Will Torbald

She explained later how the boy was a very charming english boy that impressed her mother with his manners. That kid knew exactly what he was doing by gaining the trust of adults, and how to avoid being suspicious. I don't care how he learned to deceive, he simply was one.

This affirmation without rational proof is expressed in authoritarian terms. Not even trying.

Let them have it. Let it blow up in their faces. Only way they will learn without foresight about the dangers of having these "equality" laws.

Recently, a prominent radical feminist/transwoman/social justice warrior was ousted as a pedophile. The leftist media, and the SJW clique, instead of condemning her decided to double down and support her because narrative. They couldn't deny the evidence, so they are now saying there is nothing wrong with it. This is an article that explains it: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/21/heres-why-the-progressive-left-keeps-sticking-up-for-pedophiles/

You'd also have to assume your child could also be lying to you, and treat them like they never tell you the truth. I understand your line of reasoning, I am not trying to argue against it. I'm just pointing out that even if you did that you could still be deceived because that's what predators do. And I don't want to blame something on the OP here, but if she spent years hiding the truth to her parents, she was also lying to them every time they would ask how she was doing. Yes, there's the fear, the spanking, the shame, but from the other side - from the side of the one taking after - you are also not being told about it. If I kept a secret from my parents, why should I blame them for not knowing, if I am keeping the secret? Again, I know the issue is serious, this isn't a regular secret like who broke a window somewhere, but the action of witholding information is similar. I would be condemning them of immorality of something I am allowing by not doing something about it. There's tons of reasons why someone would keep it a secret, that's not my issue here. My issue is where do you place the mother, in what category of morality.

The way I see it is this: If this kid is completely indiferentiated from other boys his age, and shows no signs that he is a problem child, all forms of suspicion vanish from common sense. The question is "Why should she suspect of him?" not "Why didn't she suspect?". What were the signs? What did she miss? Did she miss the signs because she was neglectful, or because the kid was a deceiver? If the kid is clearly announcing signs of trouble, it's neglect. If the kid is being a liar (as kids can be) and a deceiver, keeps secrets, knows how to act nice around adults, and is an all around "apparently harmless generic kid #3578" then it is solely on the fault of the kid making the deception, not on the adults who can't tell his act apart from others. Again, I am not excusing her mother's cold attitude, and I don't know the details of how it could have been avoided, but to blame the mother at knee jerk reaction and immediately condemn it as neglect and abuse is something I try to avoid - because it could happen to me. It could happen to you, it could happen to anyone. That's how deception works. And it won't be my fault that I am being lied to.

I only read that her mother had spanked her brother. This does cause fear of her, but she didn't not beat her directly in the story. All those things you list are very nasty, I agree. But the crime in context is not what she did not know, is the fact that she did not know. That is what I am contending. That what you are really trying to peg as immoral is ignorance itself.

When you ask for moral guidance it is imporant to differentiate between immoral acts and aesthetically negative acts. If you want to define the lack of knowledge of your mother as immoral, you would also have to define yourself as immoral as long as you are not surveying your daughter 24/7 every second, everywhere, and with every person. Every time there is something you don't know about her, you would be being immoral as well since you defined immorality as "ignorance of what is going on with my child". If ignorance were immoral, you could convict people of anything. Now, it is definitely aesthetically negative to not know what was happening, but to define the limits of its neglect you have to recognize that people make assumptions every time we choose to not supervize people. Everyone has had things that happened to them as children that were not known by their parents (regardless if they were abusive or just secrets between kids). Another danger is becoming paranoid with your own children of all the things you don't know, or can't know, or don't even begin to suspect you couldn't know. Your mother made assumptions on top of the knowledge she had of the people who interacted with you. Assumed they weren't dangerous to you and didn't investigate further. Could she tell? Was it obvious? Where they just regular kids no different from other kids? Why suspect of that particular friend of your brother, and not another friend? Why not of another person? It goes on and on. If she were to apologize for not suspecting, or knowing, or screening that boy - she would have had to screen every man, teenager, boy, and human being in your vicinity for specfic tells of abusive behavior - and then not screen that particular boy. Then she could say "I checked every creature for abusive behavior except for that boy who I just ignored for I don't know, so I am sorry for that". What was she doing while it happened? She was probably doing what her own family did with her, and all the mothers she know did, to not worry about every single thing their kids do and assume that other children are not harmful to them. After all, the caricature of the pedophile rapist with the trenchcoat is pretty obvious to spot, but just another kid who is a friend of another of her children? How much stress is she willing to put herself by raising the stakes to a point when you can't tell friend from foe? In the end, if you are willing to condemn her level of tolerance and laissez-faire parenting, you would also have to condemn yourself for every single thing that every happened to any of your children, abuse/accidents/tricks/bullying/diseases/ that you could know, could not have known, and couldn't even know you even had to worry about. She could have apologized to make you feel better. You can hold her responsible for not wanting to make you feel better. That probably stings. But can you hold her responsible for not being ever present?

It's been so long since I've heard "Thank you" that I almost took it as sarcasm. I was worried a blunt answer like the one I gave would have backlash, but I'm glad it was well taken. That's the thing about maturing, not letting primal instincts get the best of us. Have a good one.

To be honest, nobody knows. Einstein's theory only describes what is happening, not why it is happening. There are theories like quantum loop gravity and super string theory that try to explain why and how, but they are still too young and untested to see if they are true. It's an excellent question, by the way- why does? It's the holy grail of physics.

That's because you actually wanted to have a relationship with her, and had feelings for her. You're still finding out what it feels like to like someone and you're still in the "for some reason" phase where things don't click together. It's super simple: Your instincts of happiness and sadness are linked directly to your testicles. If they are getting quality female attention you will be rewarded. If you lose it, you will find despair. That's all there is to what you're feeling.

It's not a downward force, it's an attraction force. There's no up or down in outer space, just "towards me, or away from me". Gravity makes things move towards you. The gravity of the Earth curves spacetime to create a slope towards itself, not downwards. The space shuttle floating in space is in orbit because gravity keeps it curving towards the ground instead of being flung in a straight line outwards.

Since I am not floating, I am going to assume gravity exists. Actually, Einstein's model has been confirmed "way out in space" by every observation of it. It is the most accurate description of gravity ever conceived so far. We just know it has certain limits, and that larger theories are necessary to explain them, but the limits are in the fringes of reality, not in space or the sun.

"The people whom you choose to associate with reveal your nature". That's just the way I would put it without resolving to states of being, since "people are" doesn't really mean anything. "she got into a relationship with a guy she only just started hanging out with. I deduced I meant hardly anything to her, I responded by distancing myself." Do you think that was the right deduction? Did you even make your feelings for her clear in plain English "I like you please go out with me?" Or are you expecting women to just fall at your door by being a nice guy for years and years and years? "I presented her with an ultimatum, either leave me alone and hangout with her 'friends' or if she actually valued me... to stop supporting my enemies and to act by her word." Do you think it's healthy to have enemies so young? Enemies? Are you going to grow up into an adult by carrying enemies on your back?

With regards to barriers to empathy, I concentrate on imagining what it would be like to be that person and ask myself, for example "what would it be like if I had her in-laws" and until I actually feel as if I do I don't let go of that question. Having a specific question and concentrating on it, one at a time, until I no longer feel detached from what that person is living through.

It ends at "don't vote, stupid, if you don't want to be ruled" actually. We don't want to be ruled. Democracy is just mob rule. No democracy either. It has been written in plain English. If you want to convince us to vote, first you have to convince us that being ruled is good at all. We define ruling as the initiation of force against a populace in order to control it. You cannot overlook that.

That is not accurate. Things flow from hot to cold, not from cold to hot. What you are asking about is called "thermodynamics" and it's a separate set of laws and physics from gravity. This video explains gravity from Einstein's theories

To me both are the fruits of a higher disease called superstition and mysticism. The oligarchs you call are the state, I presume. Well, I'm an anarchist. I don't know who I am going to run to in search of a master. Both church and state are equally distasteful.

You worship human sacrifice and find solace in an eternal hell for the wicked while you rest in laurels in heaven. That sounds deeply sadistic to me. There is no ounce of remorse for the suffering since they earned it through "sin" which is nothing but guilt trips made up by a true oligrachy of priests in control of the minds of indoctrinated people. It gives you a free pass to be utterly unempathic.

If we're calling money words like "persuasion" I would call money "desire" as in the liquid form of the desire being exchanged, given, or used during a transaction. You desire my X, I desire your Y, and money is that desire given form.

This argument is well established in new atheist books like The God Delusion and others. And its true, I agree. All of these constructs are fantasies that people like to pretend they are real to serve emotional needs. The difference is that unicorns don't give you the sadistic comfort that the people you hate are going to go to hell for eternity after they die. Which is really the only reason why people believe in nonsense like Christianity.

You cannot save the world from evil with more evil. You can't free the world with enslaving dogma. You can't enlighten minds with obscurantism. You can't bring reason to ignorants with superstition. Christianity will never save the world. It will only shroud it back to the middle ages. It is pure bigotry and authoritarianism.

Just because you can write nonsense it doesn't mean that the binary of true and false aren't valid. I could say "It is true that the smell of 4 is shy" and it has no answer or validity because all the parameters aren't related. When you say "this sentence is a lie" you are not making a claim at all. It's like saying "I am dead" but I am alive while I type it. It's just not true, and the paradox doesn't mean that it is both at once, it means that it is neither. It is neither false nor true because it doesn't make any claim on objective reality.

It's a guy being brutally nailed to a cross for an ancient superstition. Which no historian can prove actually happened, or that he even existed. You are arguing about the importance of fiction to cultivate a sense of belonging. I could say the same for Harry Potter, or for Star Wars. They are good stories about heroes who conquer evil, and they are good for people to read because it fosters goodwill.

True, natural law is indeed necessary to understand through reason and philosophy. Good thing those ideas came from secular thinkers, too. Oligarchs? Theocrats like the Pope and Sharia rulers just want to replace governments with the government of their religions. They did in the past, and they want it again. It's a shame that instead of taking down the government people just want to replace it with something even worse. Or that in the search of taking down the theocracy they replace it with the religion of the state. Both are superstitions, both are means of control, both are unreal constructs.