Troubador

Drew I think the fact that scientists won't do the study where you'd need to hit children kind of says it all. If it so foundational to ethics in scientific methodology then a whole bunch of scientists have already worked out it's wrong. It just requires a zooming out to broader ethics in science. If it would be ethically wrong for a scientific study to do it in the name of science then it follows it would also be wrong to do it in the name of parenting. Essentially if something is prohibited from study on ethical grounds it shouldn't be done on other people for the same reason. Make a proponent of hitting children argue if it's fine why shouldn't scientists be able to initiate violence in the name of science. Tyler can I just take a moment to say I wasn't systematically hit as a child so I have zero inclination to do so with my son. It's just my default, no real virtue there in my case to be honest. Can I just say having experienced it yourself, examined it and concluding that it is wrong shows tremendous character and insight I salute you for it. I just fell into the trap of getting into an argument on Facebook about it and upon evidence being asked for, provided and then just petulantly rejected I'm afraid I played to the gallery and just made the guy look like a real idiot and buffoon, by thanking him for putting up such a feeble argument in favour of spanking and for providing such low hanging fruit to rebut and make it clear to anyone reading it what an asinine and and ridiculous thing defending spanking is.

My view is that this judge is being incredibly small minded, and potentially not very good at their job. I say this as a religious person, albeit one who sees the critical importance of living within a secular society. Marriage has a spiritual connotation for those of us of faith, which obviously an athiest couple will not share. However there are many aspects of marriage that secular and religious people share, and I am incredibly reluctant to give primacy to one view in the public sphere especially, because of the crucial separation of church and state that must exist. In a role such as a judge one's own personal and religious views should not be inflicted on those who do not share them. This should be easy to square with a Christian theology as in tune with rendering unto Caesar one must respect the non-religious rules of the society one lives in. It should be a statement of supreme obviousness that a non-Christian marriage is not subject to Christianity. This whole thing is an argument that strictly speaking doesn't need to exist nor waste everyone's mental energy on.

I've had both the experience of bieng bullied at school (mainly verbal after I nipped the physical stuff in the bud early on), and I have had some tremendously witty friends who we can have lots of fun poking fun at one another. It's a question of reading the room, and it all being reciprocal. Basically I'd only take it from a close friend who is able to take it as well as give it. I guess you can look at verbal sparring like physical sparring. Only do with those you would trust and you are better prepared for the slings and arrows of the real world. You can actually convey a tremendous amount of information through a well timed put down. The ability to both give and take a joke is a mark of character. Finally lets face it we all fail sometimes and sometimes when we fail it can be kinda funny. For example for years I thought the word nude meant a river in Greece. I had a passion for reading Greek myths as a 10 year old, and there was always this or that Greek goddess who was described as "bathing in the nude" and some poor sap mortal getting cursed with blindness or some other thing for witnessing it. I was so confused....

Thank you ever so much for the moral support. It has been an absolute nightmare! This situation has deeply divided friends, colleagues and circles of friends. The standard of political debate has been quite frankly atrocious too. Both sides lied and misrepresented the issues and has made the whole endeavour like wading through crude oil. I don't think I've researched and worked on understanding anything like this for awhile. However it has accomplished two very important things: We have had it laid completely bare how out of alignment the political class has been with the genuine views of the people. This is now undeniable. Other European populations are now seeing the situation with Brussels more clearly, and similar sentiments will grow. Still we have a lot of hard work to do in the future, but I am encouraged and look towards it eagerly.

If you are in broad agreement with the choice we made re: the E.U. can afford it, and have anything like a passing affection for Britain and our culture. Add us into the mix for choices for your next vacation destination. That is all, and thank you.

A lot of it is smoke and mirrors, both sides have queered the pitch with a tremendous amount of bullshit so people are now voting with their hearts rather than their heads. The biggest lie which both sides are actually in alignment on, and also potentially the most dangerous one of all is that this is a one off. As if our sovereignty depends upon this one vote we have in our lives about in/out Europe. If sovereignty exists in any meaningful way it's foundation lies in our personal liberty, so don't worry if we remain and the E.U. continues to circle it's inevitable descent around the toilet bowl of history if we want to take the reigns and not go down with it, future opportunities will present themselves to avoid that fate, as long as we are willing to see through that single huge lie that we have no control. I've studied both sides and rebutted most of the main arguments in my head (that both sides present), and when the argument is couched in terms of engagement the leave/remain camps present them there IS no cogent right answer, because in order to provide the certainty one would need to see the future. It's easier if you bring the discussion down to principle. If you accept the supposition of nation states, then capitalist democracies are the least worst way to organise them. Then some accountability amongst the leadership to an electorate is better than little to no accountability. The E.U. is less democratic than the U.K. Parliament therefore over a longer term it cannot meet the interests of that electorate as efficiently. Europe has more interests it's trying to juggle. Those interests are not just the nation states themselves, but also the myriad of European political parties that exist (and remember members of of the European Parliament are sat by political party not by nation). Stronger democracies generally function best on two party systems, when it's fragmented to the extent Europe has it becomes an absolute mess. Sure there will be short to even medium consequences of a Brexit, and as always the poor will suffer it the most, but stay in Europe and the poor will suffer over a much longer period, so do you want to rip the band-aid off quickly or draw it out tortuously? The immigration issue is a complete red herring, we can benefit hugely from the skilled labour of individuals who aspire to British values, and every western nation has dropped the ball when it comes to this issue. The short to medium term practical solution is to fund the UNHCR which as the global organisation setup to deal with refugees as of last summer had not only seen its funding increase 30% since the noughties (and most of that increase comes from private sector and NOT nations themselves), but has seen the levels of refugees rise by magnitudes over the same period. If you read it's reports it's basically in a doomed holding pattern of trying to plug leaks in a dam with only so many fingers, we need to give it more resources. The long term solution is to stop buggering around with the destinies of other nations, and work towards trading (possibly not guns! At least not at the moment), with them. Most of all we need to point one massive accusatory finger at the media which actively works towards scaring the hell out of us, and making us feel impotent. (Sorry I've kind of gone off tangentially here on a rant! I'll close now and get some sleep!)

I don't want to be 'that' guy, but what oversight is there on the bikers themselves? Don't forget abusers will often gravitate towards positions of trust where they can better access potential victims - think clergy or teachers. I've been reading about aid workers who go to crisis hotspots and pay to rape child prostitutes. I want to read that article and feel the warm fuzzies that someone is doing something, but actually we all need to do a lot more collectively. We need to be educated to the common signs of abuse and be prepared to step up and take action to protect children. I doubt there are enough bikers in all the world to protect all the children that need protecting. If your take home message is that these bikers are leading the way to that realisation that's a positive but that we all need to step up I'd say that's a positive.

Amongst all the opprobrium there is a tremendous amount of goodwill towards animals, and particularly the endangered gorillas. The wise course of action here is for the mother to admit she took her eyes off her child for long enough to result in this tragedy, the zoo needs to seriously reconsider the enclosure policies. Regardless rather than passing the buck there is an incredible opportunity for both the zoo and family to come together and use thier 5 minutes of fame to do some serious fundraising and awareness raising on the plight of this particular species. In addition the gorilla is in conservation terms an ambassador species. In that it is photogenic and popular, you save its environment you save the environment of other less glamorous species that share the same habitat. The guy that raised Harambe also agreed that there was no option but to shoot to kill, even if the gorilla was trying to act protectively he could still have inadvertently greviously injured or killed the child without meaning to. I'd say regrettable as it was there was no choice. Whilst undeniably there has been negligence in this case it pales in comparison to the havoc man has wrought on the gorilla's habitat. There is the possibility of greater reflection here.

I must confess I am completely lost at sea with regards to: is a fetus equivalent to a fully formed human life? As an entirely subjective and emotion based response I feel it is a tragedy. However I must reluctantly stand with the pro choice lobby as back when I looked into this when I was a teenager I saw data that indicated that when abortion is illegal there is greater loss of life through women seeking it from backstreet abortionists. I shall have to re-research any data as it may have been superseded as it was a long time ago. It may be there is no concise neat philosophical resolution to this dilemma, although I am very keen to hear one in case there is, I'm just saying I haven't fathomed one with my limited mental resources. That said there is still somewhere we can go rationally when examining the question. For one make sure we men take steps to never put a woman in such a position, and women take steps to avoid it personally. In addition we as parents need to be on point to educate our own children to ensure they have the wisdom to navigate life without it having to come up.

The problem is there are different ranges for both women and men regarding things like height, muscle mass, strength etc. When we start to approach human peaks the ranges tend to be dominated by men. There are definitely lots of women who can compete and excel against men in the middling range. Now a man who is perhaps in the right point on the spectrum upon hrt may be right in the sweet spot to be "fair" competition for peak females, but hrt doesn't exist to create absolute parity between a transwoman and average women, it creates an approximation. If you are really interested in creating parity at a competitive level, which is a goal I can see why you might. Sport is a fantastic community focus point, teaches values like determination, coping with failure and competition, and I'm all for inclusion and aspiration. However what you'd need is a reframing of the boundaries at a competitive level with respective tolerances and potential putting people in the right band. Just like you wouldn't put a bantam weight boxer against a heavyweight. You'd still have men dominating in the top tiers, but what your proposing will serve to completely all but erase a lot of women at the higher levels. I also note that the discussion as it stands seems to focus exclusively on transwomen, trans men I note as usual are left entirely out in the cold as usual. Any solution that allows only half the trans community to compete only solves half the problem imho.

Will you are automatically attaching a negative connotation to the word obligation where none is implicit. I embrace my obligation to my son because I love him. The idea of instilling some sort of guilt because I choose to be a father would be abusive. However, and I don't think I am speaking falsely here not everyone is cut out for parenthood. It is a significant undertaking, both in terms of time, resources and commitment. If you aren't willing to invest those things the outcome is unlikely to be positive for anyone. The obligation if any exists is to pay it forward. I'm actually pretty stoked and grateful to be alive. I know the world can be a bit rubbish in places but on balance I've known some good people, been to some beautiful places and had some great times. I'd definitely recommend being alive to anyone, and I'm happy to bring another soul into the world. If my son chooses an obligation it should be to his sons or daughters and not to me. My job is to carry the family baton as far as I can and pass it on...

If parents do not hold a positive obligation to nurture, keep safe and love thier children, society from even it's most primal tribal expression to the largest, and most advanced civilization collapses. The cornerstone of the whole human race is measured by how well (or how badly) we meet this obligation.

In view of your wife pushing herself too far, make sure you do as much babycare as you can (breastfeeding notwithstanding!). This serves a biological function as when nurturing infants even men produce elevated levels of the hormone pectolactin (this hormone had a role in producing breast milk in women). This will cause a slight dip in testosterone but after six months everything is back to business as usual. This hormone is a boon as it creates a positive feedback loop that encourages nurturing instincts and establishes a bond with your baby, in short the more you do it the more you'll want to do it. After the six months you'll have an established and healthy psychological bond that will put you way ahead of the game! Oh and congratulations!!

The parent/child relationship is not one of ownership, but it is one of responsibility. You are both responsible for (ie it's my responsibility if my child breaks your window), and responsible to (I am responsible for providing my child with shelter, food, security, love & affection basically to be the launchpad to get them off to as best a start as possible). I see no reason whatsoever that NAP does not apply to that relationship.

Hitting a child is not like tackling someone out of the way of an oncoming car. Key differences: • Tackling to save from being run over the object is to avoid injury not cause pain. Pain sustained is incidental and not a requisite to saving someone. • It is a certainty that you can avoid serious injury/death from tackling out of the way of a car. No such certainties exist for hitting children. Someone says this invite them to talk through the steps of what harm is being avoided. The youtuber who posted this is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.

Buffy The Vampire Slayer - Yes she is bestowed with powers but spends a lot of time in training and honing it. The Bride - Kill Bill Katniss Everdine - Spent a lot of time honing hunter skills. Plus trains prior to the games. Hermione in Harry Potter - Almost all her proficiency comes across as the result of study and hard work. Black Widow - Both trained hard plus surgically mutilated to ensure compliance.

I have a personal connection to this topic as I am currently raising a child that was the direct result of contraceptive fraud. Therefore I suspect my own emotions are caught up in the ways I am not aware of. That said as has been mentioned up thread equality is an impossible task given the biology, it's like having a jigsaw puzzle with an odd number of pieces there is no way to fairly allocate them equally. For my own sins I trusted the wrong person, and have to deal with the consequences. Irrespective of what fingers can be pointed in whichever direction I am responsible for my son, he's not the responsibility of my neighbour to pay for and raise. Where we could go logically from here is an insurance company that deals policies to sexually active adults. People can be free to be active sexually, with pay outs should unplanned pregnancies occur. It should also take the financial pressure off individuals, and the only people who pay are those who are engaging in the activity that risks it through their premiums. Whilst it is tempting to think that allowing men to financially opt out may eliminate the irresponsible behaviour from some women, to be fair men have been able to opt out historically before dna testing came about, yet the situation still occurred, looking at the Magdalene laundries in Ireland and other such things history is replete with such attempts to create control human sexuality with only partial success.

The aggressor isn't making the claim, I am. If common sense isn't applied re: reasonable force, we all lose out. Now obviously in the cut and thrust of physical altercations of course more injury can be sustained to an aggressor than you might intend, and yes that's the dice the aggressor is rolling when they start something. However if some nimrod pulls my pants down in a public place to cause me embarrassment, and I proceed to strike his neck and it crushes his trachea I've clearly gone too far. I would also call into question the assertion of the original article that this was even sexual harassment. If this is a class of 12 year olds I very much doubt there was a psychosexual element as although males can go through puberty as young as 10 that is a rare outlier, and much more likely kids acting rambunctiously. Making it "sexual harassment" overstates the case and makes it an appeal to emotion rather than reason. Instructing children to use potentially lethal acts when their all learning the correct way of behaving with one another is pure madness. I fully expect my own son will make mistakes growing up in learning how to treat people and yes any bad actions are on me to correct and make restitution for, but as parents in the name of reciprocity we all need to entertain a bit of perspective. A potential death penalty for the infraction of snapping a bra strap at the age of 12 is out of all proportion.

Ummm I can kind of get the self defense argument, but deliberately striking the throat can easily be lethal. I'm not sure this is a proportionate response. In addition this is the precise point where girls can briefly be bigger than boys as puberty occurs earlier in females. A slap or a thump on the arm in self defense I could buy, but deliberately instructing your child to escalate to what could be lethal force is irresponsible.

I dunno I think animal ownership is of little use either way. I and I suspect many people here will have known people who have animals, where the animal is well cared for, trained and a really positive reflection of the qualities of the owner. Yet I'm sure we've all known people whose pets show them up as not particularly virtuous or nice people at all. I'm actually quite an animal lover, my grandparents had a farm and I have fond memories of holidays spent amongst the cattle, chickens, cats and dogs etc, and I've taken in a few wounded wild animals and seen them right. However as with anything context is everything. I'm likely to warm to a female veterinarian or someone whose passion for the natural world goes beyond just a superficial aesthetic admiration. Note I am guilty of this in that there are some species of animal I have this preference for myself, but it usually leads to a greater curiosity about them as a whole. Having an animal requires commitment and responsibility.

This parent's problem is they are taking ownership of the child, but not responsibility. Note how ownership is asserted, but responsibility is not. This parent can own the child, but the parent takes no responsibility for the child's messiness, that is an undesirable trait possessed by the child. Although I suspect this parent would be quick to take credit for a virtue, talent or achievement their child has actualised. Respect is a trickier one to get to the bottom of, ideally you don't want parent = respect by default. Ideally respect is earned, as that is how it works in the real world. It should be no different for us as parents to earn that respect. All too often people feel powerless and disrespected in their day to day lives and revel in the notion that this dependant on them human being that they control and feel have to respect them. In truth proper respect should be accompanied with love and trust and that is even more essential in a parenting context. In the crucial early years a child that is bonded to you securely wants to spend all their time with you. You are literally their world. Things like virtues and good habits can be much more easily instilled in this phase, through co-operation. One of the first words my son learned was teamwork. Of course basic chores can take three times longer when they help you, but they are watching you to see how to behave and if you include them and make them part of your world it pays dividends in the end. A teenager however is set to challenge you, and this too is absolutely crucial. They are powering up to be independent so at this stage you need to channel and direct that. They are also learning that you are not perfect, and with that realisation going on to define who they wish to be by comparison, so don't fight this and go against the flow. Rather work with it. In this context the parent should apologise to the child for not teaching the child to be tidy, and rather ask how can they can reach a mutually beneficial solution. Involve the teenager in the process.

Your friend sounds like a real snake in the grass. He's pouring poison down your ear about your husband to make him appear better by comparison. He's pouring poison in your ear about yourself to wreck your self esteem and to make it appear like you couldn't do any better than him. As to your husbands deceptions, yeah your right that's not on either. However do you think through therapy you and your husband can reach a good level of trust? It sounds from what you said you have both been willing to put in some work? Zeroing in on the debt simply by way of example how bad is it currently? Would your husband be willing to let you take the lead on the family finances? If he was it would show he very much trusted you which would be a good sign. Also is your husband getting any therapy outside the couples stuff you do together? It sounds like he could use it. Anyway best of luck.

Well with the honking great caveat that I am no psychologist, what you say is eminently understandable. Your parents dropped the ball on your parenting. Parents are supposed to shepherd their little ones through their own emotional development. It's bad parenting 101, if a child has an angry outburst punishing the child wrecks self esteem as they don't learn to seperate an authentic emotional expression from who they are and learn to suppress rather than embrace their whole personalities. Unpleasant emotional experiences will out in the end one way or another. First thing a child has to feel growing after fed, watered, slept and clean is safe. You were not given that, and look at it from a child's point of view. Imagine feeling fear, sadness or anger for the very first time. It would be tough in the extreme. Children need to see us effectively managing our emotions to learn how to do it, and they need a place of safety to do that from. As to the feelings of inadequacy no-one has made it anywhere in life without failing. The trick is to keep on keeping on. I know sometimes it's incredibly hard just to put one foot in front the other especially if you are self medicating (as you mentioned addiction of one type or another). I have no idea how useful my next statement will be, but the following thoughts gives me a tremendous amount of comfort when I'm feeling small. The human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe, there are some 7 plus billion of us in a galaxy of 400+ billion stars go outside look at night sky consider that vastness, that absolute collosal enormity, it might not look like it as we're all clustered together but we and therefore you or I are incredibly rare and therefore precious. Whatever you need to do to make a self actualised life for yourself and indeed the very process itself is so incredibly worth it.

myclippedwings you are talking about a cycle of superficial friendships with little to no emotional content, but you yourself confess to being emotionally empty and therefore unavailable to others. Have you ever heard the term like attracts like? These things are reciprocal. The good news is that emotionally healthy people possess empathy (some emotionally unhealthy people do to, but let's not complicate things at this stage!), and people with empathy will by and large by definition help those close to them in their orbit, because the whole group benefits in this way. So I'd like to ask what blocks your emotions? I can make an assumption that as this thread is about dishonesty you have trust issues, if so why? How have people treated you in the past? Feel free to either consider these questions internally or respond on here, it's entirely up to you. The good news is there is a tried and true course through these choppy waters, namely therapy. Having someone acting as a guide is a great way of getting past emotional blocks, in fact the truism "no man is an island" it's damnsome difficult to do this all alone, hire a navigator!

Also dishonest people don't come with t-shirts, barcodes or blaring klaxons announcing the fact. They all come with varying degrees of skill and competency in the fields of deception. Some are remarkably easy to spot others less so. There is a small percentage of the population who are natural lie detectors, but even they with additional deception training struggle with being that far above accurately detecting a lie than would random chance. In addition we all lie sometimes (myself included), and I echo dsayers appeal for clarification. As by dishonest I take it to mean misrepresentation, lies of omission etc. We can talk in terms of pathological liars, but a bit like how many precise grains of sand qualify as a sand dune how many lies does one need to tell to qualify?