Should I ask my Dad this question?

[MeAT]

It is a fact that when I was 5 you spanked me. When I was 10 you would terrorize me to the point where I wet myself. When I reached your height, you tossed me around and threatened to make me leave the home. These things happened as sure as an apple will fall to the ground when released from grip of hand. Here is my question Dad.... Have you ever, in your entire life, committed even ONE of these acts against a person outside of the boy whom YOU adopted?

 

FreeDomain! Should I ask my Dad this question? 

[Stephen C]

Do you know the answer already?What goal do you hope to achieve in asking him this?

[dsayers]

Before I reply, I just wanted to say that that's such a horrible story. Why would he adopt a child if all he's going to do is use it as a pinata of sorts?

 

Anyways, a more important question (to you) is: Did the things you're describing ever take place in front of other people, not including other people under the influence of his wrath? If not, then you already know that he understands it's not okay and is capable of controlling it. This puts him in the sadistic column and you're probably not going to have any luck talking him out of that.

[MeAT]

Before I reply, I just wanted to say that that's such a horrible story. Why would he adopt a child if all he's going to do is use it as a pinata of sorts?

 

Anyways, a more important question (to you) is: Did the things you're describing ever take place in front of other people, not including other people under the influence of his wrath? If not, then you already know that he understands it's not okay and is capable of controlling it. This puts him in the sadistic column and you're probably not going to have any luck talking him out of that.

I never thought about that....... And no. He never once did these things outside of the safe confines of his home and in front of his crazy wife. Wow, what an interesting point you bring up. The wheels be a turning in my head now.

[cynicist]

Why are you considering asking him?

[GRosado]

It is a fact that when I was 5 you spanked me. When I was 10 you would terrorize me to the point where I wet myself. When I reached your height, you tossed me around and threatened to make me leave the home. These things happened as sure as an apple will fall to the ground when released from grip of hand. Here is my question Dad.... Have you ever, in your entire life, committed even ONE of these acts against a person outside of the boy whom YOU adopted?FreeDomain! Should I ask my Dad this question?

Was there something you did to make him want to kick you out of the house & toss you around?

[dsayers]

Was there something you did to make him want to kick you out of the house & toss you around?

 

Can you imagine a scenario where tossing another human being around would be justified? If so, if the child was in fact creating that scenario, would this not be a failing of the parents?

[GRosado]

Can you imagine a scenario where tossing another human being around would be justified? If so, if the child was in fact creating that scenario, would this not be a failing of the parents?

Well I asked him not you but thank you for responding. It could be justified in self defense or in saving the person from oncoming danger. But my question applies to the that's too be kicked out of the house, I faultily included the tossing around. Also you said if the child created the scenario wouldn't it be the parents failings, isn't that fundamentally false? The child created the scenario not the parents. For instance the parents leave sharp objects on the floor & the child cuts his foot that is a scenario created by the parents that caused the child harm so that is there fault. Now let's say the child chooses to go outside when there is ice on the sidewalk to play & the parents told him they would prefer him to stay inside but he continues outside, slips & bruises himself. That is a scenario created by the child & it is his fault he got hurt.

Can you imagine a scenario where tossing another human being around would be justified? If so, if the child was in fact creating that scenario, would this not be a failing of the parents?

Also I'm sorry if that first line came off as a bit douchey, sometimes I write things that sound harsh but that wasn't my intention.

[dsayers]

Now let's say the child chooses to go outside when there is ice on the sidewalk to play & the parents told him they would prefer him to stay inside but he continues outside, slips & bruises himself. That is a scenario created by the child & it is his fault he got hurt.

 

Well you're kind of comparing apples to oranges. If a child slips and falls on the ice and gets hurt, would tossing them around be appropriate? Would kicking them out of the house be appropriate? Your question felt like you were blaming the victim, which is why I asked leading questions to establish how that could be rational. You would have to come up with a scenario where tossing somebody around would be appropriate AND not accrue to the parents.

 

All the same, let us look at your example. Did the child overpower the parents? Could they not have installed a lock on the door high enough that he couldn't operate it? Why is there ice on the sidewalk? People clear off such things for themselves or for fear of being sued by the mailman. Surely they could do it for the safety of their child. Any ways you slice it, the parents are in control of the child's environment. Also, could they not have negotiated with the child? My dad once showed me a mouse trap snap a pencil in half. I had no inclination to mess with mouse traps and he didn't have to initiate the use of force to accomplish this.

 

I appreciate your clarification that you shouldn't have mentioned tossing around and meant to focus on being kicked out. However, I have argued that the decision to have children creates a positive obligation to them to support them until such a time that they're able to support themselves. If the kicking out occurred before such a time, it would be immoral. Additionally, I maintain that anything that would motivate the parent to kick them out would accrue to the parent, not the child. If you feel my case for the parent creating the environment is flawed or does not support this claim, I look forward to your refutation.

 

I appreciate you addressing the misinterpretability of your opening remark. Even still, I don't think I have to be your intended askee if 1) you asked the question where there is an expectation of public participation and 2) the question appears to be abusive (blaming the victim).

[GRosado]

I appreciate you addressing the misinterpretability of your opening remark. Even still, I don't think I have to be your intended askee if 1) you asked the question where there is an expectation of public participation and 2) the question appears to be abusive (blaming the victim).

Ok I'm gonna respond part by part so it'll take awhile cause I'm writing from my phone. I asked the question in a public forum but I think it's pretty clear that it was directed at him & I don't see how you could say the question was abusive I asked if he had done anything to make his father want to kick him out I didn't say that he had to have done something for his father to have done that. Also I get the feeling you are using the term abusive to represent my statement as an emotional trigger to make me look like I was in the wrong & abusive means engaging in or characterized by habitual violence and cruelty, my question wasn't violent or cruel.

I appreciate your clarification that you shouldn't have mentioned tossing around and meant to focus on being kicked out. However, I have argued that the decision to have children creates a positive obligation to them to support them until such a time that they're able to support themselves. If the kicking out occurred before such a time, it would be immoral. Additionally, I maintain that anything that would motivate the parent to kick them out would accrue to the parent, not the child. If you feel my case for the parent creating the environment is flawed or does not support this claim, I look forward to your refutation.

I totally agree & again on my part my question was set up for failure at the start. The way I see it is if your above 18 & you still live with your parents you need to respect them & their rules & if you don't then they can kick you out cause your legally an adult but before 18 is to me not necessarily immoral but vile. Now I assume when you say child you mean below 18, but not everything stems from the parents if they are over 18 then that's giving them a pass to blame their parents for everything. While the parents create the environment that doesn't dictate a child's life, for example Ted Bundy's parents provided a great environment for him & he still made bad decisions.

[GRosado]

Well you're kind of comparing apples to oranges. If a child slips and falls on the ice and gets hurt, would tossing them around be appropriate? Would kicking them out of the house be appropriate? Your question felt like you were blaming the victim, which is why I asked leading questions to establish how that could be rational. You would have to come up with a scenario where tossing somebody around would be appropriate AND not accrue to the parents.

It's one thing to say I'm comparing apples to oranges but it's another to show me how i am. It's very interesting to see how you took my hypothetical scenarios that I used to show that children make decisions independent of their parents & turn it on me & make me look like the bad guy. I never said that tossing children was right & when you use abusive to describe my statement I think you are falling into a sort of appeal to emotion fallacy with that by using a highly sensory word.

[dsayers]

I didn't say that he had to have done something for his father to have done that

 

I don't know that yet. In order for your question to be valid, there would have to be a scenario where kicking an offspring out of the house was justifiable, AND that what motivated the decision was something the offspring was responsible for and the parent was not. Otherwise, the question only serves to blame the victim.

 

It is unclear as to why you tried to exclude me, apologized for it, and then went on to defend it. However, I will say that IF your question sought to blame the victim, wanting to do it without outside scrutiny would be even more abusive.

 

I assume when you say child you mean below 18

 

Sorry, in the context of the positive obligation created by choosing to have kids, "child" is not the proper word. Offspring is. When the offspring transitions into being FULLY responsible could be when they're a child, adolescent, or even adult. I was 36 when I finally had the self-knowledge to be fully responsible for my behavior. Because my parents enjoyed their power disparity, taught me that proximity is virtue, inflicted religion on me, left me with abusive sitters, subjected me to government schooling, complete with the peer on peer abuse that usually entails. They went out of their way to isolate me and society mostly supported all of it.

 

I'm not familiar with the specifics of Ted Bundy. Unless he was one of the teeny percentage of people who have a brain defect that renders them incapable of reason, then we know that what he did requires

 

Ted Bundy's parents provided a great environment for him & he still made bad decisions.

 

to be a false statement.

 

It's one thing to say I'm comparing apples to oranges but it's another to show me how i am.

 

I did. You were trying to prove how an offspring could do something that would be worthy of being kicked out of the house. You did this by citing a scenario where the offspring slips on some ice and injures themselves. Either you're comparing apples to oranges, or you're actually saying that an offspring slipping and falling on ice justifies kicking them out of the house. Which one is it?

[GRosado]

I don't know that yet. In order for your question to be valid, there would have to be a scenario where kicking an offspring out of the house was justifiable, AND that what motivated the decision was something the offspring was responsible for and the parent was not. Otherwise, the question only serves to blame the victim.It is unclear as to why you tried to exclude me, apologized for it, and then went on to defend it. However, I will say that IF your question sought to blame the victim, wanting to do it without outside scrutiny would be even more abusive.

That's not something that falls under your approval as to what purpose my question served & even if it did the simplest layman would recognize that it wasn't an abusive statement.I excluded you yes, did I apologize for it yes now please quote me exactly on how I tried to defend it cause now it seems as if your simply poisoning the well. Also I have to commend you on the fact that you are a master manipulator of words & statements which leads me to believe you were on a debate team or a natural born debater either way you have chipped away at my statement through the use of emotional sensory words & quoting out of context or distorting the context.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of Ted Bundy. Unless he was one of the teeny percentage of people who have a brain defect that renders them incapable of reason, then we know that what he did requiresto be a false statement.

So your not familiar at all with Ted Bundy & his situation yet you call my statement on the state of his childhood false. On what background do you base that on?, do you have empirical evidence to disprove my claim on him?

I did. You were trying to prove how an offspring could do something that would be worthy of being kicked out of the house. You did this by citing a scenario where the offspring slips on some ice and injures themselves. Either you're comparing apples to oranges, or you're actually saying that an offspring slipping and falling on ice justifies kicking them out of the house. Which one is it?

Omg *sigh* that's really frustrating off of what you just said I feel like your not really trying to understand what I said just trying to discredit me. I never said that & let's agree to have some level of integrity. That scenario was not for the child getting kicked out of the house all you need to do is go back & reread not skim. I used that as a retort to your statement that all the child's problems stem from their parents & I specifically laid out two scenarios for you to show how not all problems are caused by the parents. It's weird cause earlier you understood it perfectly but now you twisted & mangled it what happened Alzheimer's or Amnesia. Which one is it? <- Sound familiar.

Sorry, in the context of the positive obligation created by choosing to have kids, "child" is not the proper word. Offspring is. When the offspring transitions into being FULLY responsible could be when they're a child, adolescent, or even adult. I was 36 when I finally had the self-knowledge to be fully responsible for my behavior. Because my parents enjoyed their power disparity, taught me that proximity is virtue, inflicted religion on me, left me with abusive sitters, subjected me to government schooling, complete with the peer on peer abuse that usually entails. They went out of their way to isolate me and society mostly supported all of it.

You keep switching up the words but alright. Ok so two things 1) it seems to me you have once again fallen under the psychologists fallacy as my debating friends call it. 2) You had 18 years as an adult & so what your telling me is that all the decisions you made within those 18 years stemmed from your parents that literally makes no sense it took you another 18 years to become responsible for yourself. Most of the things you listed your parents forcing you to do are not able to be done when you reach the age of 18. Interesting scientific fact psychopaths lack a sense of responsibility, not calling you a psychopath but if your theory holds true than humans are psychopaths for different ranges of time. Also I assume that you are in the free will camp, well the theory your backing would definitely fall into the determinist camp cause moral responsibility is apart of free will, determinism basically states it isn't the individuals fault all these things were placed on them it is there environment. Also I would like to throw in our childhood may shape us but it doesn't dictate us do you agree?

[dsayers]

 

Was there something you did to make him want to kick you out of the house & toss you around?

 

When I read this, I see blaming the victim. I don't think I'm alone since that post had a -3 vote within a couple hours. Instead of assuming I'm right, I asked you questions to see if your question has any validity outside of blaming the victim. Observe:

 

Can you imagine a scenario where tossing another human being around would be justified? If so, if the child was in fact creating that scenario, would this not be a failing of the parents?

 

Your question felt like you were blaming the victim, which is why I asked leading questions to establish how that could be rational. You would have to come up with a scenario where tossing somebody around would be appropriate AND not accrue to the parents.

 

I don't know that yet. In order for your question to be valid, there would have to be a scenario where kicking an offspring out of the house was justifiable, AND that what motivated the decision was something the offspring was responsible for and the parent was not. Otherwise, the question only serves to blame the victim.

 

I'm batting 1.000 at offering you the chance to demonstrate that your question is NOT blaming the victim rather than just assuming it is. Rather than addressing this, you've been editorializing the procedure of the discussion and hurling various adjective accusations.

 

So your not familiar at all with Ted Bundy & his situation yet you call my statement on the state of his childhood false. On what background do you base that on?

 

With the exception of rare brain defects, abuse is a requisite for aggression. This is a universal summary, so since Ted Bundy was a human being born on Earth, it applies to him. It's not uncommon for people to label abuse as not abuse due to erroneous, antiquated societal norms. You brought Ted Bundy in as an exception to disprove a rule, but your introduction of him was dishonest. Because either he suffered from a brain defect, which takes environment out of the equation altogether, or he was abused, making the claim that his parents provided a good environment false.

 

That scenario was not for the child getting kicked out of the house

 

Why on earth would you waste time offering proof that the offspring is responsible, but not to a severity that would justify kicking them out of the house when 1) the example you gave was full on holes and 2) it doesn't apply to the topic, which is kicking the offspring out of the house for something they are responsible for that the parent is not?

 

You had 18 years as an adult & so what your telling me is that all the decisions you made within those 18 years stemmed from your parents that literally makes no sense it took you another 18 years to become responsible for yourself. Most of the things you listed your parents forcing you to do are not able to be done when you reach the age of 18. Interesting scientific fact psychopaths lack a sense of responsibility, not calling you a psychopath but if your theory holds true than humans are psychopaths for different ranges of time. Also I assume that you are in the free will camp, well the theory your backing would definitely fall into the determinist camp cause moral responsibility is apart of free will

 

1) The first few years are formative.

2) Psychopaths lack empathy, not a sense of responsibility.

3) Responsible and fully responsible are different things.

 

A quick apology. I realize now that accountable would be more accurate than "fully responsible."

 

In the formative years, an abused child can internalize the abuse, normalize the abuse, or repress the abuse*. This can lead to thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that do not accurately describe/correspond with the real world. Just as uncalibrated instruments of measurements will not accurately describe the real world. In terms of my own experience, I emotionally and psychologically hurt people that I didn't want to hurt at all. Even once I realized this, I was powerless to stop it because I had no idea what the damage looked like or how it was coming out through me. This is why self-knowledge and honesty about our histories is paramount: It can literally skew the entire world around us.

 

*Yes, they can also proceed as if the abuse never happened. I point this out not because it's relevant to the topic, but because it addresses free will. I never spoke as if abuse is causal, but it is requisite outside the exception of certain brain defects.

 

Look, this is very simple. If I walked up to a burning building and asked some guy on the sidewalk why he didn't leap up to the 10th floor to rescue the people inside, you would understand that my question is provocative because it's simply not possible. Similarly, the question your originally asked is provocative because it's simply not possible for the offspring to do something that would justify being kicked out of the house that the offspring would be more responsible for than the parent. Just as water is no more responsible for its shape than its container and environment are.

 

I enjoy discussing these sorts of things. But I will not be wasting any more time on tangents or minutia until you either demonstrate how your question is valid or admit that it is blaming the victim. Let's focus on the important point first.

[GRosado]

When I read this, I see blaming the victim. I don't think I'm alone since that post had a -3 vote within a couple hours. Instead of assuming I'm right, I asked you questions to see if your question has any validity outside of blaming the victim. Observe:I'm batting 1.000 at offering you the chance to demonstrate that your question is NOT blaming the victim rather than just assuming it is. Rather than addressing this, you've been editorializing the procedure of the discussion and hurling various adjective accusations.

All these responses were pulled straight from my text which you failed to see. I can't be editorializing cause I'm not presenting the news to anyone so that can't work, adjective accusations or possible truths from observation, you have twisted many of my statements out of context or outright ignored them or my questions to you.This was my response to the first question: Well I asked him not you but thank you for responding. It could be justified in self defense or in saving the person from oncoming danger. But my question applies to the that's too be kicked out of the house, I faultily included the tossing around. Also you said if the child created the scenario wouldn't it be the parents failings, isn't that fundamentally false? The child created the scenario not the parents. For instance the parents leave sharp objects on the floor & the child cuts his foot that is a scenario created by the parents that caused the child harm so that is there fault. Now let's say the child chooses to go outside when there is ice on the sidewalk to play & the parents told him they would prefer him to stay inside but he continues outside, slips & bruises himself. That is a scenario created by the child & it is his fault he got hurt.This was my response to the second question: It's one thing to say I'm comparing apples to oranges but it's another to show me how i am. It's very interesting to see how you took my hypothetical scenarios that I used to show that children make decisions independent of their parents & turn it on me & make me look like the bad guy. I never said that tossing children was right & when you use abusive to describe my statement I think you are falling into a sort of appeal to emotion fallacy with that by using a highly sensory word.This was my response to the 3rd question: That's not something that falls under your approval as to what purpose my question served & even if it did the simplest layman would recognize that it wasn't an abusive statement.I excluded you yes, did I apologize for it yes now please quote me exactly on how I tried to defend it cause now it seems as if your simply poisoning the well. The way I see it is if your above 18 & you still live with your parents you need to respect them & their rules & if you don't then they can kick you out cause your legally an adult but before 18 is to me not necessarily immoral but vile. Here is my scenarios, let's say the person is 18 & living with there parents. The 18 year old one day decides to drink & gets drunk with his friends, when he gets home he goes on a drunk rampage & starts destroying stuff & babbling curse words at his parents who decide to tell him that he has to move out when he is sober. That is justified in my eyes. Here's another let's say another 18 year old lives with his parents. He is given chores by his parents to do in place of charging him rent or making him pay anything. He decides to stop doing the chores & the parents tell him he needs to or he is breaking there agreement however he continues to disregard the agreement & they're requests, so they decide to tell him he has to move out. That is justified in my eyes. Also I thought we clarified in the beginning that I did not mean to ask about the tossing around as that wasn't my main concern cause I know nothing could be done by the child to warrant that. Yet you keep bringing it up for whatever reason even though you thanked me for the clarification... did you forget or something? I've answered all of your questions it's you weren't reading what I was saying instead you were stuck on the tossing around part & calling me an abuser.

Why on earth would you waste time offering proof that the offspring is responsible, but not to a severity that would justify kicking them out of the house when 1) the example you gave was full on holes and 2) it doesn't apply to the topic, which is kicking the offspring out of the house for something they are responsible for that the parent is not?

Oh my... This is a serious question are you even reading what I'm saying & please be honest? Seriously it's getting annoying to have to go back & explain something that could be understood by anyone & is spelled out plainly.The scenarios I gave weren't for the justification of kicking someone out of the house I specifically told you they were for your statement that all the child's problem accrue to the parent & I showed you how that's not the case in every situation. It doesn't apply to the kicking out of the house topic because that topic was discussed after. What holes do the scenarios contain exactly, I remember you said the ice but that is not a controllable variable especially in colder climate. List the holes please.

[dayna j.]

I don't think this kind of back and forth is going to be of any use to the original poster.

[GRosado]

With the exception of rare brain defects, abuse is a requisite for aggression. This is a universal summary, so since Ted Bundy was a human being born on Earth, it applies to him. It's not uncommon for people to label abuse as not abuse due to erroneous, antiquated societal norms. You brought Ted Bundy in as an exception to disprove a rule, but your introduction of him was dishonest. Because either he suffered from a brain defect, which takes environment out of the equation altogether, or he was abused, making the claim that his parents provided a good environment false.

No brain defects, a good childhood environment, not a perfect but a good one. Is it really universal? I know that spanking leads to aggression but I don't think all aggression stems from abuse. Then again I don't know to much on the psyche of the abused only read one book about brain development in children.Yes I understand that some people reject the notion that they've been abused due to societal norms. But I also believe people are sometimes telling the truth that they haven't been abused.How was my introduction of Ted? When I introduced him as an example we were talking about childhood environments & I described his environment truthfully. You didn't bring in the brain defect until this post & the Ted buddy post was 2-3 posts earlier if I'm correct. So your essentially raising the bar from childhood environment to environment & brain defect or moving the goalposts whatever it's called.So there isn't any misunderstanding how are you defining brain defect? The rest of my response will be a little delayed cause I'm going to the gym. Not sure if that needed to be known or what but its out there anyway.

[JamesP]

Regarding Ted Bundy...

 

No brain defects, a good childhood environment, not a perfect but a good one.

 

From Ted Bundy's Wikipedia entry: "Bundy was born Theodore Robert Cowell at the Elizabeth Lund Home For Unwed Mothers (now the Lund Family Center) in Burlington, Vermont on November 24, 1946 to Eleanor Louise Cowell (known for most of her life as Louise). The identity of his father has never been determined with certainty."

 

This completely contradicts your assertion that he had a good childhood environment.  Continuing to read that entry, it is astounding that you can call it "not perfect but a good one."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy

It is a fact that when I was 5 you spanked me. When I was 10 you would terrorize me to the point where I wet myself. When I reached your height, you tossed me around and threatened to make me leave the home. These things happened as sure as an apple will fall to the ground when released from grip of hand. Here is my question Dad.... Have you ever, in your entire life, committed even ONE of these acts against a person outside of the boy whom YOU adopted?

 

FreeDomain! Should I ask my Dad this question? 

 

This is some terrible treatment, so sorry to read this!  I cannot tell you if you should ask your father that question, of course... have you been seeing a therapist at all?  Are you planning to do this with the support of others or in isolation?

 

It's been my experience that not having a competent therapist and/or not having adequate support when attempting to change historical patterns fails to work, at best, and can be pretty damaging by reinforcing those patterns.

 

Were my comments helpful for you at all?

[GRosado]

Regarding Ted Bundy...From Ted Bundy's Wikipedia entry: "Bundy was born Theodore Robert Cowell at the Elizabeth Lund Home For Unwed Mothers (now the Lund Family Center) in Burlington, Vermont on November 24, 1946 to Eleanor Louise Cowell (known for most of her life as Louise). The identity of his father has never been determined with certainty."This completely contradicts your assertion that he had a good childhood environment. Continuing to read that entry, it is astounding that you can call it "not perfect but a good one."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy

I didn't rely on information from Wikipedia, I watched an interview with Ted Bundy in his final hours so I took what he said as the truth. Who knows you better than yourself. Also if I remember correctly Ted bundy said that himself "Not perfect but good"

2) Psychopaths lack empathy, not a sense of responsibility.

Ok that's a half truth they lack empathy, remorse & responsibility. I recommend you read this: http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/1040-3590.1.1.6To read it you might need to purchase it my psychology teacher let me read his copy so that helped me out.

[dsayers]

I don't think this kind of back and forth is going to be of any use to the original poster.

 

You might be right. Though I will say that if somebody blamed me for being a victim, I would find great value in somebody who isn't invested in the situation stepping in. Especially if they had the presence of mind to examine whether or not somebody was blaming the victim rather than just assuming it.

[GRosado]

You might be right. Though I will say that if somebody blamed me for being a victim, I would find great value in somebody who isn't invested in the situation stepping in. Especially if they had the presence of mind to examine whether or not somebody was blaming the victim rather than just assuming it.

Then on that note this conversation is over, not much was accomplished due to faulty communication, faulty understanding & all around Disgruntledness.