent ready or capable of looking after and supporting yourself as you are just now. In that case, can you use their money to pay for therapy to get you to a place where you can look after and support yourself? Or talk to them about paying for therapy on top of what they already give you, so that you can save for breaking away, and get therapy at the same time? If you really feel that you cant use their money, what is it that is stopping you from making a clean break and moving out, or away from them ? The way you talk , it seems like you feel you are trapped, so I am wondering what it is that is trapping you? I realise that I may have misunderstood what you were saying, in which case I apologise in advance

It would also be important to teach them WHY these are virtues.

No one can really tell you what to do. If it is hypergamy, then theres nothing necessarily wrong with that. But now that you have recognised it, it allows you to assess your options with more knowledge. Perhaps look at what the "better" is, when you think you can do better. what is your current boyfriend lacking? How often do you see males with the qualities that your current boyfriend is lacking?

Stealing is taking someone elses property without permission If stealing is UPB , then it is allowable for anyone to do it , at any time If I allow someone to take my property ( because its UPB) then they are not actually stealing from me, because stealing is without permission Therefore stealing cannot be UPB, because once stealing becomes UPB, its not stealing any more. Its a logical contradiction ( based on the definition of stealing).

Depends what you mean by the truth. If you mean a truth like "you are evil" or "you are an abuser" or "you are a murderer" then I dont see any benefit in telling someone that, and its not necessarily even "the truth". They are only going to get defensive, and are more likely to stick to their entrenched position. If by facts you mean, for example, "children in 2 parent families generally do better", then I dont see how anyone can be offended by that. They might not agree with it, though, and you can then show them the studies or whatever. I dont think negatively labelling is useful.

ye, its insane. If we assume that she has ( regularly or otherwise) beaten him before this, the beatings obviously didnt stop him from joining the riots.

So you are saying the mind owns the body?

Its a great question. We say "I own my body" but what does that mean , exactly? what is it that owns the body? Does the body own the body? No, that doesnt make sense. Do thoughts of ownership, thoughts about me, own the body? no, they are just thoughts. When we say "I own my body" we are implicitly saying that there is some thing, some entity, external to the body, that owns the body. But what is this thing? Its an important question to consider. Does an object somehow change when it becomes owned, or change when it becomes owned by someone else? Is ownership anything other than a thought saying "I own this", or "He owns this, so I had better not take it"? A shared concept.

Are all threats evil? Because social exclusion is a threat, and can also be a life threatening one, if you are excluded and cant survive.

Thats just your subjective view on what objective standards are

There are lots of arguments here for why we should be virtuous, based on the rewards we get for being virtuous. That doesnt sound virtuous to me, Narcissists and sociopaths act nice, act virtuous even, in order to get supply, or/ reward. does that make them virtuous? Is virtuousness just the actions? Ie if all my actions are virtuous, then I am virtuous? Even if perhaps inside I would rather do something that wasnt virtuous, but decided not to because of the greater rewards of being virtuous? Can I fake it till I make it? My impression is that virtuousness is what you are, not what you do. That its a natural response, rather than a weighing up of options, that its not a rational discussion in your head as to what you should do to get the best return on investment. That its not even identifying in your head what the "virtous" response is. But rather it being a natural response, like breathing, or your heart beating

So sex is purely and simply about making a family? Also, if the 2 participants are young, then theres no chance of making a family. So I dont understand how your reasoning applies in that case? Your reasoning also doesnt apply to sexual activities other than intercourse.

This seems strange to me. First, what does it mean to understand sex? What is there to understand? Second, research shows that they understand sex well enough to experiment amongst themselves. Third, depending on what you mean by "understand", children probably dont understand just about anything they do, and yet they are still allowed to do it, or made to do it in some cases. So I dont really understand what angle your argument is coming from.

so its not just me then? I know I have issues with authority, and so was open to the idea that it might be fine for a father to work that way. I wouldnt feel that happy about doing it, myself, though.

Why? If property rights are a thing, then they are a thing whether or not you intended to lose something.

I found it quite disturbing when warren gave an example of good parenting as the father not giving the child desert unless he ate his peas. I suppose that says more about me than about warren or the example. If the father and child came to a negotiated agreement about it before hand, I guess I understand the reasoning. And I can see the point about teaching delayed gratification. but I still find it disturbing for some reason.

but what do you mean by love , as in , " they deserve love". Is the list you gave, "They deserved to be listened to, played with, hugged, held, told stories too, fed delicious meals, spoiled with treats, encouraged to be independent, etc" what it means to be loved? I am guessing that I didnt get love from my parents when I was a child, but I dont really know what it was I missed out on. I know what I didnt like about them, but if someone asks what it means to be loved, I dont really know.

Are you talking about love as an involuntary response to the childs virtue ? . If not, what do you mean by love when you say "deserve to be loved no matter what"? Are there different kinds of love other than "involuntary response to virtue"?