Troubador

Considering media about the importance of good fathers is as rare as rocking horse shit, I thought I'd post this song I remember from back in 2005. It's called The JCB Song about a little boy who got pulled out of school. As I recall he was dyslexic and so his dad drove to the school in his JCB and came and got him.

I'm arguably in a worse position than you in that I'm a single parent, single father, shared contact so I am unable to control my son's routine 100%, but I was rather lucky and had pretty much day to day care of him as a baby and as a toddler, and like Stef I can report nothing remotely similar to the terrible twos (he's now five!). I see you have it covered, and would have bet a pound to a penny it was overtiredness, so great job figuring that out. What I wanted to zero in on is your colossal sense of guilt. I'm not saying don't feel a sense a sense of responsibility for past mistakes, of course you should! However when the children are awake make sure you keep your parenting hat on, save critical analysis for when they are in bed and sleeping. I mean obviously take notes and such, but when your children are awake now is prime time for positive thinking and reinforcement, both for your children and for yourself and your husband. As for tantrums what I'm picking up on is a jealousy in the older one for the attention lavished on the younger (which is only natural they are still a baby!), although exacerbated by the tiredness. What I'd suggest is establish the concept of team work with your oldest. Find a simple chore to do and ask for your oldest to help as you are a team. This will mean things will take twice as long, but the object of the excercise is to establish the team concept with your eldest. Praise him, and thank him as you go and remark on what a great time you are having together, then establish simple and supervised tasks relating to the care of the youngest. Make him feel part of the circle of you and your husband taking care of the new baby, then you'll encourage him to be part of the caregiving team and not that his younger sibling is in direct competition for your attention. I've had cause to care for my niece and nephew whilst looking after my son and as much as I love my niece and nephew greatly my son has never exhibited any jealousy, as we have done things as a team, and he knows 100% that his bond with me is secure and strong, and in fact they all play together remarkably well! It is quite a joy to watch! Best of luck!!

To be honest this is past time coming. I can't speak to the specifics of this particular nerve agent attack as the details are still being investigated, but this action should have been taken over the Polonium poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko. The Russians were caught dead to rights on that one, and what's worse is I think the British government covered up the murder of the Scientist who developed the technique for detecting Polonium Poisioning. He was found dead with multiple stab wounds to his neck and chest, that the coroner somehow recorded as being self inflicted!?

I think the rule is philisophically valid if you are talking informal logic, it only falls down within the confines of formal logic. I get that people like the precision of formal logic here, and that is all well and good. However human consciousness and communication is capable of trinary conceptualisation as well as binary. So although you can't boil down the golden rule to a formal axiomatic rule, and it's important to point out that you can't the concept still has truth value that we can understand informally. Maybe once future great philosophers have wrapped their heads around quantum logic and are able to apply it to everyday macro scale ideas like the golden rule something axiomatic could be formulated about it, but it's too early to say. My current attempts to wrap my head around quantum logic make me fear you may need an IQ getting on to the 200 mark to make that leap (and my intellect is not up to the task!). We would also have the problem that those of us languishing at the couple standard deviations above the mean would possibly miss the truths expressed thanks to the Dunning-Kreuger effect. Maybe the Chinese IQ 200 babies or a future A.I. might be able to figure it out.

Oh most definately it's a thing to be proud of! People can go several ways with traumatic experiences but two extremes are neurosis at one end and personality disorders on the other. The neurotic internalises negativity and personality disorders externalise it. In truth neither extreme is accurate but I have a lot of time for neurotics as by assuming guilt/shame/responsibility for all their problems they are at least armed with the possibility of positive ownership of their lives and to get beyond it. With personality disorders it's always somebody else's fault and therefore they never see it as their responsibility. However there you go with a little self erasure, your friend let you down yet even without knowing why you are ready to frame your emotional response as perhaps unfair. Now I am no therapist so don't take this as gospel, but my amateur guess is that one of your blockages is emotional management. Now I am a father so it's fresh in my mind in how I approach my son so I can explain it that way. One of my jobs is to teach and guide him into managing his emotions, my job is NOT to make him feel that he as an individual is flawed or unacceptable, but alas that is all too often what parents do. In an attempt to discourage bad behaviour we punish or sanction without getting to the root cause. It is never the actual emotions themselves that are the problem. The choices that we make as a result of them can be, but being angry, or upset is a natural part of our emotional range. What I guess with you is that you self censor/erase because you've been trained to. Basically if your emotions are inconvenient or upsetting to someone else you are conditioned to not make a fuss. Because in a very real and intimate way your emotions and identity have been enmeshed so if you feel a 'negative' or problem emotion you interpret your whole sense of self as being unacceptable/flawed. Take your friend, it's ok to feel upset, rejected, annoyed or even angry. You should give yourself permission to feel those things as you don't have to commit to any action you would consider unworthy or unwarranted. It's also ok to perhaps feel an emotion that seems an extreme reaction to the stimulus, as it's usually a clue something else is going on you are otherwise unaware of. Also a general pro-tip when it comes psychology depression is usually repressed anger. An awful lot of us are trained to think anger = evil, and if we are angry all the time we must be evil ourselves. The popular response is rather than to allow ourselves to feel it we repress it, but when left unresolved it depresses us. I've packed in a lot with this post which may or may not make sense to you, so please feel free to ask if you want more clarification or if it would be helpful to go into more depth.

neeeel reading the thread and re-reading your original post I've concluded aside from defining what friendship is which I'll attempt to examine at the end. What is clear is your desire for human connection, although it seems you are unclear whether this stems from genuine human emotional need or an intellectual curiosity. However given how easily another human being's behaviour can evoke feelings of self loathing it clarifies to me it's emotional need. Your first emotional blockage or bottleneck is a low sense of self. Which I guess is obvious. Besides cliched "believe in yourself" trite, and the fact I don't know you anywhere near well enough to employ the right rhetorical tricks to perhaps shift your perspective a little bit in the right direction, all I can share is I can't see any genuine and just reason for you to feel as badly as you do. It would be easy to view the movie debacle through two lenses, and speaking as having been both the flaker and flakee in the past it is tempting to argue for a bit of perspective yet reading more on your emotional reaction whilst I do think you are particularly sensitive to things like rejection, it's not a situation of your own making. Although I'm sorry to say it's on you to fix it you would doubtlessly benefit from someone cutting you a break and being a little more empathic to your situation. The cardinal sin your friend committed isn't so much the flaking it's the dishonesty after the fact. There are some folks in my life who have added such a colossal value to my life the odd flake or change of plans makes no odds in the grand scheme of things, and that goes both ways too, but asinine deceptions would be a million miles away from such conversations, it would be something like "go yeah I caught it with bob/my girlfriend/ whomever but don't mind going again or watch something else if you like?". Although I would have struggled to watch Prometheus a second time without swearing at the screen! Not sure if Covenant was an improvement!! :-p As to friendship as much as I trully love the English language I sometimes envy the precision of Ancient Greek, who had several words for love Agape, Eros, Philia and Storge. Which of of course an examination of the interplay of those 4 concepts covers the gamut of human emotional experience. What would make the world of difference to you neeeel is if a few kind folk made you a priority, not forever mind you, just as you got your shit together, but kind of like your PARENTS should have done in the first place! The bitch of it is on one level I actually admire you, as all too often people who have had such an omnishambles of a childhood can become particularly hateful and aggressive people that harm a lot of people around them, you by the looks of it have taken the path of taking all that negativity and put it all on you, unfairly so as it happens. So on behalf of the rest of the human race thanks for not turning into a human hand grenade, and is there anything else we can do? Plus I think you are entitled to do a far bit more than whine!

Capitalism self-corrects, ok so someone inherits a large sum. If they are a dingbat with it they won't have it very long and voila it's redistributed. If they invest and grow it prudently the wealth is grown and its physically impossible to accomplish with that without other people also working hard and generating wealth for themselves. Thus creating more resources.

Lying is a tremendously useful life skill. It's when and how you use it that is key. Consider you can master a martial art or become an expert in firearms use, none of those endeavours imply you are violent or at all likely to breach NAP. Like any skill there is a certain pleasure in acquiring it. Consider playing poker or any number of consensual games where lying is expected and part of the fun. Another thing that is really worth bringing up is that deception is actually an incredibly difficult thing to detect particularly from a skilled liar. People with deception training don't have much more chance of detecting a lie than average chance. I cannot assert this as fact but virtuous people often avoid lying on principle, which is admirable but I theorise that if we all learned how to lie we may be able to detect it better. Where moral philosophy is crucial is that it is my understanding that truly exceptional liars can only become so through elaborate self deception. This is why people with dark triad personality traits can be so disruptive and dangerous. Particularly machiavellianism and narcissism. Which is why it is crucial to understand if you are virtuous you will probably hit a ceiling on quite how an effective liar you are capable of being. This is a GOOD THING as the trade off is you are capable of forming real human connections with people. There is also a component in rhetoric where the ability to present your case in the best possible light by highlighting where it is strong and solid and mitigating and downplaying where it is weak. Often in general life rhetoric can appeal and sway others much more readily than logic so in your mind lab you must prize logic and reason but you need to at least be conversant with rhetoric to better be able to communicate.

http://www.fox25boston.com/news/trending-now/day-care-worker-caught-on-camera-pushing-4yearold-down-stairs_/500593090 I don't entirely know why I am so shocked by this, but I am. I know everyone here is on board with peaceful parenting and anti day care, but maybe this and cases like this are worth pointing too if you're out and about and need extra ammunition in any debate. Apparently she worked in Child care for 25 years, so it really boggles my mind what vetting procedures these places have.

Just to add a different dimension to the discussion, have you looked at diet? This plays a huge part in our bio-chemistry and in turn our psychology. Low potassium can cause/exacerbate our anxiety. Try eating a banana 20 mins before you go up to her floor for an interaction and one just before you go. Compare your anxiety levels on that occasion with before. Another one is up your exercise regimen. I find it really tough to be down on myself for very long if I've been hitting the gym for a few weeks solid. Even if I've been out of shape the positive psychological effects kick in relatively quickly. I'm not proposing this as an alternative to self-reflection or therapy, but if your psyche is becoming a bit of a battle-ground for whatever reason you can control the terrain (you) upon which the engagement takes place. Although ideally this part of yourself you want to embrace. It's all there for a reason to help you risk asses and commit time and energy wisely, but for right now you have put it in the driving seat. So cut off its lines of supply with some basic dietary alterations (alcohol is also a terrible crutch for social anxiety use it to celebrate a victory not to try and gain one!), notch up your exercise and face all this down from a stronger position within yourself. I hope it all works out and this girl is everything you have projected her as, but if that turns out to be the case it may be more luck than judgement. Invest in yourself and people (which will include women) will want to invest in you. Couple that with intelligence, wisdom, with empathy and love for people you discern are worth letting get close, you'll be one hell of a catch. Best of luck!

I'm sorry but it's more than likely a form of confabulation: ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation). Read the link and reflect on the idea that our memories and our reliance of them are inextricably linked to our identities. That is to say it's shit scary for a lot of people -especially those without self knowledge to examine the fallibility of their own minds. The idea of some external stimulus fucking about with reality is actually less distressing than accepting your own capacity for error. By way of example I have a reasonably accurate memory for some things and a piss poor one for others (mainly memorising long strings of numbers). In addition I am a dyslexic which means I have particularly visual based thought process. So in one instance a mate of mine and I went cycling he was fretting before we left his house as he couldn't find his shades, I simply replayed our trip the prior day in my head recalling where he had placed them when we got back in (they were in the kitchen), and told him precisely where they were. This slightly unnerved him, and I've noticed generally it can wind people when you are almost always right when you have conflicting recollections of events from them. Prior to the Internet oftentime people wouldn't bother actually proving trivial details, but now we can all look up who was in what movie, or what happened on X day somewhere. I noticed people really don't like having their memories questioned, so I generally avoid it out of politeness. This Mandela effect sounds like a mass delusion. On a planet of billions of people, many of them now connected across vast distances thanks to the Internet it would be odd if there wasn't collections of people with spontaneously different recollections that happen to have made the same error. Now they can meet, compare notes and cling to a notion that protects their own sense of self. Moral of the story develop a strong sense of self, that incorporates a self awareness that you have the capacity for error. Then it's no biggie to hold your hands up and say "hmm I remembered that wrong". You will actually increase your capacity to get it right once you accept you can get it wrong. If you're expending loads of mental energy defending incorrect ideas and memories it's a waste. Plus these sorts of things have been around since way before 2010. William Shatner never once says 'beam me up Scotty' in any Star Trek episode or movie. People were getting the line in Empire wrong since way before 2010, but perhaps the oldest one I can point to off the top of my head was the line about Yorick in Hamlet which starts: 'Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him Horatio' whereas you could find many people who would swear blind the line starts 'Alas poor Yorick! I knew him well'. Another is the line line 'hell hath no fury like a woman scorned' the actual line in the poem is 'heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.' There a lot more plausible reasons to explain the phenomenon than someone sat on the wrong switch on the hadron collider, and no I'm not in on any conspiracy!!

Still watching, but I couldn't keep silent. Your friend's response to you posting a critical response to a video about not putting people in boxes is to fire off a comment about "you people.." thus neatly stuffing you in a box full of people she presumably doesn't want to deal with. Well she proved your point at least... Yup you highlighted the whole self detonating aspect later on. Ignore me, carry on!

The only criticism I can muster for peaceful parenting is the name. If it's not peaceful it's not parenting! It's just hitting people smaller than you. Like I said it's not much of a criticism at all. I also feel the same about attachment parenting, as if by default parenting doesn't involve attachment!! I appreciate we do live in an ass backwards world where these things need spelling out to some people, but I really do despair sometimes. In all serious though I have crazy respect for anyone who was spanked or hit as a child but resolves to break that cycle.

As a man who is happy to use the gents all I can contribute to the discussion is I personally wouldn't be all that bothered were a transman (or a transwoman) to use the gents. As to the arcane goings on in women's restrooms all I can say is that it's not my circus and not my monkeys.

Understand in truth you are not being rejected, simply in that moment in time in the briefest of social interactions someone is choosing not to pursue a conversation with you. You don't know their frame of mind, what sort of day they are having. Cultivate a bit more of a zen like attitude, if you hit it off with someone then great, if not then c'est la vie! Also just work in acquiring general social confidence, if your objective is to try to meet and connect with quality people you take a great deal of immediate pressure off. Casting a wider net means you will also come into contact with people you could be romantically attracted to. Being socially at ease will also mean you will find women may actually end up approaching albeit not in the same way as men tend to hit on women. There is a time and a place for the written word, but you need a little context i.e. Knowing someone a little bit first.

Single father here *sweathog1* of a little boy about to turn 4 next month. I can report absolutely 100% no need to spank so far. It hasn't been difficult, prior to being a father I have experience of working in a school for children with special needs (developmental and mental). My experience has been there is never a time when using violence has been remotely necessary. I have a son who is remarkably well behaved (strangers have often commented on how helpful and pleasant he is in public settings). There is a plethora of data supporting my position and interestingly I read this year how IQ temporarily reduces when in a state of fear/anxiety (I am happy to dig up a link if you are really interested and open to examining the issue further). One of the roles of a parent is to help and model to a child how to manage emotions and it's next to impossible to help a child manage fear/anxiety when you yourself are the source of that. If you are willing to invest a lot of time to actually being with your child they will live and breathe for your approval you don't need much else to get them to behave in a way that keeps them safe. Depending on how developed their language is (which should be formidable if you spend a lot of time talking with them) the easier it all gets.

You'll find yourself unable to watch many movies if so much as one actor is an asshat. In the context of Star Wars you at least have Mark Hamil who has remained married since 1978 to the same woman. Obviously I don't know the guy personally but he always struck me as down to earth and like I say staying committed to one woman whilst holding down a showbiz career is noteworthy. It's all a question of who we look up to, and yeah people who play make believe for a living really are just projections of who/what we wish to be ourselves. This can tell us a great deal. It's also a bit perverse how actors who take on roles of people who did something noteworthy or even morally praiseworthy will get more accolades and resources than the real life person. The human race really has it ass backwards sometimes!

Well if I were to hear voices like the one instructing me to help a Mary Bliss, I would conclude I was either a) in reciept of some divine/supernatural guidance or b) I was schizophrenic. It would be crucial to me to discover which it was, and take appropriate steps. Hearing voices of which there are no discernable source is not whichever way you slice it a usual occurance. I also know it is a symptom of a potentially severe mental illness, so the rational course of action would be to make absolutely sure I could not end up a danger to myself and others. If this is just a thought experiment and theoretical then fair enough, but if either you or someone you know is hearing voices, please consider seeking psychiatric advice.

Whilst I would agree with you about voting for Trump, going after dsayers the way you have actually self detonates your argument. If we're all ultimately sovereign then surely he is free to follow his own conscience and express his views? If we've reached the point where he isn't or shouldn't express his ideas we actually lost a long time ago. A vote for Clinton is madness, a vote for Trump is a gamble (albeit one I cannot make being British although I would certainly advocate anyone to make!), not voting does not = a vote for Clinton. Nobody knows what the precise outcome will be. Also the very notion that Clinton winning = the end of civilization is overstating the case. Would it be a setback? Absolutely. However what needs to be understood is the Trump campaign is already a victory in the sense that it has revealed a powerful and engaged cohort of people who are pro-liberty, pro-free speech and anti globalist who through a great many acts of non-violent activism, civil disobedience and many many other methods can persuade and shift things back. If your arguing a vote for Trump is the easiest and best course of action I'm with you, and from a reading of the boards you're winning that argument. If your saying a vote for Trump is the ONLY path the victory I'm afraid you've made dsayers case for him. In fact in even making that case, and if that's what people are hinging all their hopes on the sense of failure people will feel if either Trump fails to get in or acts in a way contrary to your hopes it will generate monumental levels of apathy, and make pulling together that much harder. Don't let's lose the war for trying to win the battle. Preserving Western values is a long haul objective. Get hunkered down and make allies where you can. Trying to shame dsayers is a tactic of the left. Accept he has a different view, but get ready to stand with him when the time comes, because that time is coming.

I don't think it is at all difficult to work out what Stef will do if Trump gets in and turns out as bad as usual politicians. You'll see a bright crisp new video appear on YouTube titled something like "I was wrong about Trump." He won't pull any punches and will totally eviscerate the guy. There will probably be a caveat that even as bad Trump was Clinton would have been worse, which would likely be valid imo, albeit not particularly provable as we wouldn't have access to alternate dimensions. He'll probably do a penance of loads of videos on old philosophers (and likely very good ones!). One thing I can't see him doing is giving up!

I think accusations of just gaining views are a little callous and cynical. First of all The whole FDR project comes from voluntary donations. If he monetised the YouTube videos you may have a semblance of a point, but whilst the information is made free to people like me who are a little light on funds I don't think you can argue Stefan's motivations are entirely self-interested. I also think the vast majority of material surrounding this election that has been put out is purely putting information out there. That information not Stef nor Mike leads one to the inescapable conclusion that if one makes the decision to vote a vote for Hilary is a vote for globalism, left-leaning state expansion and unchecked immigration. Wheras the Trump vote at least contains the antithesis of that and additionally might halt the regression of civilisation. Now granted there is a distinct disconnect between arguments like the "against me" position where participation in any state voting or advocacy of same boils down to the implicit reality that by doing so you are advocating your opponents getting shot for holding a different view. Which is an initiation of the use of force, but maybe things are so down to the wire now that is the only option. I really don't know I am still very much at the beginning of my journey towards a grasp of logic and reason. However one thing that is self evident is we aren't born with a complete comprehension of language, logic, reason and many years worth of life experience so no human being has been born that speaks and acts perfectly. There are things I argued vociferously for 20 years ago that I know I was wrong about. The difference is there isn't and exhaustive public record of everything I've gotten wrong, but believe me it's there. You need to look at philosophy as a constant fine tuning of thought and thinking. It never stops. Expecting one person to transmit truth without any capacity for error for decades is blue sky thinking. It's just not possible. The journey of philosophy as twofold, both to be accurate in your thinking, and secondly to understand why you were right, and perhaps more crucially why you were wrong when you are inaccurate. If someone is more accurate than you are they are a great candidate for a mentor, but don't just hitch a ride on their coatails. The idea is to think for yourself, if you don't then one day when that mentor inevitably makes an error you'll come to realise you had belief in them rather than knowledge of your own.

This maybe entirely an emotional response on my part, and perhaps I should reflect more before posting on what is such a contentious topic. Then again if I am just honest in my expressing my current thinking it will be easier to expose any flaws in where I stand. Although I currently understand the rationale (I think!) for anyone currently thinking of voting for Trump, and indeed I am 85% sure that is where any vote I'd cast would go if I were American. Just accusing anyone who is staying true to their AnCap first principles of arrogance strikes me as an ad hominem attack. Furthermore are we actually in a situation where if Trump wins any AnCap who does not vote, disapproves of any Trump policy, like for example tax, resists and gets and gets shot we're condoning that? Are we now against them? Is Trump somehow an exception to the against me argument? If so I'm not sure how. Any clarification would be appreciated.

Don't get bent out of shape with the "it's not an argument" thing. It's a neat rhetorical device (which I personally rather like!). Just remember (and this IS an argument for anyone who cares to play spot the difference), arguments are not the only method of human interaction. You can make an observation, state a fact without strictly making an argument. Go read Plato's Republic there are multiple occasions where Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus could have shut down Socrates early on in the dialogues with a simple "not an argument". As early on with a topic Socrates tends to asks questions rather than submit his own argument (although the best rhetorical strategy there wouldn't be "not an argument" but an accusation of nitpicking). For the record my position on this Trump thing is with Mike most of all. I've heard him make the case that a Trump vote IS a gamble (so he's being honest imo). A vote for Hilary however is a guaranteed vote for globalism and open immigration. I've made the case myself that like guns, democracy is out and about in the world, so like the only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, so too the only way to stop a bad guy (or an idiot!) with a vote is a good guy with a vote. One can dislike guns and votes, but use either self defensively. I still maintain I respect dsayers position as ideally you want to bring everyone around to not needing to vote at all, but at the moment the barbarians are at the gates and need to buy more time to spread that idea.

Hmmm it's totally your decision, and what I say may sound mean, but you have gone far too far down a path of emotional bonding with this man. I know it's exciting and an emotional maelstrom of hopes and dreams, but you haven't even met him yet! It's also an incredibly human impulse too, we've all been there! Reading between the lines I think you know all too well what this red flag represents, you consulted your older brother (very wise move l! And if you EVER consider meeting up with a guy online ask him to go with you and be nearby). Then you came and posted on here to get a reality check. I don't know you, and it is as plain as day how important honesty is to you, just from this one thread. His shutting down the topic past a certain point AND that panic of a platitude of wanting you to believe it was his first time kissing too is a nonsense. Any potentially worthy partner who had made a mistake would be hitting the metaphorical relationship wikileaks button of full disclosure. Text messages, emails the whole nine. If he really knew how important the virtue of honesty was to you that is. If he doesn't I question does he actually know you at all? If one day you have a daughter who came to you with this dilemma what would you advise? Sorry hadn't rtft I see you did the right thing!!

It wasn't meant to be an argument, and I accomplished I what set out to do.