Child Abuse at Work--and Lying to Abusers

[MMX2010]

That is short and sweet, and quite true...

 

Do you think it's wise to also put forth the argument that using their size and power to control someone infinitely smaller than them is abusive? Or furthermore, asking a mother if they would allow their husband to treat them in such a way? Is that too stand off-ish, or warranted?

 

In my opinion, you're trying to engage in deep philosophical thought with someone who has just abused their child.  This is like reading poetry to an angry bear.  If you were surrounded by a large contingent of thoughtful philosophers, then this line of thought would galvanize the crowd against the abusive parent.  But you are never surrounded by such a crowd.  (In fact, the woman who agreed with you just watched your performance without helping; expect this at all times.) 

 

Instead, I advocate short sound-bytes, especially well-practiced barbs that you've prepared beforehand.  (You're a writer, right?) 

[Filip S]

Here is a listener convo about a woman who had a dream about the holocaust following her lack of saying something to an abusive parent. 

 

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/1008/the-holocaust-dream-a-listener-convo

 

I haven't finished it yet, but I will follow it up with a TL;DR!!

[Zerubbabel]

One of the things that makes the shit test so viciously brilliant is that, as they are asking you the question "do you have kids?", they are simultaneously attempting the own the definition of the word 'parenting'. As it was stated earlier, In that question is the imbedded premise that "if you don't have children then you don't have credibility to criticize my parenting."

 

What makes this totally false is that, cruelly yelling at a child about how sick you are of them is not parenting. It is abuse. They are trying to re-frame their actions as a form of parenting that you have no right to criticize since you aren't a parent. This puts you on the defensive and gives them control of the interaction. 

 

Thus, when you tell a parent not to speak cruel words to a child, I have found it useful to take the broken record stance of breaking through such attempts of 'definition ownership' by repeating "that's not parenting, that's abuse." 

 

The highlighted portion displays bad logic. The concept of parenting as a certain skill set, let alone the actual word 'parenting' was never part of the question. You only assumed that and you also assumed what the question implies. 

 

Let me give another possible implication:  "if you don't have children then you will never be able to sympathize with the enormous stress that children bring." If you go back to the OP and the recounting of the confrontation, the first thing the woman said was "I'm very tired"

 

The social pressures of  expected levels of affluence and consumption (most felt at Christmas time)  which make mothers become wage slaves as well as also being mothers with parenting skill-sets; and the enormous economic liability that entirely parasitic children undeniably are; creates a pervasive atmosphere of stress which first and foremost should be acknowledged as a foundational part of our reality. IMO

 

see  https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42768-a-little-truth/?p=392151 

 

disclaimer - criticizing the logic of an argument against child-abuse does not assume a position which is indifferent to child-abuse. 

 

edited to correct bolded text disappearance (?) and to add the disclaimer..

Edited December 18, 2014 by Zerubbabel

[Three]

If acknowledging an atmosphere of stress is a concern to you, then acknowledging the child's stress from being abused by her primary caregiver, an adult 3 times her size, should be your main concern as well as deserving of more sympathy.

 

Whatever the correct interpretation is, she could have been implying both of our interpretations at once for all I know, that isn't nearly as important to me as the child's well being.

[A4E]

While reading your insightful posts I came up with the following approach to "do you have kids?":

 

Lower your eyebrows to express that you are confused and dont see any significant correlation to the situation, and then counter with "Are you a human being?" OR "Are you a decent person?" OR "Are you a generally good person?". If she says no, then she already saw where you were going with that question and are looking for a way out through any means neccessary, which means she wont listen to you at all. If she says yes, then follow up with "I am a human being and I dont go around barking at and hitting children, (or all the other human beings for that matter), and that is why I had to speak up."

 

If she goes on about you not having children or something, then it is a lost cause imo, but if she reacts positively, then you have a chance at sparking a new path for the child and the mother, by talking about peacefull parenting. And I believe strongly in honesty, which could go something like "I would probably also get alot of problems raising children if it had not been for x.... " etc...

 

 

BTW:

I wanna mention that another forum I frequented had an up and downvoting system. The downvoting feature caused so much stir and conflict that at one point there was more discussion about the downvoting feature than anything else. And they decided to remove it, and then people slowly calmed down and the forum content improved.

 

Personally I stay tha hell away from even upvoting because it seems my subconscious resent it alot. One reason I can think of is that it can make people behave like politicians trying to be liked or get a scorecard or something.

[MysterionMuffles]

While reading your insightful posts I came up with the following approach to "do you have kids?":

 

Lower your eyebrows to express that you are confused and dont see any significant correlation to the situation, and then counter with "Are you a human being?" OR "Are you a decent person?" OR "Are you a generally good person?". If she says no, then she already saw where you were going with that question and are looking for a way out through any means neccessary, which means she wont listen to you at all. If she says yes, then follow up with "I am a human being and I dont go around barking at and hitting children, (or all the other human beings for that matter), and that is why I had to speak up."

 

If she goes on about you not having children or something, then it is a lost cause imo, but if she reacts positively, then you have a chance at sparking a new path for the child and the mother, by talking about peacefull parenting. And I believe strongly in honesty, which could go something like "I would probably also get alot of problems raising children if it had not been for x.... " etc...

 

 

BTW:

I wanna mention that another forum I frequented had an up and downvoting system. The downvoting feature caused so much stir and conflict that at one point there was more discussion about the downvoting feature than anything else. And they decided to remove it, and then people slowly calmed down and the forum content improved.

 

Personally I stay tha hell away from even upvoting because it seems my subconscious resent it alot. One reason I can think of is that it can make people behave like politicians trying to be liked or get a scorecard or something.

 

Is this something you've tried? I agree with the social shaming aspect, but I wonder how effective this might really be.

[Kevin Beal]

The social pressures of  expected levels of affluence and consumption (most felt at Christmas time)  which make mothers become wage slaves as well as also being mothers with parenting skill-sets; and the enormous economic liability that entirely parasitic children undeniably are; creates a pervasive atmosphere of stress which first and foremost should be acknowledged as a foundational part of our reality. IMO

I think you might want to reconsider your priorities.

[Zerubbabel]

I think you might want to reconsider your priorities.

 

I understand that this thread is centered on the actions of this woman.  While the actions of the woman may have been indirectly caused by some pathos in her past or some culturally indoctrinated indifference to child abuse, I suggest that the DIRECT cause of this singular incident that forms the basis of this thread is the acute stress the woman felt at the moment she pulled her child away from the doorway. "I'm very tired" are the first words the woman spoke in the confrontation. Why is this not obvious? or acknowledged? 

 

This thread seeks the best methods of condemnation of this woman's actions. With-in the confrontation and with-in this thread there is no clear distinction between the condemnation of her actions and condemnation of the woman herself.  I suggest that if this thread seeks the best method of confrontation the dialog should minimally begin with "Listen, I know you are under a lot of stress, but..."  Is there no secular corollary to the christian adage to hate the sin but love the sinner?

 

I acknowledge the stress in the microcosm of this incident - and in the macrocosm of society. It is the same stress.

 

.  

[J. D. Stembal]

I understand that this thread is centered on the actions of this woman.  While the actions of the woman may have been indirectly caused by some pathos in her past or some culturally indoctrinated indifference to child abuse, I suggest that the DIRECT cause of this singular incident that forms the basis of this thread is the acute stress the woman felt at the moment she pulled her child away from the doorway. "I'm very tired" are the first words the woman spoke in the confrontation. Why is this not obvious? or acknowledged? 

 

This thread seeks the best methods of condemnation of this woman's actions. With-in the confrontation and with-in this thread there is no clear distinction between the condemnation of her actions and condemnation of the woman herself.  I suggest that if this thread seeks the best method of confrontation the dialog should minimally begin with "Listen, I know you are under a lot of stress, but..."  Is there no secular corollary to the christian adage to hate the sin but love the sinner?

 

I acknowledge the stress in the microcosm of this incident - and in the macrocosm of society. It is the same stress.

 

.  

 

I was also culturally indoctrinated with indifference towards child abuse. Would you say anything to me if you say me roughing up, hitting or yelling at a child? (I'm Male, 5'10", 160 lbs.)

 

There is no distinction between condemnation of the woman and her actions because everyone is defined by their actions. I don't get to say that I'm a virtuous person despite my mental handicap that causes me to yell at or hit children, and neither does the mother in question.

[MMX2010]

I understand that this thread is centered on the actions of this woman.  While the actions of the woman may have been indirectly caused by some pathos in her past or some culturally indoctrinated indifference to child abuse, I suggest that the DIRECT cause of this singular incident that forms the basis of this thread is the acute stress the woman felt at the moment she pulled her child away from the doorway. "I'm very tired" are the first words the woman spoke in the confrontation. Why is this not obvious? or acknowledged? 

 

Because everyone is under some mount of stress all the time, no matter what.

 

Saying, "Acute stress in the moment caused this!" is akin to saying, "Breathing caused this!"

 

-------------------

 

Furthermore, the mother volunteered to place herself in that stressful situation in the first place.  She explains, "We have been shopping for hours", even though her child was in no position to authoritatively contribute to the decision.

[Kevin Beal]

"I'm very tired" are the first words the woman spoke in the confrontation. Why is this not obvious? or acknowledged?

Because this is not an excuse for abusive behavior. Another direct causal factor was that the child was in her care, was that she was in proximity to the child, that she has piss poor emotional control, that she is generally negligent enough that this would ever even be considered an option.

 

She's accountable for her behavior, whether she be stressed, drunk, sleepy, whatever. I don't get to yell at my girlfriend and then say, "hey no, you need to focus on my difficulties because I'm stressed out". I'm being an asshole, period. And the idea that I would say that makes me an even bigger asshole.

 

Your post is an appeal to sympathy, and maybe she does deserve some sympathy, but not before the child. That's all I'm really trying to say, hence the "priorities" comment.

[Zerubbabel]

Your post is an appeal to sympathy. 

 

I hope it is proper that I comment on this while the post is no longer here. I also hope that it isn't overly pedantic if I try to give another language lesson as I did in Philosophy concerning objective/subjective and abstract/real. While that one didn't go over so well, neither do I expect this one to. But it is important in rational dialog to clarify terms.

 

Sympathy is to emote with an other. Empathy is to place oneself into another's emotions. Antipathy is to emote against. Apathy is to not emote.

 

In seeming unison the contributors to this thread showed sympathy for the child and antipathy towards the mother. The forum did not show empathy for the child, that would be to place oneself into the child's situation and ask "what would I do if I were the child?" 

 

I am wrongly perceived as showing sympathy towards the mother and apathy towards the child.

 

My posts were not an appeal to sympathy. That has been amply conveyed by many contributors. My post was an appeal to empathy with the mother, to place oneself in her shoes to try to understand why she acted as she did. Is it not the action of the mother and it's causes, which is central to this dialog?  

 

.

[Three]

 

 

 

I am wrongly perceived as showing sympathy towards the mother and apathy towards the child.

 

My posts were not an appeal to sympathy. That has been amply conveyed by many contributors. My post was an appeal to empathy with the mother, to place oneself in her shoes to try to understand why she acted as she did. Is it not the action of the mother and it's causes, which is central to this dialog?  

 

.

I do want to point out that by saying the child should be your main concern, based on your desire to acknowledge stress since the child is experiencing far more stress, is not the same as saying you were not at all concerned about the child or indifferent.

 

I'm curious why appealing to empathy with the mother is important to you?

[MysterionMuffles]

Actually I did show empathy towards the mother's tiredness. I don't see why you're commited to defending her when it was the child who was being forcefully grabbed and shoved into a stroller. Of course the mother is gonna be met with condemnation. Screw her tiredness. When my neice was under my care, I didn't get to grab her and force her into her stroller when I was tired. No one is saying you're being apathetic towards the child, but it does seem you're holding the mother to higher regard of empathy when she is the one who is supposed to have more control of her actions than her child. The little girl was simply playing in front of a mirror, not causing any damage to store property. Sure, she was in my way though, but I could have easily knelt at her level and excused myself through, or her mother could have done that instead of being so aggressive. Hell, she could have even picked her up with affection as opposed to aggression.

[skibum]

Hey RJ,

 

Just wanted to tell you I read your post like I’d promised (I know, I took way too long to get to it) and followed quite a bit of the discussion here. I sympathize a lot with the anxiety you experienced when faced with conflict: particularly moral conflict where you know you’re right but it’s easy to lose your conviction and not hang in there.

 

It’s far more difficult, however, to even start the conversation like you did. I only hope you were encouraged by your experience with this, and remember to take away the confidence from making that first bold move and (for the most part) sticking to your guns; rather than beating yourself up for not taking it all the way or being ‘perfect’ in your approach.

[Kevin Beal]

I am wrongly perceived as showing sympathy towards the mother and apathy towards the child.

This distinction is unimportant to me. My point remains the same whether you use the word "empathy" or "sympathy".

[Zerubbabel]

Actually I did show empathy towards the mother's tiredness. I don't see why you're commited to defending her when it was the child who was being forcefully grabbed and shoved into a stroller. Of course the mother is gonna be met with condemnation. Screw her tiredness. When my neice was under my care, I didn't get to grab her and force her into her stroller when I was tired. No one is saying you're being apathetic towards the child, but it does seem you're holding the mother to higher regard of empathy when she is the one who is supposed to have more control of her actions than her child. The little girl was simply playing in front of a mirror, not causing any damage to store property. Sure, she was in my way though, but I could have easily knelt at her level and excused myself through, or her mother could have done that instead of being so aggressive. Hell, she could have even picked her up with affection as opposed to aggression.

 

Rainbow, my comments are not a critique against how you handled the situation but a critique against the concept of "mean to mean."  I have in the past heard such antipathy towards the mother as is on display here in this thread. But usually it is accompanied by the cry "There ought to be a law!"  or "The State should take the child!"  This is the first response because the State has always been the agent of "mean-ness." But in a libertarian setting (we are libertarian, yes?) I'm curious how this might play-out. Is the maxim -freedom includes the freedom to fail- limited only to economics and not parenthood?  Has "mean" just transitioned from State authoritative violence to verbal abuse? How does the child respond to verbal abuse from her parent(s) when she witnesses verbal abuse from strangers? Does not verbal abuse become a mere societal norm? That was my point about "mean to mean" escalating and losing any distinction between mean-1 and mean-2.

 

Taking the child, punishing the parent with jail or fines seems counter-productive to the good of the child. Public ridicule, it seems to me, would only serve to send the abuse into strictly private settings. Restoration/redemption of the abusive parent is the only rational course of action and it can not proceed from a foundation of antipathy, i.e. hate the sin but love the sinner. 

 

.  

[MysterionMuffles]

Rainbow, my comments are not a critique against how you handled the situation but a critique against the concept of "mean to mean."  I have in the past heard such antipathy towards the mother as is on display here in this thread. But usually it is accompanied by the cry "There ought to be a law!"  or "The State should take the child!"  This is the first response because the State has always been the agent of "mean-ness." But in a libertarian setting (we are libertarian, yes?) I'm curious how this might play-out. Is the maxim -freedom includes the freedom to fail- limited only to economics and not parenthood?  Has "mean" just transitioned from State authoritative violence to verbal abuse? How does the child respond to verbal abuse from her parent(s) when she witnesses verbal abuse from strangers? Does not verbal abuse become a mere societal norm? That was my point about "mean to mean" escalating and losing any distinction between mean-1 and mean-2.

 

Taking the child, punishing the parent with jail or fines seems counter-productive to the good of the child. Public ridicule, it seems to me, would only serve to send the abuse into strictly private settings. Restoration/redemption of the abusive parent is the only rational course of action and it can not proceed from a foundation of antipathy, i.e. hate the sin but love the sinner. 

 

.  

 

No one said anything about using state forces to punish the mother in this instance or any other child abuse instance...

 

What qualms do you have with mean to the mean?

[Zerubbabel]

... bad taste to refer to children as "parasites".

 

LOL. Objective, rational analysis often ends in the taboo. Here are two quotes from Nietzsche (which are germane to this thread). When I first read them they pissed me off, but later came to understand them as true utterances.

 

"As yet, no thinker has had the courage to measure the health of a society and of individuals by the number of parasites they can stand." 

 

"My utopia. In a better arrangement of society hard labor and the troubles of life (stress) will be meted out to those who suffer least from them: hence, to the most obtuse, then, step by step, up to those who are most sensitive to the highest and most sublimated kinds of suffering and who thus suffer when life is made easiest."

 

Obviously this woman in question doesn't have the strength/health to deal with the stresses of life and her little parasite.  Is it her moral failing, or her nature?

 

.

I'm curious why appealing to empathy with the mother is important to you?

 

"Is it not the action of the mother and it's causes, which is central to this dialog?"  Post #47

[A4E]

Is this something you've tried? I agree with the social shaming aspect, but I wonder how effective this might really be.

In my country, public child abuse would create a gigantic shockwave in the people around. I imagine that If 10 people witnessed it, then 3 would react, and another would be calling the cops. But I cannot recall it ever happening around me. Pulling in arms and verbal vomit to make the child ashamed occurs though. So thankfully not been in such a situation.

 

I thought it was a nice idea, but I know that in public situations anywhere it is generally hard to get under the skin of people, so nomatter what you said, you would always have a great wall to deal with since people are unlikely to unravel their mind to strangers. So to answer your question I guess it would not have any immediate effect, but surely a spark that could ignite later if the person encountered some other situation where she would be exposed to peacefull parenting.

[Kaki]

(...)

Is the maxim -freedom includes the freedom to fail- limited only to economics and not parenthood?

(...)

 

The freedom to fail? Shouldn't then the child rather than the mother have the freedom to fail without being verbally abused? After all the little girl has a brain that is not yet fully developed, she still lacks impulse control and has absolutely no choice or say in going shopping for many hours.

Wouldn't it make more sense then to defend the child's "freedom to fail" and not the mother's - who has actively chosen to have a child and to take this young child on a several hour long shopping spree?

 

Isn't the mother the first one who denies the "freedom to fail" by punishing her child for "failing"?

 

(...)

Taking the child, punishing the parent with jail or fines seems counter-productive to the good of the child. Public ridicule, it seems to me, would only serve to send the abuse into strictly private settings.

(...)

 

I didn't read anywhere in this thread a suggestion for jail, fines or taking the child from her home.

 

If a child is being regularly verbally abused the child will normalize this behavior. If someone stands up and says that this is in fact abuse the child is given a chance to see the abuse for what it is. This might be helpful in preventing the child from feeling guilty and responsible for being abused  ("I must be a bad child"). Not carrying guilt for the abuse one has suffered, but being able to put responsibility where it belongs, is a precursor for not carrying the abuse into the following generation.

 

If, for example, a child is being abused only in the home, with the mother only ever raising her voice behind closed doors but never outside, it is still easier for a child to identify this behavior as wrong and denormalize it.

 

 

(...)

hate the sin but love the sinner.

 

Hate the rape but love the rapist?

[MysterionMuffles]

In my country, public child abuse would create a gigantic shockwave in the people around. I imagine that If 10 people witnessed it, then 3 would react, and another would be calling the cops. But I cannot recall it ever happening around me. Pulling in arms and verbal vomit to make the child ashamed occurs though. So thankfully not been in such a situation.

 

I thought it was a nice idea, but I know that in public situations anywhere it is generally hard to get under the skin of people, so nomatter what you said, you would always have a great wall to deal with since people are unlikely to unravel their mind to strangers. So to answer your question I guess it would not have any immediate effect, but surely a spark that could ignite later if the person encountered some other situation where she would be exposed to peacefull parenting.

what country would that be?

[Three]

 

"Is it not the action of the mother and it's causes, which is central to this dialog?"  Post #47

 

I'm not sure which action you are referring to when you say "the action of the mother".  My understanding is that there were a number of bad choices that are being talked about.

 

 

There is the physical abuse (i.e the yanking).

 

There is the verbal abuse (i.e "I've had enough of you!").

 

And there is the emotional abuse. (i.e The humiliation that is being inflicted on the child when the child sees the mother treat a complete stranger with higher regard by, within seconds of the abuse, sweetly apologizing to Marlon and thus, demonstrating that she's fully capable of treating people well regardless of her stress levels.)

 

That is, of course, only to name 3.

 

 

Also, from my understanding, it is the damaging effects that this abuse has on the child's emotional well being that is more central(i.e more important) to this dialog than the causes of the mother's abusive behavior.

 

Another more important aspect to this dialogue was to provide Marlon feedback as to how well he intervened, to help him process the situation, and to give advice next time.

 

I'm not sure how pointing out that the mother was stressed is in any way relevant to what's being discussed here.

 

But, I could be mistaken, so we can always ask other people. So, if anyone is reading this and would like to help me understand what is more important in this dialog by answering this question,  that would be great.

 

 

To those who have contributed to this thread, what do you think is the most important aspect of this dialogue?

[MMX2010]

 

 

To those who have contributed to this thread, what do you think is the most important aspect of this dialogue?

 

1.  Helping Rainbow Jamz evaluate the effectiveness of his choices in this specific situation.

 

2.  Giving Rainbow Jamz both specific words to say and mantras he can use to psychologically prepare himself to perform better.  (I, for example, want him to see himself as "above" abusive parents.  Others imply that they want him to see himself as "equal to (in stature) even though  he's not abusive".  We disagree, but as long as I'm not downvoted without explanation, our disagreement is crucial to this discussion because it gives RJ multiple perspectives to consider.)

[shirgall]

3. Strengthening the impulse of others here to perform interventions of their own.

[Zerubbabel]

Some member of this forum, I don't remember who, has a signature quote which I find profound. It goes something like this: 

"Being well-adjusted to a social structure that is sick to it's core is no virtue."

 

Our complete fall into wage-slavery has seen both the disintegration of the family and the transformation of children from economic assets to economic liabilities, i.e. absolute parasites vs minimally parasitic. Although we have robustly won the battle for survival we work and consume at a frenetic pace greater than when survival wasn't so secure. This shows no stronger than in the cultural pressure to properly provide for our children.  It is too long an essay to touch upon how each and every aspect of our lives as consumers has escalated in just my lifetime. It is the household with children which has the highest standards of affluence. And this also produces the next generation of entitlement-minded consumers/citizens. 

 

Add to this the concomitant transformation (or confusion) of women's place in the world. In one lifetime divorce has grow from rare to ubiquitous. The basic family structure was once clear, strong, extended and stable. Now it is incredibly confusing. Have you ever had the relationships with-in a family explained to you and it makes your head spin? Today's family structure is weak with family members routinely moving in and out of it. It is shallow with few deep roots connecting it to extended family ties. And the family structure is ephemeral, it could just one day fall apart in much the same way that one's wages could also disappear along with systemic economic collapse. In this confusing, weak, shallow and ephemeral family structure men have become dispensable except as sources of revenue stream. Women are left to live up to some feminist stylized ideal of being fully proficient in a career and a good parental unit ("mother" and "father" has lost significance). 

 

To be a parent is difficult. I have read many accountings of what the average child will cost the parent in strictly financial terms, not in terms of other needs and demands upon one's time and life-energy. It is overwhelming. That any schopenhauerian biological drive to reproduce could overcome fear of such a daunting life-task is hard to imagine. Our cultural sexual revolution -the end of religious sexual taboos and the embrace of open sexuality as healthy and natural- has of course contributed. If one wants to see the sickness of our society in a single image then just look at a pic of JonBenét Ramsey et al.

 And this of course explains why since R v W in the US some 55 million children have been killed in the womb for the sole reason to avoid this enormous stress -economic, emotional, temporal and judgmental stress-  of being a parent in today's sick society. 

 

But look over there! There is an individual who has not adjusted to this social structure. That individual has allowed the stress to propagate as abuse to her child. There! THAT is the face of evil.

 

. 

[Kevin Beal]

But look over there! There is an individual who has not adjusted to this social structure. That individual has allowed the stress to propagate as abuse to her child. There! THAT is the face of evil.

Please don't claim that you are being misrepresented and then say things like this.

[MMX2010]

Please don't claim that you are being misrepresented and then say things like this.

 

The White Knight is powerful in that one. 

[Kevin Beal]

LOL. Objective, rational analysis often ends in the taboo. Here are two quotes from Nietzsche (which are germane to this thread). When I first read them they pissed me off, but later came to understand them as true utterances. [it's objectively true that children are parasites]

You gave no analysis to demonstrate that children are parasites. If you have a wife who has just given birth and cannot reasonably be expected to work and must depend on you for resources, is she a parasite? If you go buy a pet, is that pet a parasite? You can say yes, but I think you use the word far too broadly. Things which you have no control over taking your resources (or no knowledge of), seems a much more apt definition. And being that, save for the rape victim, we all choose to have children (or partake in activities which can result in pregnancy) and choose to keep the child, we chose to have our children in our lives.

 

Talking about the stress being what caused her behavior and calling the child a parasite frames everything in deterministic terms and does not account for the decisions she made. This woman is responsible for her decisions, that's all anyone is saying. Nobody has called her "evil".

 

I really think it's a lot more simple than you are making it out to be.

[Zerubbabel]

Please don't claim that you are being misrepresented and then say things like this.

 

Kevin, I'm not sure what this comment means. If it is a reinforced critique of my tastelessness (and Nietzsche's ?) it is not needed because my tastelessness is not at all in dispute.  Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but I am surprised that you don't recognize this snippet you quoted as my summary answer to the question you posited about priorities. Which is lesser/greater? The acute pathos/sickness of the individual in a singular event? Or the chronic and systemic pathos/sickness of the entire social structure?  Am I not the only one in this thread to have even acknowledged the latter? 

 

.

[MMX2010]

Which is lesser/greater? The acute pathos/sickness of the individual in a singular event? Or the chronic and systemic pathos/sickness of the entire social structure?  Am I not the only one in this thread to have even acknowledged the latter? 

 

.

 

Better question: which of those can Rainbow Jamz, (or anyone else), control or influence in their day-to-day lives? 

 

Best question: does focusing on what we cannot change or influence deprive us of the power to change or influence what we can? 

[Kevin Beal]

Kevin, I'm not sure what this comment means. If it is a reinforced critique of my tastelessness (and Nietzsche's ?) it is not needed because my tastelessness is not at all in dispute.

No, you've misunderstood. It is illogical to complain about being misrepresented and then misrepresent those people you are criticizing. It's a performative contradiction, logically inconsistent behavior where the form of an argument contradicts its content. In other words, If you think misrepresenting people it a problem, you can expect to be criticized when you yourself misrepresent people.

 

Your characterization of the people in this thread has not been demonstrated by use of argument or evidence from what I have read. If I'm right that you have not demonstrated your claim about what other people are saying, this is what is meant by poisoning the well: an approach to debate, framing what other people are saying in a manner which is convenient for your unjustified conclusions, at the expense of the truth and rational discourse.

 

Not that it means anything necessarily, but I assumed this would be obvious that this is what I meant. I hope that my explication is not insulting to your intelligence. I would not want to overcompensate for a failure to communicate on my end.

 

Please let me know if I've made an error or am still not writing clearly enough.

[Zerubbabel]

Parasite = "one who eats at another's table." 

 

​Nietzsche's  tastelessness (and my tastelessness as I mimic him) is a test. It tests our ability to conceive this abstract idea objectively - that is to avoid the subjectivity of the emotive connotations of the word. "Parasite" is like "fascism."  Orwell tells us as early as 1946 that “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable."”  But these words do have meaning. They are intrinsically connected to abstract ideas which do not fade away because we find it too tasteless to acknowledge them.

 

Here's another Little tasteless Truth: "Fascism" = bundle symbolizing the strength of a united group. At a nationalist level it can go awry as the 20th century Fascists obviously did. But at a family level it is embraced whole-heartedly by most everybody (just like communism in my other Little Truth).   The Straight Story is an awesome movie which displays the virtue of Family Fascism. @ 4:00 in Part 4 of 10 begins an interaction between the main character and a young run away girl. This short dialog makes a passionate and powerful portrayal of the family ... and the short exchange has a surprising and profound end with a powerful symbolism. It's a great movie (and a great sound-track by Angelo Baglamenti). Don't disregard it because of my tastelessness. 

 

. 

[MMX2010]

Parasite = "one who eats at another's table." 

 

 

That's a very imprecise definition, so if you use that definition in any argument, you'll create an imprecise position. 

 

A better definition would be, "One whose personal opinions wrongfully impose a moral obligation on someone else, combined with the unwillingness to provide even exchange - (either now or in the future) - for the fulfillment of that moral obligation."  Under this definition, it's impossible for most children to be parasites, because their future behaviors could provide more benefit than their earlier neediness created. 

[Zerubbabel]

Better question: which of those can Rainbow Jamz, (or anyone else), control or influence in their day-to-day lives? 

 

Best question: does focusing on what we cannot change or influence deprive us of the power to change or influence what we can? 

 

MMX, (I'm MCMLXXV) these may indeed be better questions. But they first require the acceptance of 2 premises (or maybe it is only one basic premise). But I do not accept these basic premises. Everywhere on this forum, everything I have written, has been against it. 

 

Your questions make sense if one accepts utilitarianism, or using efficacious means to achieve more-perfect ends. I do not. I reject that premise. I accept following principled means regardless of what ends one prognosticates that they may lead to. It is the foundational ideological choice to be made before proceeding. >>> Principled Means or More-Perfect Ends? <<<  Choose one or the other. Choosing both is choosing neither.  (If you notice, the question I asked does not depend on first making that choice.)

 

I entered this thread polemically against the maxim "Mean to mean. Nice to nice."   Being mean to mean is justified because being mean is morally wrong. But this maxim advocates acting through morally wrong means (methods) in the expectation that it will yield a society of a higher net  mean-lessness, IOW the greatest happiness of the greatest number. I reject that. That is the utilitarianism which underpins all statist arguments (and it is the current which floats consumerism, but that's another argument) as well as being logically absurd. 

 

The other premise which one must accept before answering your questions - which is really part of the first premise - is that one must jettison the principle of not "controlling" (your word) another person's life. The guiding principle which underpins all of libertarianism is that of:  1 person - 1 life ... by virtue of being born you own that 1 life. You do with it whatever you want. You do not own another person's life. You will not control another person's life. And you can not make another person responsible for your life.  1 person - 1 life.  (BTW the goal of a child is to take ownership of his/her life.)

 

That principle is of highest importance. After that one may consider secondary principles such as self-defense - of resisting force with force - "controlling" one's attacker, etc.  Then we might argue the tertiary principle of intervening on another's behalf. That is this thread's principle - down at least on the third rung of importance. And if we are going to intervene on behalf of others then that opens-up Pandora's box of - Statist military intervention (?), welfarism (?), etc. Why intervene for the abused child of a stranger? Why not bomb the abortion clinic? or computer-hack the IRS? or tax the rich to feed the poor? This thread is functioning on the Tertiary rung of principles and treating it as if it were prime, IMO.

 

.