Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:...

But then, I think that fits the Divine purpose admirably. His intention, as far as I understand it, is relationship. And that can only be had by free agents. You're free to choose to investigate, and free to choose to walk away...it looks like everything is as it should be.

And yet IC's 'God' is omniscient and for 'it' to be that means it knows what your choice is and if 'it' can do this then it must already be determined that you will do it. Now in his system the only thing that could determine this is his 'God' 'itself' so basically you have no choice in any meaningful sense of the word and to top it off 'its' going to punish you for doing what 'its' already determined you to do. What a laugh! Barring all this then this 'God' is not omnisicient and if not then not omnipotent so hardly the 'God' IC wants at all. Positively fallible in fact.

Immanuel Can wrote:

I don't feel the burden to read anybody else's mind. And I wonder that you think I should simply magically anticipate your wishes.

It's not magic to interpret what someone implies. It's intelligent. You veil your own , IC's own, intelligence by evasions. You annoy me; Christianity has a lot going for it as religions go, and your version of Christianity is backward-looking, age-of-faith, medieval. You and your Miracles !

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2017 5:42 pm I would suggest you should ask for what you want.

Be careful what you ask for, you might get it. I told my wife that I would answer her questions, but she needed to be sure that she wanted to know the answer. At the time this song was popular and I took it to heart.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=10JtEdqTCBA

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 12:24 am

Immanuel Can wrote:...

But then, I think that fits the Divine purpose admirably. His intention, as far as I understand it, is relationship. And that can only be had by free agents. You're free to choose to investigate, and free to choose to walk away...it looks like everything is as it should be.

And yet IC's 'God' is omniscient and for 'it' to be that means it knows what your choice is and if 'it' can do this then it must already be determined that you will do it. Now in his system the only thing that could determine this is his 'God' 'itself' so basically you have no choice in any meaningful sense of the word and to top it off 'its' going to punish you for doing what 'its' already determined you to do. What a laugh! Barring all this then this 'God' is not omnisicient and if not then not omnipotent so hardly the 'God' IC wants at all. Positively fallible in fact.

You seem to be implying that for a decision to be free it must be decided on the spot, immediately. A decision can be made well in advance and still be freely made, and just because God knows what our decision will be, does not mean that it has been determined, it could still be freely made.

thedoc wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 2:20 pm At the time this song was popular and I took it to heart.

Well, that's good. At least it wasn't "You're So Vain."

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 9:43 am It's not magic to interpret what someone implies.

By email?

You think that's even reasonable to expect? You shouldn't. You're bound to end up disappointed. As I say, you'll get more of what you want if you ask for it. If you just "imply" it, it'll be hit-or-miss at most. And by email, or on a board like this, it'll be practically zero.

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2017 8:23 pm So what do you see as EVIDENCE that most people no-longer see including the most recent historical and archeological data? It appears that Jesus in particular and god in general has been eroded from the mental landscape precisely because people have "opened their eyes to what's around them".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2017 10:56 pmDid something happen that specifically revealed to you that the Resurrection didn't actually take place?

Resurrections were common all over the Ancient World. Nothing new or original here. St. Paul merely borrowed a bit being well-versed in Hellenistic philosophy and religions. Also what severely calls in question the entire life of Joshua (Jesus) from its beginning to its supposed resurrection finale is that there were no contemporary witnesses or writings confirming any of it. Everything about his life was post engineered by Paul and the Gospels in which historicity was of no concern since what they tried to accomplish was a new myth of hope and resurrection for its believers such as you and Thedoc. But in actuality, Jesus was a Jew who failed in his "Jewish" agenda which is why he doesn't transcend beyond a footnote in Jewish history.

In a way he was indeed resurrected...by another Jew, Saul, who out of purely Jewish Christ created a Catholic one. But no matter how successful or long-lasting the fraud, history will eventually defeat it which was already clear to someone as insightful as Nietzsche.

Nietzsche thought that something like that was true. That was the essence of the famous "Madman's Speech." He said we'd "killed" God, not by actually disproving anything, but simply by becoming too modern and urbane to feel the need of God. But he did nothing to actually "kill" God. He just wanted to assume Him away. (Good luck with that, Friedrich ).

Of course N did nothing to kill god. That goes without saying. He was merely sniffing the air and noticing a process of "divine decomposition" occurring within the Western psyche of a structure which existed for nearly 2 millenniums. No one killed god; that's the wrong expression. More accurate would be a slight amendment to MacArthur's famous quote that God never died, he just slowly faded away.

Well, I already listed some of the historical evidence earlier. It's pretty good. Did you read that bit?

I'm not certain I have. Instead of repeating it why not just direct me to it! That would be the shortest way!

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 9:10 pm
Resurrections were common all...doesn't transcend beyond a footnote in Jewish history.

You've not dealt with any of the historical evidence I listed earlier, but I'm not surprised. You're just recycling the old canards.

...history will eventually defeat it which was already clear to someone as insightful as Nietzsche.

Nietzsche never did anything with "history." He just manufactured "alternate versions" of how he thought things might have been. But even he did not think he'd actually proved anything, it would seem.

Of course N did nothing to kill god. That goes without saying.

It's surprising how often I have to say it to poorly-informed types who imagine that because he spoke so loud and long he must have had something behind it all. Good to know you're not among them.

Well, I already listed some of the historical evidence earlier. It's pretty good. Did you read that bit?

I'm not certain I have. Instead of repeating it why not just direct me to it! That would be the shortest way!

Here it is...

"...Yet the records show He did appear to His disciples, on several occasions and over a substantial period. During that time, he also appeared to five hundred others as well. (1 Col. 15:6) That's an extremely bold factual claim for the Apostle Paul to make at a time when the involved parties on both sides were still almost all around. He could have been instantly proved wrong. In fact, all of these 500 supportive witnesses were themselves alive and capable of contradicting the disciples' stories, if that's what they were.

Not only that, so could the Romans and the Jews of the day -- and they had a huge stake in doing so, if they could. The proof was easy: just produce the body of the crucified Christ, and the whole thing goes away instantly. They didn't, for some reason.

Moreover, many of Christ's disciples, as we know from independent accounts, actually preferred to be killed themselves than to deny the resurrection. That would be incomprehensible, if what they had been saying was known by them to be a lie. I don't know about you, but if I'm circulating something I know darn well to be a lie and somebody says, "Tell the truth, or I'll saw you in half, set you on fire, throw you to the lions or crucify you upside-down," then I'm spilling the beans right away!

Whatever else we can safely say, we can say that the early disciples fully believed in -- and in fact, died for -- the Resurrection of Christ. And nobody did the obvious, and simply disproved them.

So "seen" He most certainly was."

I don't see all political debates being subsumed under the free will or determinism debate. This can be easily demonstrated by merely finding two people who both believe in free will while having different political ideologies.

Part of the problem with the free will versus determinism debate is that neither term is well defined. Take "determinism." What does that mean? We know from modern behavioral biology that numerous behaviors are not determined by a person's genes. This should be fairly obvious, since genes code for proteins, not specific behaviors. Even neurotransmitters and hormones do not determine behavior. Moreover, genes can become active or inactive based upon the environment. At best, we can say that a person's genetic makeup gives them a specific probability of behaving a certain way in a certain environment. So, the "determinism" is multifactorial, and probabilistic, but, is that how people think of determinism in discussing determinism versus free will?

It is also not inconsistent to believe in causation and free will. This is because we do not yet know how consciousness arises, and for all we know, free will comes along for the ride as consciousness appears on the scene. You have not addressed emergence issues and merely assume that free will can be analyzed under reductionism.

Not everyone is committed to a belief in free will or determinism. Some people are undecided on this issue, people like me, which further undermines your claim that all political debates are confined by this issue. Where do you then place those of us who admit we do not have an answer to this question regarding determinism?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 2:49 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 9:43 am It's not magic to interpret what someone implies.

By email?

You think that's even reasonable to expect? You shouldn't. You're bound to end up disappointed. As I say, you'll get more of what you want if you ask for it. If you just "imply" it, it'll be hit-or-miss at most. And by email, or on a board like this, it'll be practically zero.

You are right however the content of your post is an evasion of more important matters than my occasional lapse from explicitness.

I accuse you of backward-looking, age-of-faith, medieval version of Christianity , and I referred in particular to your support of miracles.


While one can excuse old, frail, persons for failing to advance in adapting their religious beliefs to present circumstances such as scientific scepticism , you yourself have a facility for language and a lot of religion-related knowledge so I don't feel that I should excuse your intransigence.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 7:28 amI accuse you of backward-looking, age-of-faith, medieval version of Christianity , and I referred in particular to your support of miracles.

Why would you "accuse" anybody of anything here? That seems rather entitled, doesn't it? Is this your personal court? Did Rick or somebody suddenly appoint you judge? And given that you have not even awaited any arguments or evidence, by what justification do you presume to pronounce sentence so summarily? How would you even know who or what I am?

There are three ways to go here. We could behave like normal people who barely know anything about each other, and just meet. In that case, I won't "accuse" you of anything, and you don't "accuse" me. All very civilized.

On the other hand, if you wish to "accuse," I could summarily refuse your kind offer, and point out that it's incredibly arrogant for you even to presume that anyone owes you to step into your personal court as the "accused."

But, on the other hand, I could respond to the accusation. And that's what I choose to do...not because I owe it to you by law or because of our profound and deep email relationship, but because I can.

But really...why would you "accuse" anyone? Especially someone you've never met and don't know from a son of Adam. That's a little much, don't you think?

While one can excuse old, frail, persons for failing to advance in adapting their religious beliefs to present circumstances such as scientific scepticism , you yourself have a facility for language and a lot of religion-related knowledge so I don't feel that I should excuse your intransigence.

Well, let's get started.

You regard belief in miracles as "medieval," you say? Interesting. I would have thought that since the miracles are purported to have taken place 2,000 or more years ago, you would have chosen a more appropriate time period. And, you say, the "age of faith" is past? Perhaps for you it is...I can't say, but I can take your word for it. Your testimony is accepted.

But you've got the whole court procedure backwards. In court, the prosecution makes its case first, and until it does, the defence bears no responsibility at all; for no one is obligated to answer an accusation that has not been made and substantiated already. Once the case for the prosecution is complete, the defence responds. That's how it always works. For how can the defence speak until it knows against what it is "defending"?

Well, here I am in the dock. You've stated your accusation. But now call your witnesses and evidence, and let's hear them. Then, according to court procedure, it's up to me to take them to cross-examination. If their testimony stands, then we go forward. If not, there's no case, and the accused walks free.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm

ken wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 2:56 pm A few things here;

1. I would much prefer you talk about what you think and what you would do instead of trying to guess and assume what I might think or what I might do. If you continue to do the latter, then you will inevitably sometimes end up being completely and totally completely wrong.

Wow. That's a lot of agitation. I seem to have hit on some nerve of which I was unaware. I suspect the cause is my use of the editorial pronoun "you," rather than "one," which always has the danger of seeming to single out a particular person for accusation.

There was no agitation. You are right in that you are unaware. You did not "hit on some nerve". So, it was not the use of "you" rather than "one". What I asked you not to do was to try to speak from My point of view, and to speak from your point of view only, which truthfully is all you can legitimately speak from. Surely that was not that hard to understand. Trying to second guess, presume and/or assume things only deflects away from the real issues.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pmThat was not my thought. But if I've offended you on that count, I apologize. The fault was mine. I did not intend to convey any accusation. I simply thought the principle rather obvious; that parents who let their children run riot are demonstrating a lack of "proper direction and care," to use your terms. And it seems to me that that is pretty much definitional in the terms "proper" and "care."

You did not offend Me and you never could. What you simply think now is not what you expressed earlier. You changed what you wrote. So what you simply thought rather obvious now, you certainly did not think earlier. That is until I expressed My views.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pmBut if you suppose otherwise, it's not a point important enough to warrant further consternation. I yield the wording to you.

If you are feeling anxious or dismay, then it would be better if you question why you feel this way. Maybe it is the self-contradictions you expose continuously that could be the reason for your uncertainty feelings.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm

Children are not born to do wrong and bad things. Children learn to do wrong things by following adults, especially their parents.

Now, this point I would think worth debating.

There is nothing worth debating. 'Debating', 'arguing', or 'fighting' for one side only, of two points of view, is only for those with beliefs and only creates conflict, resentment, and dissatisfaction. I much prefer intercourse. Coming together, in peaceful and truly open and honest discussions, brings with it all points of view, from which unity, contentment, and satisfaction is reached and the reward.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pmI think that thinking that children are born innocent is the luxury of those who spend little time on the playground.

Are you thinking only those children who did not go to school, that is those ones that were sick, home schooled, to poor, et cetera only think that children are born innocent? Because it is those ones who were the ones who spend little time on the playground.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm A schoolyard is a place of raw power, in which the boys with size and strength dominate the smaller and weaker, and the girls gifted with the power of beauty tyrannize the less gifted.

Does your own observations apply to every human child that has ever lived and also ever will live? For example does every boy with size and strength dominate the smaller and weaker ones? If so, then how do you differentiate size and strength? What formula do you use to measure 'size' and measure 'strength'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm Unless they all have truly horrid parents who train them in vicious and self-serving behaviour, I think they have their own innate resources on which to draw for much of that.

Again I think your judge-mentality has affected your ability to see things clearly and accurately. How can you legitimately judge who are truly horrid parents or not. What are you able to base your judgments on?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pmI don't recall when my parents taught my young brothers and I to hit one another.

Well you do not have very much insight of yourself then have you. If you like some help to see how and why you are exactly the way you are, then just ask.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm They did no such thing to any of us, nor to each other, nor to anyone else. But we became skilled at it very quickly.

So what caused you and your brothers to hit each other then? Seems a rather ridiculous thing to do. Do you still do it? If not, then why not? If you do, then why do you?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm

I simply ask, 'Does that God, which you believe in, interfere with human beings or does It let human beings do as they please. Only you can answer that question, It is after all your God, so you must already know the appropriate answer.

Then I answer, "interfere"? No. For "interfere" is a pejorative term, and already slants the question in the wrong direction.

Not necessarily so. Please do you try to put your perspective of a word and its meaning into a truly open-ended question. I certainly do not use the word 'interfere' in any way in particular other than to mean Does that God you believe in interfere, or intervene if you like, in any way whatsoever or does that God let human beings do as they please, completely?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm

I do not see any ambiguity in the question so I can not see any difficulty in interpreting it.

Then I suppose my answer is also unambiguous. No.

If you still answer "No" to my more clarified and stipulated question, then I do not see any ambiguity to your answer.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm

Yet you think you are the one who can judge other and if they are "horrible or bad parents" or not.

No, I do not presume to judge by remote. But some things are definitional. A person isn't a "parent" if they have no children, for example.

Your attempts at deflecting away from the issue put forward to you may work on others but not on Me. You obviously are not judging a "parent" if they have a children or not. Obviously what I am referring to in relation to My judging comments is the "horrible" and "bad" words in relation to the parent word.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm For by definition, a "parent" is a relational term pertaining to children, just as are "father," "mother," "brother" and "sister." And this much I will venture: that an indifferent parent (that is, one who neither "cares" nor provides "guidance," to borrow your terms) is a bad parent. That may not be quite definitional, but it's as close as one can come with a value judgment, perhaps.

If you can show Me a parent who has never at some point been indifferent, then I would be very interested in meeting them. But for every other, totally understandable, parent who has at times been an indifferent parent, then I would never be so judgmental as to ever name them as being a bad parent, like you seem to think you are able to do. That applies to every parent also, because I know how and why all parents are the way they are. Something you would be wise to gain an understanding of before you make judgement calls.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm

If 'we', human beings, are God's children, as some might say, then would that not make God 'our' parent/s?

Or do you say 'we' are not God's children?

Analogies are not one-to-one correspondence, as I said before. To call a person a "fox" does not mean he has a tail and red fur. Yet it still communicates an aspect of his character in a telling way.

Why do you continue to refer to God as a "he"? Where is the evidence of something as absurd as this?

If and when you call a person a "fox", then what do you actually mean? Why not just say what you actually mean? Why use an analogy. I never used an analogy. I just asked if we are God's children, then ....? Then I asked you to clarify for us here if you say we are God's children or not. I am still waiting for this (and many other) answers.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pmIn judging of analogies, one always has to say what aspect of the analogy is being emphasized. It's never the whole thing, or it's not an analogy at all; it's the thing-in-itself.

What are you saying here. I much prefer you just answer My questions. Either human beings are God's children or they are not. From your perspective what is the answer?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm

Did you forget it was I who was asking you the question.

Well, I didn't "forget:" one can't "forget" a person one has never met. So no slight was intended there.

AGAIN, you are trying to deflect away from the issue, unsatisfactorily I might add.

I just again asked you a question, which you again refuse to answer.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm

I have been waiting for to answer the question. If your answer is "both", then great. We are finally moving ahead.

Then I have answered, as you say.

Then great.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm

But anyhow we are back at How do propose God intervenes?

You said "interferes" above. That would change my answer. With which term did you wish to continue?

I do not care. Why do you not provide your two different definitions for the two different words, then we can progress.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm

What do you mean by divine action? Is that opposed, superimposed, and/or supernatural to natural actions?

A Supreme Being would most certainly be capable of intervening to interrupt the natural laws that He had set in place.

Why are you answering a previous answer now instead of answer the two questions I posed here?

Your response as so many unanswered questions within it. Now what do mean by "supreme", and by "supreme being"? And, how do you propose this alleged being exists?

How does can It intervene? How does It intervene, if It has already? How is It above or beyond natural laws? How and why would It be of male gender? How did It "set in place"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm Now, since He has set them in place as regularities, He would not do so all the time, it seems to me: for why bother with laws, if that's the case? But if He should so wish, there would be no reason why the One who had the power to create those laws should not have power to interrupt them too.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Just like you do not also, unless of course you can answer questions like, How does this male thing actually exist and how did this alleged male thing create the things you are alleging It has?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pmThe Deists would agree God has the power to interrupt physical regularities he's established, but would say that God does not do that. Some suppose that any miraculous intervention would imply bad workmanship on the part of the "Divine Watchmaker." I don't think that.

What you think does not really matter. What is actually true and real, is what really matters far more so.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm

When do the alleged periodic episodes of direct divine action happen? How did they happen? And, what was the actual actions that took place?

As I say above, I do believe miraculous intervention is possible.

Again you are just trying to deflect away from a direct question. People do NOT care what you believe. People want truth and evidence. By the way believing is the very thing that is stopping and preventing you from seeing, finding, and discovering the truth.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm And I would argue we have specific instances of the same, as recorded in the Bible, for example: preeminent among these would surely be the resurrection of the dead, and Christ in particular.

Are you trying your hardest to look stupid. Saying that just because a few, misinterpreted, words were written down then that is all the evidence you need to believe (in) things, is not the most intelligent thing to do is it? And to then say you would argue for that seem even more ridiculous to Me.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm

By the way if anyone had been following any thing I have written about free will AND determinism, then they would have noticed that, to Me, they both exist equally. I also question people why do they pick one side or the other, and why do think that it has to be either one or the other?

I can see the problem from a Determinist perspective.

I can also see the very problem from the you perspective. That is you can only see what you already believe is true. And believing that people can literally be labelled as determinists is very delusion. People are people. They can not successfully be labelled as or with any other word. What do you think makes a determinist a "determinist"?

If the only way a person can be given another label is by what that person believes in, or by the characteristics of the human body, then human beings giving each other, judgmental, labels should start to be seen and recognised for the absolute stupidity that it really is.

Try looking at and working out what a 'person' and a 'human being' IS, rather than trying to judge one another for something which you are not, then you will start see and understand what 'you' really are and who/what 'I' actually am.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pm That is, allow ANY free will, and you have something less than strict Determinism in place. Moreover, it then argues that physical laws and regularities are not the total story of the universe, and that seems to threaten causal attribution, and to some, even science itself.

Does it really. It might sound rather interesting but rather insignificant.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2017 4:25 pmAgain, I don't agree with their position. Periodic intervention does not threaten causality or science. It just implies that there will be events very occasionally for which material causality and human science will not be the adequate and total explanation. Under normal conditions, the material and causal regularities will still hold. When they definitely do not, and when we perceive that they do not, only then need we speak of the "miraculous."

Did you forget My original questions? When do the alleged periodic episodes of direct divine action happen? How did they happen? And, what was the actual actions that took place?

Did you know or even notice how you have completely refused to answer these question directly. You just try to explain away what you believe is true, but which you have no evidence for. Or maybe you do but you have not provided any yet. Did you notice if you just answered My questions, then you would be providing the evidence of what you believe. But because you do not answer My questions what do you think others might conclude?

ken wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 2:48 pm Did you notice if you just answered My questions, then you would be providing the evidence of what you believe. But because you do not answer My questions what do you think others might conclude?

They may conclude as their wits allow them. Some may think a man is shown wiser by the multitude of his words. Some may think pejoratives are a display of insight. People think all kinds of things. The discerning ones may conclude your messages are rather long, and that they appear to take issue with everything. They may wonder if I will respond at that length myself, and ponder whether or not they want to read that much text. And I suspect they'll decide not to. Beyond that, I cannot say.

What I can say is that I can't detect the "question(s)" that really matter to you, and I seem to be answering some that aren't your central concern. We should fix that.

I'm detecting anger and hostility...which I don't feel in return, but there it is. However, I confess I'm at some difficulty in finding a reasonable cause for that, or any particular focus for your "questions." They seem more to me like shotgun complaints against everything I write...I can't find the place where you want to start. Thus the "tree" you want me to locate is hidden in a "forest" of unrelated things. But if you've got a particular issue you want to address, I'm all go.

I think I'll let you set that. Give me your first question, and I'll deal with it. Once that's done, we can go on to the second, and so forth, to your satisfaction.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 3:14 pm

ken wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 2:48 pm Did you notice if you just answered My questions, then you would be providing the evidence of what you believe. But because you do not answer My questions what do you think others might conclude?

They may conclude as their wits allow them. Some may think a man is shown wiser by the multitude of his words. Some may think pejoratives are a display of insight. People think all kinds of things. The discerning ones may conclude your messages are rather long, and that they appear to take issue with everything. They may wonder if I will respond at that length myself, and ponder whether or not they want to read that much text. And I suspect they'll decide not to. Beyond that, I cannot say.

What I can say is that I can't detect the "question(s)" that really matter to you, and I seem to be answering some that aren't your central concern. We should fix that.

I'm detecting anger and hostility...which I don't feel in return, but there it is. However, I confess I'm at some difficulty in finding a reasonable cause for that, or any particular focus for your "questions." They seem more to me like shotgun complaints against everything I write...I can't find the place where you want to start. Thus the "tree" you want me to locate is hidden in a "forest" of unrelated things. But if you've got a particular issue you want to address, I'm all go.

I think I'll let you set that. Give me your first question, and I'll deal with it. Once that's done, we can go on to the second, and so forth, to your satisfaction.

A rather long another evasive response. But let us start again, with my first question, which you have continuously evaded. You wrote;
"Let your children do as they please, and you'll be a horrible parent."

In ALL cases of letting their children do as they please are those parents horrible?

ken wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2017 3:34 pm You wrote;
"Let your children do as they please, and you'll be a horrible parent."

In ALL cases of letting their children do as they please are those parents horrible?

No, of course not. (Why would you even assume I meant that?) Only in those cases wherein the child wants something that he or she does not realize is foolish, dangerous or self-destructive.

But those happen often enough, when one is young. A child may chase a ball into the roadway, or take a tricycle there. A child may prefer to eat ice cream exclusively, to the point of illness. A child may click on every link that catches the eye on the net, or to swallow a candy-coloured pill or drink orange floor cleaner. A child may decide that sharing toys isn't fun, so she should not have to do it, or that hitting others is desirable.

Parents who take no thought for these things, or blithely assume if a child puts his or her hand on the stove it's just "his own fault" are horrible parents.

I doubt you would disagree with that, if you're a reasonable person: so why the ire? I'm at a loss to know.