Zerubbabel Posted December 25, 2014 Posted December 25, 2014 This woman is responsible for her decisions, that's all anyone is saying. Nobody has called her "evil". (...) Your characterization of the people in this thread ... To be clear I do not characterize the people, only the arguments. I have learned long ago to deal only with ideas. Even this is dangerous for many people cannot separate the two. And I do not assume that this woman has been accused of being evil -that her soul was evil to it's core. Only her actions were on trial here. So reciprocate with clarity - and this is not a rhetorical question - Is child-abuse evil? . 1
Kevin Beal Posted December 25, 2014 Posted December 25, 2014 Don't disregard it because of my tastelessness. I didn't. I provided a logical argument that follows roughly this form: P1) You described children as undeniably parasitical upon their parents, presumably on the basis that children depend entirely upon the resources of the parents and do not "reciprocate" in the manner a grown adult would be expected to C1) The definition implied, and one which is often expressed is, "one who consumes the resources of another without providing reciprocal value" P2) A pet consumes your resources and does not reciprocate, neither does a pregnant woman who is taking off work to care for a newborn P3) I take it that you would not describe a pet or a new mother as a "parasite", even though they fit the definition provided C2) You are using the word in a sense which is not consistent I simply expressed that I found the statement in bad taste one time and not in connection, or as the basis of any other conclusions. I appreciate irreverence and do not shy away from offending other people's pretentious sensibilities when the mood strikes me. It is for statements that are worthy of ridicule that I gleefully offend. I also quite like Nietzsche, especially regarding master-slave morality, and the classic "god is dead". If I'm trying to demonstrate something logically for the benefit of others, I have found that purposefully offending people tends to make them less receptive, perhaps because you come off as unreceptive, making light of a situation in which I find myself feeling somber. In part I feel somber because I do not believe (as you do) that this is an "abstract" discussion. I experience it viscerally, in fact. This is ironic since you said I should be more empathetic, and your tone has since shifted from a serious one ("hate the sin but love the sinner") to a mocking, exaggerated one ("THAT is teh face of evil"). "It's ironic" is not an argument, I just wanted to point that out. But at any rate, this thread has become about your comments and has been derailed from the original topic. This is generally discouraged and it is advised that either the conversation continue through private message or a new thread is started. 2
Kevin Beal Posted December 25, 2014 Posted December 25, 2014 To be clear I do not characterize the people, only the arguments. I have learned long ago to deal only with ideas. Even this is dangerous for many people cannot separate the two. And I do not assume that this woman has been accused of being evil -that her soul was evil to it's core. Only her actions were on trial here. So reciprocate with clarity - and this is not a rhetorical question - Is child-abuse evil? Again, this distinction is beside the point of my criticism. I don't care where irrationality is directed, I care that it's irrational. (Of course, assuming my arguments are valid). And those actions in which violence is justified to prevent, are those actions in which I would call "evil". Child abuse describes many things, some of which justify violence in order to prevent.
J. D. Stembal Posted December 25, 2014 Posted December 25, 2014 ...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? How can you acknowledge something so abstract? How does this sickness manifest?
J. D. Stembal Posted December 25, 2014 Posted December 25, 2014 The word parasite is entirely inappropriate to the discussion on child abuse. If anything, the parent is feeding off the emotions of the child to the child's detriment where abuse is prevalent. Parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host. 4
Three Posted December 26, 2014 Posted December 26, 2014 The word parasite is entirely inappropriate to the discussion on child abuse. If anything, the parent is feeding off the emotions of the child to the child's detriment where abuse is prevalent. I agree, children provide an enormous amount of value and can teach adults priceless lessons about generosity, self expression, spontaneity, authenticity, humor etc. If anything, I feel honored when I am in the presence of children, not exploited as if I have a tapeworm or a leech latched onto my skin or inside my gut. To put children in the same category as predators like tapeworms, leeches or mosquitoes, which cause the deaths of millions is deluded beyond perversion. 3
Zerubbabel Posted December 26, 2014 Posted December 26, 2014 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. "one who eats at another's table" is the etymological root. Suggestion: When you look up a word in the dictionary you will find many, sometimes dozens, different usages of the word with different connotations. And every dictionary will also give the word's origin, it's etymology. Go first to the etymon. While the word may be abstract and difficult to understand the etymon is usually based on clear easily understood actions or real objects. While the abstract word is pulled away from reality, the etymon gives the connection point of return to reality. This gives the basic, the essential, the actual, real, true meaning of the word (the word "etymon" stems from Greek etymos "true, real, actual," Armed with the essential meaning of the etymon we then proceed to the various usages of the word and we see clearly the underlying thread which connects all the various usages. This understanding can also shed light on cognates. If two words share roots they, at some level, they also share meaning. Most philosophically-minded people reject the importance of etymology and instead focus on Wittgenstein's "Meaning is Use." But I say let's not forget that we move in the world of Received Ideas, we cognitively sit in the shade of a tree we did not plant. >>> "it's impossible for most children to be parasites" <<< Only you could answer this, and it requires introspection, but did you set-out to find a meaning for the word parasite which would in the end yield this conclusion? >>> "their future behaviors could provide more benefit than their earlier neediness created" <<< Most analysts estimate the average cost to get a child through high school graduation (not college) at about 250K. Now you're 4 years past MMX. You plan on paying that back? No. The popular opinion is that we pay it forward. After having been a parasite we are to become well-adjusted to then becoming a host. The parasite/host relationship is at the ideological core of our society. It is expected that your generation should experience no resentment in paying for my SS. And your grandchildren will be just fine paying off the little-bit of debt our generations have created. No? . 3
Zerubbabel Posted December 26, 2014 Posted December 26, 2014 How can you acknowledge something so abstract? How does this sickness manifest? I answered both questions in Post #61 Stephan touts FDR as the webs largest philosophical talk show - or site, whatever. What is philosophy if not the analysis of the abstract? The word parasite is entirely inappropriate to the discussion on child abuse. If anything, the parent is feeding off the emotions of the child to the child's detriment where abuse is prevalent. Parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host. While the new-born fowl can run away from predators with-in hours of birth, the new-born human is entirely defenseless for years and it takes over a decade for him to become fully-functional yet still not fully mature. The new-born human is radically dependent on the care of a host, his mother. His mother is burdened by the additional demands of caring for her child. It is difficult for her to run away while carrying her child. She and her child, in-turn requires help from others to survive. This relationship is unilateral. It flows from the group (or the father as it once was in our society) to the mother, to the child. It does not flow in the opposite direction. This is an anthropological fact of the human condition and this is what makes us radically social animals. This anthropological fact is most acutely experienced in the relationship between mother and child. "Entirely inappropriate"? You have searched the net to come back with a definition which excludes parasitism in any same-species relationship. Did you seek out such a definition for the conclusion it would yield? . "Don't disregard it because of my tastelessness." I didn't. I provided a logical argument The "it" was the movie. The movie is not an unrelated tangent. It is germane. And it is good. Someday watch it. Kevin I have to apologize. I have not made the effort required to understand your argument. In fact as I think about it, I have no idea what your argument, related to the thread topic, is. I hope I haven't trampled any pearls into the mud. I hate that when it happens to me. Sorry. . 1
Kevin Beal Posted December 26, 2014 Posted December 26, 2014 Kevin I have to apologize. I have not made the effort required to understand your argument. In fact as I think about it, I have no idea what your argument, related to the thread topic, is. You said that I should not reject your statements (about parasitism) based on my offense, but rather I should look at it objectively (you and Nietzsche presumably being objective about parasitism). So, I presented an argument for the rejection of your statement based on reasoned logic. You asked me to be objective about my rejection of your claim, and that was my attempt to do so. Your claim was that children are "undoubtedly parasites". I argued that not only is there doubt, but that you are entirely wrong, and then provided a more consistent definition. You asked me to be more empathetic, and so that's what I did. You asked me to be more objective, and so that's what I did. Unfortunately, it has had no effect. You won't even put the energy required in to understand my arguments. I'm left wondering if your definition of "empathy" and "objectivity" are really just synonyms for agreeing with you. 1
shirgall Posted December 27, 2014 Posted December 27, 2014 Rainbow, I don't thank people enough for this. Thank you for standing up to abuse and holding your ground. 2
MMX2010 Posted December 27, 2014 Posted December 27, 2014 "one who eats at another's table" is the etymological root. Suggestion: When you look up a word in the dictionary you will find many, sometimes dozens, different usages of the word with different connotations. So, let's get this straight. One - You use an imprecise definition of the word "parasite". Two - I kindly point out that you're using an imprecise definition of the word "parasite". Three - As a counter-argument, you say: (1) "The definition I used is an etymological root" AND (2) "When you look up a word in the dictionary, you will find many, sometimes dozens, different usages of the word with different connotations." The second part of your counter-argument agrees with my argument that you're using an imprecise definition, but you apparently didn't notice.
Zerubbabel Posted December 27, 2014 Posted December 27, 2014 If I were to accept the premise of utilitarianism, and I were to put on blinders and ignore other extenuating conditions, to focus solely on seeking to help stop the abuse in this specific family - then I would offer two points of critique. Our human farmers have long understood some basics of how to influence and control people. When the Farmer's Straw Boss, or some one who might consider themselves a professional in human resources, reprimands one of the slaves (employees) they do so only for the reason to effect behavioral change. Standing rules have always been to "Praise in public. Reprimand in private." To reprimand someone before his/her peers is counter-productive and usually serves to galvanize the undesirable behavior. Public ridicule is never a means of restoring an individual to productive wholeness. My point about parasitism was not a value-judgment against children. It is to recognize the unique and profoundly important institution of "family" which by right ought to be, and by necessity is host/parasitic. When in that public setting we should not see two individuals; one a victim and one an abuser. We should see a strongly bound family where the smaller is entirely dependent on the larger and only finds strength through unity because he has no strength of his own. An attack on one member should be considered an attack on all members, yet the child feeling impotence in defending his mother against public ridicule is also damaged. To address the child directly to inform him that his mother is a violent bitch, etc. is foundationally and unavoidably an action which attacks the bonds of the family unit. If the goal is to alter the behavior of the individual parent then a complete stranger in a public setting is at a sever disadvantage. A friend or a mentoring life-coach (psych-pro) can privately council and have strong guiding influence to change the parent's behavior. The stranger's public ridicule damages relationships as noted above, and can only change outward behavior in public settings. It serves to create a space where family ties are temporarily suspended - where the child has momentary autonomy while protected by strangers (surely we have also witnessed this autonomy in public) and the abusive parent whispers in the child's ear "wait till we get home." . 3
MMX2010 Posted December 28, 2014 Posted December 28, 2014 Our human farmers have long understood some basics of how to influence and control people. When the Farmer's Straw Boss, or some one who might consider themselves a professional in human resources, reprimands one of the slaves (employees) they do so only for the reason to effect behavioral change. Standing rules have always been to "Praise in public. Reprimand in private." To reprimand someone before his/her peers is counter-productive and usually serves to galvanize the undesirable behavior. Public ridicule is never a means of restoring an individual to productive wholeness. Wonderful. Even if this were true, you're using information from employer/employee relationships on parent/child relationships. Because there are so many differences between the two relationship-types, it's foolish to assume that "If it works in employer/employee relationships, then it must work in parent/child relationships." My point about parasitism was not a value-judgment against children. It is to recognize the unique and profoundly important institution of "family" which by right ought to be, and by necessity is host/parasitic. Again, you're using the host/parasite word carelessly. Do you use the word because the child is dependent upon the parent? If so, does that mean every relationship involving "dependence" is host/parasitical - including (1) walking across the desert, as a naïve tourist, with a survival expert, (2) being sick and seeing a doctor, (3) being a highly intelligent teacher and working with a student? When in that public setting we should not see two individuals; one a victim and one an abuser. We should see a strongly bound family where the smaller is entirely dependent on the larger and only finds strength through unity because he has no strength of his own. An attack on one member should be considered an attack on all members, yet the child feeling impotence in defending his mother against public ridicule is also damaged. To address the child directly to inform him that his mother is a violent bitch, etc. is foundationally and unavoidably an action which attacks the bonds of the family unit. The italicized-red-bold print is precisely the goal and the point. Hence, you're telling us that either because: (1) you think we don't realize it - which is wrong, because we do, or (2) because you object to it for reasons you haven't explained. If the goal is to alter the behavior of the individual parent then a complete stranger in a public setting is at a sever disadvantage. A friend or a mentoring life-coach (psych-pro) can privately council and have strong guiding influence to change the parent's behavior. The stranger's public ridicule damages relationships as noted above, and can only change outward behavior in public settings. It serves to create a space where family ties are temporarily suspended - where the child has momentary autonomy while protected by strangers (surely we have also witnessed this autonomy in public) and the abusive parent whispers in the child's ear "wait till we get home." Altering the parent's behavior isn't "the goal"; it's "a goal". The major goal is either to: (1) stand up against the action of child abuse, solely for the purpose of standing up to the action of child abuse, (2) to let the child know that what's happening is child abuse, so he can stand up to his mother later on in life, (3) to let the child know that what's happening is child abuse, and nothing more, or (4) to practice standing up to child abuse so that one can get better at doing so in the future. To use a crude analogy, you're like a guy who can only have sex when he's deeply in love and feels a meaningful connection with a woman criticizing other men who can simply have sex without emotionality. You're predicting a whole of negative consequences and failures on to that men, which (naturally!) either never come to pass OR come to pass in extremely muted form. And you're doing this because you're projecting YOUR values, assumptions, and goals onto others, AS IF they were universal. (They're not; they're just limited to you and whomever-agrees-with-you.)
Zerubbabel Posted December 28, 2014 Posted December 28, 2014 Your claim was that children are "undoubtedly parasites". I argued that ... you are ... wrong. Oh. Good. I need not feel guilty then that I didn't grasp your argument "related to the thread topic," because you didn't make one. And I thought you were reprimanding me for "derailing" the thread. 5
shirgall Posted December 28, 2014 Posted December 28, 2014 Oh. Good. I need not feel guilty then that I didn't grasp your argument "related to the thread topic," because you didn't make one. And I thought you were reprimanding me for "derailing" the thread. Kevin was working on a branch of the tree related to parasitism, because there was an unclear definition there. If I understand things correctly, I'm going to summarize a lot of the arguments (explicit or implied) in this thread. It goes like this: people make conscious choices that bring children into their lives, unwanted or not while wholly dependent on parents at first, children aren't parasites (and there was a lot of disagreement on the term "parasite") children provide more and more value to parents as they live and grow children who are not abused provide more future economic value than children that are abused children who are not abused provide stronger, healthier, more happy relationships than children that are abused children who are not abused are more likely to care for aging parents (who also aren't parasites) than children that are abused abusing a child involves initiating force against them (if a child is stealing from you, or attacking you, that's a little different) ∴ children should not be abused Next: people who abuse children care more for utility in the moment than more future economic value, strong healthier happy relationships for those children, or care for aging parents; this cannot be universalized as "good" people who abuse children are not willing to put the work into a solution to problems that involves negotiation and discussion of the merits of "correct" activities; this cannot be universalized as "good" people who abuse children initiate force, and it cannot be universalized that using force is good ∴ abusing children is, at least, "not good". I have trouble with defining the full negation of "good" to mean "evil". I reserve "evil" for those that enjoy hurting others, children or otherwise. 3
Zerubbabel Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 Kevin was working on a branch of the tree related to parasitism, because there was an unclear definition there. If I understand things correctly, I'm going to summarize a lot of the arguments (explicit or implied) in this thread. It goes like this: people make conscious choices that bring children into their lives, unwanted or not while wholly dependent on parents at first, children aren't parasites (and there was a lot of disagreement on the term "parasite") children provide more and more value to parents as they live and grow children who are not abused provide more future economic value than children that are abused children who are not abused provide stronger, healthier, more happy relationships than children that are abused children who are not abused are more likely to care for aging parents (who also aren't parasites) than children that are abused abusing a child involves initiating force against them (if a child is stealing from you, or attacking you, that's a little different) ∴ children should not be abused Next: people who abuse children care more for utility in the moment than more future economic value, strong healthier happy relationships for those children, or care for aging parents; this cannot be universalized as "good" people who abuse children are not willing to put the work into a solution to problems that involves negotiation and discussion of the merits of "correct" activities; this cannot be universalized as "good" people who abuse children initiate force, and it cannot be universalized that using force is good ∴ abusing children is, at least, "not good". I have trouble with defining the full negation of "good" to mean "evil". I reserve "evil" for those that enjoy hurting others, children or otherwis My idiosyncratic love of using words with clear meaning yet negative emotive connotations seems to never work-out. I wonder if anybody actually understood what Nietzsche was saying in those 2 aphorisms (?). Yes, "Dependent" is a more politically correct word, yet inaccurate. E.G. Interdependent has no corollary inter-parasitical. America did not consider themselves dependent on Britain when they declared independence. >>> "children provide more and more value to parents as they live and grow" <<< Absolutely true - or at least it was absolutely true at one time. Throughout history the family was the central economic unit - the family farm, the family trade, the family's cottage industry. Economic interdependence is now entirely external to the family, it is negotiated in employment contracts in absolutely individualistic terms. >>> "people who abuse children care more for utility in the moment ..." <<< To accept this I would have to imagine such a stream of consciousness where the options are weighed out and a course of action arrived at whereby the abuser slaps a child as the most useful action at the moment. I think such an individual would be clinically diagnosed as a sociopath. The slap, the yell is a spontaneous emotive reaction, it is a crime of passion. The word passion understood by it's etymon meaning suffering, or the total accumulation of stress (one of which is the child's unceasing dependence ;) beyond the ability/strength (see Nietzsche quote) of that certain individual to handle stress. Some people "snap" easily. Some people have no discipline in controlling their emotions. Some people are too lazy to even try. Then there are strong people who never "snap." To recognize this is not to make white knight excuses for the weak, nor is it an to appeal to some moral equivalency where the weak are "doing the best they can." It is an attempt to objectively understand the human condition. Shirgall, this is more for my censors than it is for you: I was MGTOW long before the acronym was ever coined. The reality of it is that leaving the weak to their own devices is going to yield a lot of problems. The only thing left for the M is to insure the principledness of their OW. 4
shirgall Posted December 30, 2014 Posted December 30, 2014 To accept this I would have to imagine such a stream of consciousness where the options are weighed out and a course of action arrived at whereby the abuser slaps a child as the most useful action at the moment. I think such an individual would be clinically diagnosed as a sociopath. The slap, the yell is a spontaneous emotive reaction, it is a crime of passion. The word passion understood by it's etymon meaning suffering, or the total accumulation of stress (one of which is the child's unceasing dependence ;) beyond the ability/strength (see Nietzsche quote) of that certain individual to handle stress. Some people "snap" easily. Some people have no discipline in controlling their emotions. Some people are too lazy to even try. Then there are strong people who never "snap." To recognize this is not to make white knight excuses for the weak, nor is it an to appeal to some moral equivalency where the weak are "doing the best they can." It is an attempt to objectively understand the human condition. If it was a crime of passion, then I would expect immediate regret, shame, heart-felt apology, and a commitment to never do it again soon after the incident. However, I don't think that's the common experience. A sociopath knows something is wrong but does it anyway. A psychopath doesn't accept right and wrong. 3
Zerubbabel Posted December 31, 2014 Posted December 31, 2014 If it was a crime of passion, then I would expect immediate regret, shame, heart-felt apology, and a commitment to never do it again soon after the incident. However, I don't think that's the common experience. A sociopath knows something is wrong but does it anyway. A psychopath doesn't accept right and wrong. Spontaneous emotive reaction - passion - is the common human experience. Reason must be cultivated. Seldom are negative passions accompanied by regret if they can be justified by the conflict in which they were couched. The Ratio of Reaction-to-Regret might be 1000-1. In fact the more common response is Resentment (to emote again), by both parties. No better example can be found than right here. When the reader, in the context of helpless children, reads the word "parasite" (Nietzsche's or mine) they have a negative spontaneous emotive Reaction. The after-effect is not Reason. Nor is it Regret. The after-effect is Resentment ... and my heaping up of lots of red coins. 3
MMX2010 Posted December 31, 2014 Posted December 31, 2014 No better example can be found than right here. When the reader, in the context of helpless children, reads the word "parasite" (Nietzsche's or mine) they have a negative spontaneous emotive Reaction. The after-effect is not Reason. Nor is it Regret. The after-effect is Resentment ... and my heaping up of lots of red coins. You're heaping up lots of red coins because you turned this thread, which is about Rainbow Jamz' techniques and motives for intervening in child abuse, into a you-focused discussion of your definitions. Starting your own thread would've been much better. 2
MysterionMuffles Posted December 31, 2014 Author Posted December 31, 2014 You're heaping up lots of red coins because you turned this thread, which is about Rainbow Jamz' techniques and motives for intervening in child abuse, into a you-focused discussion of your definitions. Starting your own thread would've been much better. I concur. Because I have another instance I want to share. This time didn't invlolve so much physical force than it did verbal abuse. A mother and preteen daughter were in the store, and from the corner of my eye, I can already sense she was nagging her daughter and disallowing her from buying anything. In fact, the mother was buying a bunch of shit JUST FOR HERSELF! When they finally got to my cash register, the mother was being really rude to her daughter, bopping her on the head for...some reason I can't remember. I was just busy ringing her items through. At some point, the daughter picked up a lanyard and started looking at it, and her mom says "oh no, we're not buying that. We don't have anymore time or money to buy things for you." (Even though they'd been in the store for 20 minutes) And at that point I had enough of her so I told the mother, "it's alright, she's just taking a look. Doesn't mean she has to buy it." Me saying that, I suppose, allowed the mother to allow the daughter to take a look at a shirt that was hung up on the high wall. I walked over to the wall with the daughter, noticing that the mother stayed at the cash counter to wait for her. When I took down the shirt off the rack, I took the opportunity to talk to the daughter. I said, "I'm really sorry that your mother treats you this way. I can't believe she won't let you get anything for yourself. How old are you? 12? Yeah you got 6 more years before you can move out and live on your own." Then I felt that I had to choke on my sympathy speech because the mother crept up behind us to tell her daughter that they had to get going, and even apologized for her daughter for wasting my time--when it's my goddamn JOB to show items to customers even for future reference. I don't know why...but this instance irritated me more than the one I originally posted about. This mother was so overbearing and rude to her daughter everywhere they went to the store. My store's main demographic is youngsters from 13-30 and this mother was completely ignoring her daughter's desires all for her own. It made me uncomfortable with upselling, because when I did, the mother got yet another thing for herself instead of her daughter. Total BS! 1
Zerubbabel Posted December 31, 2014 Posted December 31, 2014 You're heaping up lots of red coins because you turned this thread, which is about Rainbow Jamz' techniques and motives for intervening in child abuse, into a you-focused discussion of your definitions. Starting your own thread would've been much better. The title, "lying to abusers," and the OP, posits the moral question whether it is moral to act immorally to an immoral person- to act in an unprincipled manner (lying) to an unprincipled person (abuser). That the overwhelming majority answers in the affirmative and wants to move on to argue the nuances of such unprincipled action (e.g. to practice one's lying or not) does not settle/remove the moral question thereby disallowing arguments which answer the question in the negative as unrelated/off-topic. 1
shirgall Posted December 31, 2014 Posted December 31, 2014 Rainbow, thanks for showing that girl some empathy. I think you understand the idea that everyone is a customer better than the mother does, even if it is a future customer instead of an immediate one simply because you showed you cared about their feelings, wants, and desires.
Blackfish64 Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 Sometimes your interference will only make things worse. When the child gets home, the child could end up getting a mouthful and perhaps a fistful of, "Did you see how you embarrassed me in front of that man in the store today? You acted up in front of everyone and made me have to grab you. Well, now, I'm really going to give you something to cry about..." Most of the time, when we try to do good, we only make things worse, like the State. There's nothing wrong with you wanting to get involved and make a difference, but I would certainly change my approach. Aside from getting involved with direct intervention, as in the case of obvious, outright, vicious abuse, e.g., punching, kicking, shaking, out-of-control screaming, etc. I will not tolerate the sight of anything like that from anyone. I will confront you directly, even physically, if necessary. I will call you out so loud it wakes up the whole neighborhood and has everyone's attention whether or not they like it. That I will not stand for. I know, it's a difficult thing for the self-righteous among us to think in this manner, but it works... show compassion not only for the child, but also the strugggling, frustrated parent. Your walking up and berating, guilting, and shaming her sure didn't help matters any, obviously. She's abusing the child, now you're abusing her. You just piled abuse on top of more abuse. Next thing you know, there's an argument, and possibly a fight. Someone convinced against their will is of the same opinion still. The child will only get caught up in the middle of it, and end up more abused, more terrified. Instead of approaching in the self-righteous manner, approach with a big smile and a cheerful attitude, "Uh! Oh! What's the matter here?" Smile at the child, wink, and assure him with your body language that everything is all right and that this is all just a big misunderstanding we are going to fix up in a jiffy. Mom will take the hint and join in as though nothing is happening. She does not want to be more embarrassed than she is already. "Is there something I can help you with, Ma'am, is there something I can get for you? Listen, we've got a big box of really good donuts in the break room, would you and mom like a nice, fresh donut? How'd that be?" Again, smile, let everyone know everything is OK. Change the subject, change the scene to something more and more positive and alluring. A few years back, eating in a restaurant, brunching with some friends, there was a family sitting a couple of tables away. It was a Sunday, everyone nicely dressed, just got out of Church, I supposed. The family had a crying baby at the table with them. As they tried to sit and enjoy their meal, the babe got louder and louder, and was soon all-out bawling. No one at their table could soothe the child, no matter what they did. And they were beginning to get frustrated and lose their cool. The screaming babe was disrupting the entire dining room and everyone was beginning to stare at them. Enough. I got up from my table and went over to them and held out my hands to an obviously frustrated grandmother who was red in the face with embarrassment. She handed the baby to me and I held her close and started to whisper to her. She got a little quieter and started to calm down as I walked her around the dining room. Soon, other diners wanted to get a peek at the babe, so I bent down to them and gave them a peek as the child calmed down. They smiled and cooed at the little one. Soon, an old woman stood up in my way and held out her arms and took the babe and played and smiled at her for a minute, then handed her back to me. Then a little girl came away from her table and I knelt down to the child and allowed her to carefully hold the baby and give her hugs and talk to her. Soon the baby was laughing, smiling, having a good time. By the time I got back around to the parent's table, the baby was quite content and I handed her back to mom, who thanked me and smiled and offered to buy my breakfast. "No, no, that won't be necessary. You folks enjoy your Sunday." I sat back down and finished my cold brunch. I was walking through Big C the other night, shopping in Nakhon Pathom. A woman was berating her son and daughter in an aisle in the store. The son continued crying and would not let go of an item he had in his hand and the mother responded by smacking the back of his hand so hard he screamed. You could hear the "whap!" from one end of the aisle to the other. Then she continued berating him on top of that, in a voice as loud as thunder. No one said a word or even batted an eye. This sort of thing is quite normal here, in fattening, deteriorating Thailand, the land of the narcissist supremes. Then the abuser continued walking up and down the aisles. shooting off her mouth, screaming at her brood. Again, no one batted an eye. Now, if you were to try and get involved in a scene like this, you would be promptly told to fuck off and mind your own goddamn business. It all depends on where you are, who you are. Context is everything. Sometimes just staying out of it and minding your own business is best. "Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and, besides, the pigs like it." George Bernard Shaw Things aren't getting better, people, and they aren't going to. Not yet anyway. Be careful out there. And be good to yourselves--and frustrated parents! We're all on our way to hell in a narcissistic handbasket! Happy Ntopic New Year! 2
MysterionMuffles Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 Sometimes your interference will only make things worse. When the child gets home, the child could end up getting a mouthful and perhaps a fistful of, "Did you see how you embarrassed me in front of that man in the store today? You acted up in front of everyone and made me have to grab you. Well, now, I'm really going to give you something to cry about..." Most of the time, when we try to do good, we only make things worse, like the State. There's nothing wrong with you wanting to get involved and make a difference, but I would certainly change my approach. Aside from getting involved with direct intervention, as in the case of obvious, outright, vicious abuse, e.g., punching, kicking, shaking, out-of-control screaming, etc. I will not tolerate the sight of anything like that from anyone. I will confront you directly, even physically, if necessary. I will call you out so loud it wakes up the whole neighborhood and has everyone's attention whether or not they like it. That I will not stand for. I know, it's a difficult thing for the self-righteous among us to think in this manner, but it works... show compassion not only for the child, but also the strugggling, frustrated parent. Your walking up and berating, guilting, and shaming her sure didn't help matters any, obviously. She's abusing the child, now you're abusing her. You just piled abuse on top of more abuse. Next thing you know, there's an argument, and possibly a fight. Someone convinced against their will is of the same opinion still. The child will only get caught up in the middle of it, and end up more abused, more terrified. Instead of approaching in the self-righteous manner, approach with a big smile and a cheerful attitude, "Uh! Oh! What's the matter here?" Smile at the child, wink, and assure him with your body language that everything is all right and that this is all just a big misunderstanding we are going to fix up in a jiffy. Mom will take the hint and join in as though nothing is happening. She does not want to be more embarrassed than she is already. "Is there something I can help you with, Ma'am, is there something I can get for you? Listen, we've got a big box of really good donuts in the break room, would you and mom like a nice, fresh donut? How'd that be?" Again, smile, let everyone know everything is OK. Change the subject, change the scene to something more and more positive and alluring. A few years back, eating in a restaurant, brunching with some friends, there was a family sitting a couple of tables away. It was a Sunday, everyone nicely dressed, just got out of Church, I supposed. The family had a crying baby at the table with them. As they tried to sit and enjoy their meal, the babe got louder and louder, and was soon all-out bawling. No one at their table could soothe the child, no matter what they did. And they were beginning to get frustrated and lose their cool. The screaming babe was disrupting the entire dining room and everyone was beginning to stare at them. Enough. I got up from my table and went over to them and held out my hands to an obviously frustrated grandmother who was red in the face with embarrassment. She handed the baby to me and I held her close and started to whisper to her. She got a little quieter and started to calm down as I walked her around the dining room. Soon, other diners wanted to get a peek at the babe, so I bent down to them and gave them a peek as the child calmed down. They smiled and cooed at the little one. Soon, an old woman stood up in my way and held out her arms and took the babe and played and smiled at her for a minute, then handed her back to me. Then a little girl came away from her table and I knelt down to the child and allowed her to carefully hold the baby and give her hugs and talk to her. Soon the baby was laughing, smiling, having a good time. By the time I got back around to the parent's table, the baby was quite content and I handed her back to mom, who thanked me and smiled and offered to buy my breakfast. "No, no, that won't be necessary. You folks enjoy your Sunday." I sat back down and finished my cold brunch. I was walking through Big C the other night, shopping in Nakhon Pathom. A woman was berating her son and daughter in an aisle in the store. The son continued crying and would not let go of an item he had in his hand and the mother responded by smacking the back of his hand so hard he screamed. You could hear the "whap!" from one end of the aisle to the other. Then she continued berating him on top of that, in a voice as loud as thunder. No one said a word or even batted an eye. This sort of thing is quite normal here, in fattening, deteriorating Thailand, the land of the narcissist supremes. Then the abuser continued walking up and down the aisles. shooting off her mouth, screaming at her brood. Again, no one batted an eye. Now, if you were to try and get involved in a scene like this, you would be promptly told to fuck off and mind your own goddamn business. It all depends on where you are, who you are. Context is everything. Sometimes just staying out of it and minding your own business is best. "Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and, besides, the pigs like it." George Bernard Shaw Things aren't getting better, people, and they aren't going to. Not yet anyway. Be careful out there. And be good to yourselves--and frustrated parents! We're all on our way to hell in a narcissistic handbasket! Happy Ntopic New Year! Wouldn't approaching the instance with a giant smile on your face be a way of minimizing the situation for everybody? Sorry I don't quite follow. And your story didn't seem to be in line with what you explained. I might be missing something, but I don't follow your logic.
MysterionMuffles Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 How did you get the grandmother to hand the baby over to you? Seems odd and unlikely for them to hand them to a stranger.
MysterionMuffles Posted July 17, 2016 Author Posted July 17, 2016 I don't think you get it, RJ. I've recently become a member of the RooshVForum, and am trying to formulate a series of uniquely helpful articles for the Return Of Kings website. Roosh, if you don't know, is famous for sleeping with hundreds of women from multiple countries, and he has written many travel / pick up artist books. If you asked the RooshVForum whether it's better to be "natural" or "contrived", you'd get three responses: (1) Your warning level would increase by at least 25% because that topic has been beaten to death and you should've used the search function. (2) Most of the men would insult you through memes. (3) Some of the kinder men would warn that you'll never get better at hitting on, and sleeping with, women if you let that meaningless question interfere with your self-improvement. Again, that's the reaction you'd get from men who are trying to get better at sleeping with women. Sleeping with women is far less important than preventing child abuse, but their devotion to learning is unassailable. ----------------------- Meanwhile, in this thread about preventing child abuse, I got one downvote for pointing out the inconsistency between noticing predictable behaviors in abusive parents and refusing to practice your behaviors hundreds of times beforehand. (Seriously, WTF?) I also got three downvotes for asking Nathan Diehl whether he has tried a specific technique, and how often it works as he described. (Again, WTF?) And I also got three downvotes for advocating a very aggressive body language and voice tone when delivering a specific message. (No explanation, mind you, of what is wrong with my idea. Just downvoted.) Do I need to remind you all that we're discussing preventing child abuse, a topic so fucking important that we are morally obliged to either: (A) Learn how to do it right, or (B) Not do it at all, for fear of our inexpert meddling making this worse for children? So, in that spirit, who downvoted me, and why? ------------------------------- One: You don't know whether it's a great idea, because Nathan Diehl hasn't explained how often he has tried this, and how often it has succeeded. If he's speculating, but hasn't tried it, then everyone deserves to know this. Two: You don't know whether a smile, as he described, will disarm or piss off an abusive parent. Either reactions are possible. Three: If you write out every possible parental response and practice your replies a hundred times before you intervene, then it won't matter whether your smile disarms or angers. You'll be prepared either way. Four: You don't have to intervene! If you don't know how, don't! If you wrongfully think you know how, you'll make it worse for the child. Lastly, the fact that you downvoted me provides clear evidence that YOU'RE NOT READY. Downvoting me for brining up a valid point strongly suggests that you're putting your own emotional needs before those of abused children. So get your emotional health intact FIRST, and THEN try preventing child abuse. Jeez, I agreed and thanked the guy and still picked a fight. Good riddance... Forgot how much he used to derail almost every thread here.
Recommended Posts