Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

thenelli01

Regulars
  • Content Count

    729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by thenelli01

  1. Thanks for all the thoughtful responses and new insights. I appreciate them all as they gave me a strong conviction that it was necessary and important to do now, not *sometime* in the future. I took them out for dinner last night and told them. My mom started crying lol, which is actually I think part of what I was dreading (this is what I meant by dramatic, but it was kind of funny and endearing at the same time). I fought through all the discomfort and kept a clear head on the objective - I allowed them to say what they wanted without objection and thanked them for always supporting me and loving me. I feel pretty good as now I feel I can finally have a more authentic relationship with myself and the rest of the world. I think not telling my parents is what sort of kept me from really reaching my potential as I was always hesitant to be open about myself as it might get back to them. This was a weird psychological hurdle for me. Anyways, I feel more free and excited about what is to come. Thanks again. 😎
  2. No, I'm not worried about her disowning me. I already know she loves me, same with my dad. They also really liked my ex, he went on vacations with us, used to live at my house, etc. It was sort of obvious we were dating. I agree with most of what you wrote and I think you're right about her concerns. Thanks for the comment on the past, I agree. I hate holding people to their past as everyone deserves the chance to grow and change (and she has - and I think me telling her will help her and other people grow as I can be a role model to a certain extent). I think I just want to do it without having a dramatic talk or feeling like I'm "coming clean" if that makes sense. I was always against the idea of having to come out and I just want to do it in a way that is chill and subtle (i.e. according to my personality). I can do it with anyone else, but it feels weird having to do it with my parents. But not disclosing it to my parents, sort of limits how I can disclose it to other family members and makes me feel like I'm still not living up to my ideals: being my authentic true self. Any suggestions? Wait until it casually comes up in conversation? Or just have a "talk" with them?
  3. Hi, So I've really been bothered about something lately. I'm gay - It never bugged me in the sense that I didn't feel ashamed about being gay, I strive to live my life the way I want to. Growing up, my mom, dad and siblings (and the rest of my peers/society) used to say very disparaging things about gay people. How disgusting it was, how it was immoral, how they don't want to be around it, and use words like f*ggot and h*mo and queer. Every time I would respond how they are wrong, the response would be "what are you gay?" (as a way to try to intimidate me). I'm starting to realize that it had a major impact on my psychology growing up and even into adulthood - I went from a really outgoing, happy person to a closed off, more miserable person around high school because I was constantly in that environment. Imagine your family and peers constantly commenting how disgusting and immoral YOU are, simply because the nature of your being - I never bought it, but I felt resentful towards them and stopped opening up to people (to my own detriment). Now at 27, I was living in Los Angeles for a few years, was able to get away from my family and environment and although I entered an environment that was in some ways more toxic, I was able to see more clearly how irrational my family is and identify it better. I forgave my siblings and told them I was gay cause they wanted to know, but it wasn't in a "pushy" way so it was cool (if that makes sense). I blamed my parents more than anything because they were responsible for setting the tone at the top and my siblings, in my estimation, were as much influenced by them as I was. I just got out of a bad relationship and they knew the guy I was with (he was always around my fam). But my mom (especially) doesn't understand boundaries. She keeps pushing and asking me questions that I find too personal/outside the nature of our relationship about my sexuality and details around my relationship. I don't want to talk about my relationship to anyone in my family (for a few reasons) and I want to move on with my life, but she keeps pushing. I explained to her about boundaries, but she doesn't respect them. Last Friday, I was really stressed about my job and she started asking me about marriage (but that was her way of asking me if I'm gay - I knew from experience). I got annoyed and was correct because then she started claiming that I wasn't being honest. *This* is exactly what annoys me because I think she is conflating honesty with openness, as if I am dishonest because I don't feel like I want to disclose personal information about my life to her. It's this mindset and the way she talks about it that tells me that she really didn't change at all since I left. I really don't care if people know I'm gay. I'm just getting agitated because she keeps trying to control/force the issue rather than just letting me live my life and going with the flow. I am starting to feel agitated as I did when I was younger because I'm getting the whole feeling "what are you gay, stop lying" type vibe from her and she is constantly crossing boundaries. And now I'm starting to feel resentful towards them about the past because she is still acting in a similar way. In one sense I want to just say it so it's out there so I can be myself completely, but in the other sense I don't care to tell her and I don't want to appease her desires as she is, in my estimation, crossing boundaries. She is really set on finding out (or more accurately me telling her as she thinks she deserves to be told and she probably has expectations of what our relationship should look like in this context if she did a good job as a mom - in her mind). I'm not even focused on it or relationships at the moment as I am working on my career goals, but now it keeps coming up and I'm feeling a bit stressed about it. I live at home right now in the interim until I finish a few license tests I am taking so it's hard to get away from it. Any advice on how to handle this in a dignified way? I want to do so without: 1) violating my personality - I'm super chill, I don't want a big deal about it. The idea of coming out bugs me. 2) feeling like I'm appeasing her boundary crossing. 3) making her feel bad. She is still my mom and I respect and love her, but I still don't agree how she parented in that aspect. She was really cruel about it as it stemmed from religious morals. I don't know if it is even worth saying explicitly though, because I think it would hurt her, but that is probably why we don't have a relationship in which I tell her personal details about my life. Do you think it is worth stating explicitly? I'm thinking about just saying, "alright, what do you want to know" and allow her to ask questions (NOT around my relationship though). But I want to remember to answer the question instead of criticizing her having the audacity to ask the question (which is sometimes where my head goes). Or do you think I should just take space and time away from my parents and overtime they'll realize through my actions/subtilely in the future? I don't like living with resentment or the feeling of stress so I need to resolve this somehow and fast, but I don't like letting people control my life either - in the opposite sense, maybe I am letting her control my life by not just stating it. It's just that I want to do it my way and on my own terms. Feel free to point out where I'm looking at this wrong. I should have been more chill when she asked me about marriage, but I was already stressed and kind of fell into the trap. I can't control her actions if she wants to cross boundaries, so I need to respond to it better.
  4. edited - will respond later.
  5. I think UBI is worse than the welfare programs. It introduces a new moral principle/norm into government policy and expands the welfare state in a fundamental way. Welfare programs were introduced and still are accepted as temporary safety net programs to provide assistance when you are in need. Although that is not how it works in practice (with the bureaucracy and misuse), that is a fundamentally different principle than saying it is every American's right by virtue of living in a wealthy country. That you deserve a share of the profits of tech companies and deserve the money by right. It is a more expansive, inclusive addition to the temporary, constrained principle that the welfare state is based. I think it is very dangerous to concede that principle to any party and introduce it into government policy in hopes that it will lead to a better poison than the current welfare system. It might prove more efficient in the short term (though I'm not too sure that is the case), but long term it is detrimental to the cause of liberty.
  6. As for the OP - I haven't really been paying attention too much just yet, but I liked some of what Tulsi Gabbard said on foreign policy. I agree with your assessment on Pete Buttigieg also. Marianne Williamson was a bit funny to listen to haha. Not a fan of Yang, or the other candidates really, but I have to listen more when it gets closer.
  7. Actually, this isn't really accurate. Without going deep into detail, his argument is essentially that advances in AI technology will wipe out industries such as trucker, retail, accounting, etc. and it will happen so fast that there won't be enough time to retrain people. Therefore, ubi will be needed to help people pay for their basics (rent, food, etc.). He thinks that people are gonna end up on welfare anyways from this so he wants to give an option to people: stay on welfare programs or get $1k a month no questions asked. He thinks this will allow people to focus more on creative work, as well as eliminate some of the bureaucracy that comes with retraining and welfare programs. He also argued that the people own the tech and other major corporations so this is really just a dividend, not a tax. We deserve our share, according to him. I watched this a bit ago, but if I remember correctly, that was his argument.
  8. I also finished the book, as well as Nathaniel's book, this past weekend. I was surprised how cultish their circle was. There were a few parts where I had to laugh out loud as it seemed ridiculous, from Ayn writing papers on other's psychology to the account given that she was "clapping" in amusement and laughing when Nathaniel used eloquent phrasing when providing his perspective on others' "psycho-epistemology" (essentially clapping at others' misery). Nathaniel's book seemed pretty self serving and arrogant, but also reflective and interesting at times. All of them acted immorally and reality won out; I felt worse for Barbara and especially Frank. Ayn, from Barbara's account, seemed unfulfilled in her marriage, especially indicated by the fact that other young men before Nathaniel noted that there was that similar type of flirting going on. It seemed like she was seeking out an affair all along, but didn't want to let go of Frank. Nathaniel, though he was very young at the start and under the influence of Ayn, kept up lies and deception all the way to age 38. He was, essentially, using Ayn and not treating her as a human by lying to her and lying to everyone else. The whole thing was a major rationalization. Frank and Barbara's error was agreeing to it and staying with them, though I understand why they did. Poor Frank seemed to have a miserable life towards the end, and Ayn did as well. He had a lifetime of suppressed emotions and it was especially sad to read about his last years. It was interesting to read about Ayn's character - she seemed to have a lot of flaws, and virtues, I would not have been able to guess by listening to her interviews, etc. It was also interesting to read how Peikoff came to the forefront of Objectivism and how he became the "intellectual heir" that ARI makes him out to be (and by his own statement) - it was almost by default, everyone else in Ayn Rand's life left her. It would have been interesting to hear Ayn's take on the whole thing as I bet it would give a more complete picture, especially with her dealings on Nathaniel. I was really disgusted, enchanted, and saddened at different times reading the book. It was a rollercoaster of emotions - not because I was particularly invested, but all the triumph in her life as well as all the tragedy (including for the people around her) was sometimes hard to read.
  9. Somehow Elizabeth Warren nat ...”Ural hair color” shows up and "native american" doesn't.
  10. It's not true that thoughts do not have influence over matter, they can in certain contexts. The mind and body are an integrated whole: thoughts influence the body and vice versa. That is part of the nature of being a human - part of it's identity. The task of science is to study to explain how this occurs. A tree is a separate entity by which our consciousness (according to its identity) has no control over. Your ability to move it using your thoughts, for example, will not work, simply because reality is what it is. It's not within our ability to do so - it's one of the limitations of consciousness. Studying the former (how thoughts allow you to move your hand) will help you to understand how it doesn't apply to moving a tree. Existence is independent of consciousness means: A is A, Consciousness is consciousness - it has a certain nature that cannot be changed, a nature that is independent to our thoughts or wishes. If consciousness has the ability to affect the body, then that is part of its identity. If it does not have the ability to move a tree by its nature, then wishing that the tree moves is going to be futile.
  11. I don't think that is the relevant question if the issue is properly understood. The issue isn't about Maza or Crowder, the issue is about speech that violates or attacks a person's dignity qua speech.
  12. I don’t know if calling someone a “Lispy sprite” and a “little queer” is by itself bullying, but it certainly is cruel and has the potential to encourage the behavior to be continued, especially when done by someone of Crowder’s popularity. As someone who is gay, growing up I had to listen to my parents, brothers, classmates, society in general, insult, dismiss people for being gay - calling them f*ggots, queers, homos - people would say how disgusting it is and how sick those people make them. It probably had an enormous effect on my sense of worth as a person growing up and certainly led me to want to stay guarded and not open up about who I was because of it. Even the other week when I heard a relative say the word “f*ggot”, it made me cringe, except now I feel comfortable calling him out on it because I’m aware of my value as a person independent of other people’s opinion of me. However, children/teens, by their nature, are dependent on their parents and to some extent their environment to understand their inherent value as a person. Psychologically speaking, at this stage of development and less so as they get older, they need to rely on external stimuli to understand that they matter. If you have society telling you are disgusting, worthless and less than just because you are you, it can be very damaging to your sense of dignity. Many have committed suicide because of it, and it’s absolutely tragic. Any cruel speech directed at someone for an aspect of themselves that they cannot control doesn’t deserve a platform and giving it a platform has the ability to encourage the bullying behavior and damage people psychologically (those who see it or are victimized by other people who are encouraged by the content). In this respect, I would be okay with YouTube taking down any content of this type on moral grounds. It’s below the standard that should be set for public dialog. I don’t think they have to set the standard, but if that is the standard they want to set, I think that is appropriate. With that said, I agree it’s a slippery slope, not well defined and they open themselves up to having to navigate through ALL of the content to monitor for expression of that nature if they want to be consistent. It’s actually a fairly tricky topic, as I see both sides. Sorry for any typos - on my phone.
  13. Not sure why you are quoting "hate speech" and "marginalized groups" - are you implying that calling someone a "lispy queer" is not hate speech and that gays aren't a marginalized group?
  14. I answered that in the preceding sentences: "I don't think there is a fundamental distinction (only a distinction in form) between the physical dependence via the womb and physical dependence via mother's care for a newborn. Therefore, I think your red line of obtaining rights when it gains "independence" is arbitrary. A baby's nature a week before birth and after birth didn't change significantly (I.e. in kind) and neither did it's dependence. Yes, it's separated by the mother's physical body, but it still depends on the mother's physical body to care for it's basic survival needs. It's the entity's nature that determines it's worthiness of rights, not the arbitrary distinction between womb and non-womb." Basically I was saying that independence didn't change from womb to non-womb. But now I think I may have been using independence in two different senses: a metaphysical sense (i.e. literally still being connected to the mother) and ethical sense (i.e. it is still dependent on the mother physically but only in an ethical context). I was saying because the dependence was still there, the distinction between womb and non-womb is arbitrary (before I realized the mix up). But the real question is whether metaphysical independence (i.e. being a separate entity) is an essential characteristic of the nature of man and the context of rights (as I think you were alluding to/arguing). And then I see how that connects to the potential vs. actual.
  15. I wonder if the issue here is that I’m mixing up two senses of the word dependence... a metaphysical dependence (fetus dependent on mother for life) ... and ethical dependence (baby is morally dependent on the mother for life).
  16. Do you disagree with above? Just curious - I want to see if my thoughts are flawed in some way. I also think it’s important to remember that there is a difference between someone who makes a mistake/error in judgment and then corrects the issue vs. someone that consistently makes the same error over and over again. And I think your distinction between the period of time you know someone is important too... in the sense that I’d be willing to give someone more of the benefit of the doubt the longer I knew them and if their errors are antithetical to my judgement of their character over a long period of time. This would seem to be important in the amount of chances I’d be willing to give them before I’d consider it a lost hope (and obv depends on the seriousness/context of the situation). You still need to set up boundaries in every relationship you are in so you don’t end up in a situation that is against your interests. I'm interested in your opinion.
  17. Absolutely might have been too certain of a word... I think that might be influenced by my own recent experiences to be fair, but I wanted to say something because I saw someone was viewing the topic and I thought those books might help. You don’t think kissing another guy and then telling him what happened BUT leaving out that part constitutes a lie? It’s fine if she is confused, but it’s not fair to string him along and leave out *material* details that violate his understanding of the relationship and impact the decisions he makes moving forward. That is what Ben, and anyone else in a similar situation, should be worried about regarding a potential relationship with this person. There were other red flags too that other people brought up (again just based on the info given, we obviously don’t know the full context). One big one is the fact that the first post says she knew Ben for only 2 weeks, was kissing him on the second meetup and saying she wished she met him earlier. It’s a red flag that someone is willing to go behind their partner’s back, cheat on them, and then lie about it, especially for a person they only knew for two weeks. 2 weeks is not a long period of time to know someone. Someone that does that to a person they have a commitment to can easily do it to you just as quickly when someone new and more interesting pops up... and you have reason to think they just might. [Granted, maybe there were other things going on in the girl/other guy’s relationship that we don’t know about, but I’m just going by the facts given] The issue isn’t that pursuing a relationship with this person will necessarily result in a bad outcome stemming from these issues. It may or may not. But I think the risk is higher that the same result will happen to you and you need to protect yourself. From Ben’s standpoint, she didn’t do anything necessarily morally contemptible to him that I can see (at least at first). But I think the subsequent posts by other people in this thread were right - set boundaries. State what you are willing to accept and let the other persons actions dictate the course of the relationship. Of course, the boundaries need to be objective, fair and clear (they shouldn’t be unrealistic or unfair to the person in a sort of power move). If you’re really interested in the person and they prove themselves through their actions, might be worth a shot (obv depends on context and the person involved). But I’d be weary about continuing to pursue a relationship with this person. Trust is an essential part of any healthy relationship and it’s a tricky thing trying to rebuild it after it’s broken. Set boundaries and expectations in clear and concise terms .. and see if their actions correspond with their words. His main point was that change starts here and now (not some time in the future) and the responsibility is on the person with the character/behavioral issues to make the corrections, not you. Doesn’t mean you can’t help when someone asks for it, but they need to be the self starter of their own change. If they truly changed, it will show through consistent changed behavior. You can’t know their true thoughts/feelings, you can only judge a person by their behavior. He is religious, but he has a very rational approach towards psychology in my opinion. That’s a good question - I don’t remember if he distinguished between the two, but I don’t think he did, at least explicitly. But if I remember correctly, he did provide a bunch of anecdotal stories from his own practice in “Character Disturbance” that accounted for varying types of relationships. sorry for any typos, I’m on my phone.
  18. I should have read that other topic in the other section because I would have gotten some other insights before I bothered writing this. Let me review the other topic (which I skimmed and see issues pointed out by other people) and think about it some more. If I have anything to add I will.
  19. Sorry to revive an old topic, but since people reread these topics as such, I wanted to provide my point of view. Kevin was absolutely right about the situation given the facts and it wasn't a matter of "hindsight is 20/20" - I suggest reading these two books for anyone interested: "Character Disturbance" and "Wolf in Sheep Clothing" both by George Simon. It gives you a clue on how to judge and deal with people in an rational way from a psychology viewpoint (as judging their actions, which is a good indication of their character and predictor of future actions, instead of trying to psychologize).
  20. I don't think it's fair to classify my comments as "like a red herring." It's either fallacious or not, but a quick review of the sequence of the conversation would prove it isn't. Can't say the same for you though, as you have been using ad hominem attacks throughout this topic, which is partially why I haven't been so eager to respond. Hopefully it can be respectful and honest moving forward. Now regarding below and above: I'm positing below (and hopefully I am not redundant because admittedly I have not read through the other topic yet) A developed fetus has rights because of it's nature as a human being and its potential to develop into an independent, rational adult (similar to newborns). There is a point when the "thing" inside is clearly no longer just human cells, but has developed fully enough to surpass the realm of potential and now actually has the characteristics where it deserves classification as a human being. As such, it should be considered as what it is: a human being physically dependent on the mother for life. How to determine whether or not an entity is a human being is up for discussion but there have been a few suggestions in this thread that I think are worthy of debate. So when you say, "A fetus is physically dependent upon the mother's exercise of her rights. Therefore it has no right to its own life until it acts toward the removal of that dependency." I don't think there is a fundamental distinction (only a distinction in form) between the physical dependence via the womb and physical dependence via mother's care for a newborn. Therefore, I think your red line of obtaining rights when it gains "independence" is arbitrary. A baby's nature a week before birth and after birth didn't change significantly (I.e. in kind) and neither did it's dependence. Yes, it's separated by the mother's physical body, but it still depends on the mother's physical body to care for it's basic survival needs. It's the entity's nature that determines it's worthiness of rights, not the arbitrary distinction between womb and non-womb. (I'm open to arguments - but please just arguments - FYI I'm sure my arguments aren't new per se - this topic has been debated on this forum for ages in multiple threads - Once I have more time and will to read through them, I will do so.)
  21. I might have to refamiliarize myself with these fallacies, but I’m not sure how this is ad hominem? That question wasn’t making an argument, rather just clarifying his position. That was my original question to him in the previous post “Unless you think it’s morally permissible for a mother to have a child in an alley and abandon it there to die?” He replied and then in my next response I was just clarifying his position, and then I qualified why I think leaving it to die is the necessary conclusion of abandoning a child at birth. I’m interested on why you think that is ad hominem?
  22. So you are in favor of the right of mothers to have a baby in an alley and leave it to death? I say death, because that is what will happen most likely, without any assistance from third parties. What if the mother has a baby in the desert or in a rural mountain town in Colorado, where third parties aren't around? Can we leave a baby in the snow to fend for itself because it is a 'physically independent entity' that has a self responsibility to gain 'the values it requires to sustain its own life.' The baby is physically dependent on the mother because of its undeveloped nature, and the mother has a responsibility to the child (until adulthood or transfer of that duty) because she is the one who brought the child into the world. Despite what you say, babies would not be able to survive very long in this world without someone taking care of it (proof is meet any newborn and read the stories of babies that ARE left to fend for themselves - spoiler: the ending is usually tragic). The mother brought the baby into the world and, therefore, she has the responsibility to make sure its rights are protected. She cannot expect anyone else to take care of it.
  23. You could have asked what my standard is (which is fair and legitimate) instead of prefacing the question with the claim that I don't have a standard. You don't know me.
  24.  thenelli01

    Ocon 2019

    Anyone planning on going? I was considering going - would be my first time. I only have a few more years at the discounted price so if I’m gonna go, it would be a good time to. Did anyone go to one previously, and what was your opinion? Advantages/disadvantages? Worth it? it’d cost me about $1,500 with flights/hotels and a week of my vacation time, so I’m trying to see if it might be better just to live-stream (or wait until they hit YouTube) at a fraction of the cost and spend my vacation time doing something else. There are good topics listed that I am interested in. I could also just wait until next year and hope it is closer to New York City. any thoughts?
  25. FYI I just realized this topic is going on in the politics subsection with the same example about the lifeboat. I remember I quickly read that example of the lifeboat a while ago and then recently thought how it could apply to abortion without remembering that that was what the topic was about. Sorry, I haven’t been on this forum as much lately and when I do I just skim. Apologies on the duplicate. I’m gonna go through the old topic to make sure I’m not just repeating what was said and see if I can offer something new...
×
×
  • Create New...