Easy. He didn't decimate my philosophy at all.

You mean you didn't read and contemplate on it.

When you first came here I thought you were sincere with your questions, I'm sorry to have misjudged you.

Raleigh wrote:
The catchy phrase "If it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger" is catchy because it's memorable, and straight to the point. At the expense of being catchy, it is true in less than 100% of cases. Why haven't I mentioned this before? Because it doesn't matter, and the reason why it doesn't matter is because the message within the phrase is a very positive and worthwhile message, and therefore worthy of being focussed on. I would rather focus on the message of the phrase than some technical nitpicky detail which detracts from the point being made. I really don't care that it's not always the case because there is some very good advice contained within that phrase. So, in an everyday, common sense way, if it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger. And a stitch in time might save 10 rather than 9, but the point being made is far more important than the details.

Has anyone mentioned yet that the original quote was from Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols, or that the quote is actually “'Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich starker.'
'What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.'“ or that the same year that Idols was published he had a mental breakdown that he did not recover from? Apparently Nietzsche was eventually destroyed by those things that, in an everyday, common sense way, should have made him stronger.

(my bold above)

Anyway, as someone else has pointed out this started with parents’ rights to treat their children as they wish, and Raleigh has taken it far a field in a manner that I am sure Duane Gish would be proud of. Making statements left and right without supporting them or answering questions posed.

I don’t think that parents have rights regarding their children, what they have are certain privileges, but most of all parents have responsibilities.

In my opinion some of these responsibilities are:

Teaching trust and respect rather than fear, and reason rather than blind or compulsory acceptance.

“Spare the rod and spoil the child,” is another one of those old common wisdoms that Raleigh probably agrees with, but is it true? I don’t think so. If the only means a person has to control their child’s behavior is beating it then that person has failed as a parent.

No matter what Raleigh says, being beaten as a child or spanked as a toddler is not a rational means of character building.

The human brain and therefore the mind is not fully mature until the early-to-mid-twenties. It/they are still forming important connections up until then that will probably last until death. Children and young adults are learning with every experience, but the most important years are the early years. The years where personality is shaped
(only partly to be accurate, but importantly) by environment. And the most important and prevalent part of this environment is parents or whoever is taking the major parenting role.

Hitting children and shouting at children hardly seems a rational way for teaching them anything other than that violence and anger are valid ways to solve problems and settle issues.

I just can’t figure out how anyone could think that inflicting pain, physical or emotional, is a way to teach children right from wrong. Or how it could in any way build character.

Oh, but now lets get into the creepy area where Raleigh thinks that sexual abuse can be character building. Not one testimonial offered of anyone volunteering that they saw their sexual abuse as beneficial. Why not? This is not one of those common sense things that you would be aware of if you took the time to look. So Raleigh should back this up with something.

Here are a couple of things to consider:

Males that inflict sexual abuse on younger males usually were sexually abused themselves.

Women that have been sexually abused whether as children or adults often/commonly loose trust where sex is concerned and can no longer enjoy sex, even though they want to be in loving committed relationships. Their lives are fucked up because a valuable part of having the kind of relationship they want is not available to them.

A bit off from the above but still relevant: If a boy child grows up witnessing his father physically abusing his mother he is far more likely to physically abuse his wife than if he hadn’t witnessed the abuse. And it does not matter whether his father was a sober “Good Christian” or a raging alcoholic.

Raleigh may like the sentiments expressed in the feel good platitude corrupted from Nietzsche’s original quote, but it is factually wrong. I think that Raleigh is mistaking a will or drive to succeed in some people that have accomplished extraordinary things despite their handicaps or the adversity with people in the general population that don’t register on this scale or have anything really to do with it.

The examples are the exceptions not the rule. This is why Helen Keller, Major Powell, and Steven Hawking are so inspiring. If this phenomena of getting stronger from what does not destroy us was real at all then it would be common place and not remarkable at all. But then again that is what Raleigh is saying, that it is common place, but he cannot, or at least has not supported this assertion.

Edited for spoonerism

expressed in the feel god platitude

Not sure if that was intentional or a spoonerism, but it is brilliant.

Well said Oldskeptic.

Sennekuyl...

I have an issue with anxiety. I've had it since Jan 1st 2001. I had a really bad panic attack and since then I've always been on edge, worrying that I'll have another one. I've had a few since then. About 6-8. I can only think of one which came anywhere near to being as bad as the very first one (the rest have been very minor). But when I was having it, a part of me was enjoying it. Why? because I could totally feel that it was an opportunity to deal with anxiety. It was almost exciting. I was out with some friends having drinks, and I felt like going home, I had an overwhelming desire to be in my comfort zone. I got on a bus, and then I did something that I knew I would do : I got right off it after a couple of stops, and I completely turned that night around. I went back to the pub, I behaved in an extremely outgoing way, I ended up chatting up a girl and getting her number (I never called her but never mind), and then I went home when I genuinely felt like it. Then I chatted up another girl on the bus. Then I realised that I was on the wrong bus, which normally would freak me out, but I got off, walked into the nearest pub, dominated every conversation (dominated in a nice way - I just started talking to complete strangers), then I went home. My motto for the night was "create a positive memory of tomight", which I achieved. None of that would have been possible without a positive outlook. And no, alcohol didn't play a part because I didn't particularly drink much.

So actually I do know a little of what I'm talking about. We have a choice : Negative outlook (often called being "realistic"), and positive outlook. A positive outlook influences your thoughts, behaviour, emotions, and outcomes, and responses from others. It influences what you allow yourself to feel and think, and what you filter out. It opens your eyes to what's good, rather than overfocussing on what you perceive as bad.

How does this relate to "if it don't kill ya, it makes you stronger"? Well, putting aside the fact that that's not literally true in all cases (which I've already acnowledged), it goes to show that problems can be seen as an oppotunity for growth. I love the fact that I have an issue with anxiety and panic because, as much as I hate it (the experience in itself), I know that the qualities and attributes that it takes to overcome it are things which stay with you, and then you can apply them to other things (hence it makes you stronger), and you can be a good example to others on how to deal with stuff. Sometimes you have to go through a problem to truly understand it on a deep level. And from that, you learn things. A problem gives you a choice, which is to either sink or swim. If you swim, you pick up a skill, and knowledge (become stronger, more resillient, less likely to fall apart if it happens again). Another very simple example is this : If you learn a martial art, and you spar with someone, they're not trying to beat you up (kill you), they're encouraging you to summon what it takes to deal with the situation (become stronger).

Oldskeptic wrote:
expressed in the feel god platitude

Sennekuyl wrote:
Not sure if that was intentional or a spoonerism, but it is brilliant.

Well said Oldskeptic.

Actually it was just a case of fast fingers, but I do admire and appreciate Spoonerisms, unfortunately I have to now go edit my spoonerism out of existence.

No, oldskeptic, I'm not saying that it's commonplace for someone to become stronger as a result of having gone through adversity. The reason why it's not is because too many people don't have the outlook that if it don't kill ya it makes you stronger. So yes, an awful lot of people don't become stronger. But they could, if they had the right outlook.

Stephen Hawkins is a good example of how stong you can be despite adversity. That in itself shows the potential of what can be achieved, and it actually proves the power of that outlook. If only the majority of people had it too, then you'd see many more Stephen Hawkinses, who instead of spening their lives as "victims", moved past their problem and achieved something.

You've proved my point. The fact that the proportion of people who overcome adversity via that outlook is low only demonstrates that not many people have it, and that it generally feels counterintuitive to most people because they're so used to buying into a victime mentality. No wonder not many people have that outlook, it doesn't come as any surprise.The outlook in itself works, but only for those who actually hold to it. If you spend your life believing that adversity = complete failure, that's what you'll get because that's how you'll act and that's what you'll always expect, and you'll filter out everything else. Your beliefs influence your thoughts and actions and therefore your outcomes.

Ah, I see. So it's the old 'it's true if you believe it' guff? Where have we heard that little peach before?

hackenslash wrote:Ah, I see. So it's the old 'it's true if you believe it' guff? Where have we heard that little peach before?

One of them is nicely demolished here

Raliegh Marsden wrote:Sennekuyl...

I have an issue with anxiety. I've had it since Jan 1st 2001. I had a really bad panic attack and since then I've always been on edge, worrying that I'll have another one. I've had a few since then. About 6-8. I can only think of one which came anywhere near to being as bad as the very first one (the rest have been very minor). But when I was having it, a part of me was enjoying it. Why? because I could totally feel that it was an opportunity to deal with anxiety. It was almost exciting. I was out with some friends having drinks, and I felt like going home, I had an overwhelming desire to be in my comfort zone. I got on a bus, and then I did something that I knew I would do : I got right off it after a couple of stops, and I completely turned that night around. I went back to the pub, I behaved in an extremely outgoing way, I ended up chatting up a girl and getting her number (I never called her but never mind), and then I went home when I genuinely felt like it. Then I chatted up another girl on the bus. Then I realised that I was on the wrong bus, which normally would freak me out, but I got off, walked into the nearest pub, dominated every conversation (dominated in a nice way - I just started talking to complete strangers), then I went home. My motto for the night was "create a positive memory of tomight", which I achieved. None of that would have been possible without a positive outlook. And no, alcohol didn't play a part because I didn't particularly drink much.

So actually I do know a little of what I'm talking about. We have a choice : Negative outlook (often called being "realistic"), and positive outlook. A positive outlook influences your thoughts, behaviour, emotions, and outcomes, and responses from others. It influences what you allow yourself to feel and think, and what you filter out. It opens your eyes to what's good, rather than overfocussing on what you perceive as bad.

How does this relate to "if it don't kill ya, it makes you stronger"? Well, putting aside the fact that that's not literally true in all cases (which I've already acnowledged), it goes to show that problems can be seen as an oppotunity for growth. I love the fact that I have an issue with anxiety and panic because, as much as I hate it (the experience in itself), I know that the qualities and attributes that it takes to overcome it are things which stay with you, and then you can apply them to other things (hence it makes you stronger), and you can be a good example to others on how to deal with stuff. Sometimes you have to go through a problem to truly understand it on a deep level. And from that, you learn things. A problem gives you a choice, which is to either sink or swim. If you swim, you pick up a skill, and knowledge (become stronger, more resillient, less likely to fall apart if it happens again).

While I agree with a lot of this (I used to suffer anxiety and still suffer depression), you know as well as I that that kind of positive thinking (i.e. cognitive behavioural therapy) takes a fair bit of training and discipline to accomplish. It's never simply a case of just having a positive outlook and everything will flow from that. There's far more to it than that. And anyway, once again, this is just a fairly valueless anecdote, and does nothing to counter the point by Old Skeptic above that people getting stronger through adversity is probably more a case of the exception rather than the rule.

So ... do or do not, there is no try. I've never accused you of not having problems you have to deal with. I wish I could say the reverse is true.

But that type of mental comfort is completely different to being an axiom by which you develop policies on which to base society.

rEvolutionist wrote:

Raliegh Marsden wrote:Well, kids are indocrinated all the time. Adults are in charge of kids, it's up to them to decide how the kid's going to live. When they're old enough they can do whatever they like. Look at schools, their entire function is to train them how to think, and what to believe is real. And tv, that also trains them. And their peers. And everything they see. You can't get away from it.

People these days love to play the "I'm offended" card. Here's what you should do whenever you feel offended by something : Live with it.

The problem with that is, that it impacts on my life. I honestly don't care what people do or think on their own time, but when it starts impacting on me, then I start to care.

If the fact that I can believe what I like is fair enough, then that's that, there you go, it's fair. You can't go around interfering in how others bring up their kids. It's the privilege of the parent to dictate what's what to the kid, and no one else's.

Up to a point it is. But we certainly interfere in cases of child abuse. Now teaching kids religion isn't anything like physically or sexually abusing a child, but it's my view that religion is one of the reasons, along with gross capitalism/consumerism, for the dysfunctional society we live in. When you look at it this way, and you realise that it all starts with the indoctrination of children, it's easy to be VERY uncomfortable with the practice.

This all started with the disagreement over how indoctrination affected children and society.

How do you go from meeting every challenge you come across with enthusiasm, to taking a hands off approach to education and society whether formal or informal? No one has disagreed with allowing children to struggle and learn for themselves in this thread to a degree. And you did kick it off when you implied people should just keep their noses out of everyone else's families.

Virtually everyone seems to disagree that you can write policies for societies to that platitude. It is a consequence of applying that to most situations, if not all, that you end up with abuse, because it goes from the positive enthusiasm to the negative more adversity is better.

How do we know when to apply that as a principle or policy, and what is the expected end result? When do we stand and say no? Will that just be seen as an adversity to overcome? Would it be better to head the 'stampede' off at the pass? Do we apply "What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger" or "A stitch in time saves nine"?

Raliegh Marsden wrote:No, oldskeptic, I'm not saying that it's commonplace for someone to become stronger as a result of having gone through adversity. The reason why it's not is because too many people don't have the outlook that if it don't kill ya it makes you stronger. So yes, an awful lot of people don't become stronger. But they could, if they had the right outlook.

Stephen Hawkins is a good example of how stong you can be despite adversity. That in itself shows the potential of what can be achieved, and it actually proves the power of that outlook. If only the majority of people had it too, then you'd see many more Stephen Hawkinses, who instead of spening their lives as "victims", moved past their problem and achieved something.

You've proved my point. The fact that the proportion of people who overcome adversity via that outlook is low only demonstrates that not many people have it, and that it generally feels counterintuitive to most people because they're so used to buying into a victime mentality. No wonder not many people have that outlook, it doesn't come as any surprise.The outlook in itself works, but only for those who actually hold to it. If you spend your life believing that adversity = complete failure, that's what you'll get because that's how you'll act and that's what you'll always expect, and you'll filter out everything else. Your beliefs influence your thoughts and actions and therefore your outcomes.

True, but how does this intersect with your belief that we should just butt out of other people's lives even if they are in trouble? If you are admitting that very few people have the mental fortitude to face and deal with adversity, then how is abandoning them a moral thing to do?

Dracena wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Ah, I see. So it's the old 'it's true if you believe it' guff? Where have we heard that little peach before?

One of them is nicely demolished here

Thanks for that. I'd missed that thread. Good stuff.

I have an issue with anxiety. I've had it since Jan 1st 2001. I had a really bad panic attack and since then I've always been on edge, worrying that I'll have another one. I've had a few since then. About 6-8. I can only think of one which came anywhere near to being as bad as the very first one (the rest have been very minor). But when I was having it, a part of me was enjoying it. Why? because I could totally feel that it was an opportunity to deal with anxiety. It was almost exciting. I was out with some friends having drinks, and I felt like going home, I had an overwhelming desire to be in my comfort zone. I got on a bus, and then I did something that I knew I would do : I got right off it after a couple of stops, and I completely turned that night around. I went back to the pub, I behaved in an extremely outgoing way, I ended up chatting up a girl and getting her number (I never called her but never mind), and then I went home when I genuinely felt like it. Then I chatted up another girl on the bus. Then I realised that I was on the wrong bus, which normally would freak me out, but I got off, walked into the nearest pub, dominated every conversation (dominated in a nice way - I just started talking to complete strangers), then I went home. My motto for the night was "create a positive memory of tomight", which I achieved. None of that would have been possible without a positive outlook. And no, alcohol didn't play a part because I didn't particularly drink much.

So actually I do know a little of what I'm talking about. We have a choice : Negative outlook (often called being "realistic"), and positive outlook. A positive outlook influences your thoughts, behaviour, emotions, and outcomes, and responses from others. It influences what you allow yourself to feel and think, and what you filter out. It opens your eyes to what's good, rather than overfocussing on what you perceive as bad.

How does this relate to "if it don't kill ya, it makes you stronger"? Well, putting aside the fact that that's not literally true in all cases (which I've already acnowledged), it goes to show that problems can be seen as an oppotunity for growth. I love the fact that I have an issue with anxiety and panic because, as much as I hate it (the experience in itself), I know that the qualities and attributes that it takes to overcome it are things which stay with you, and then you can apply them to other things (hence it makes you stronger), and you can be a good example to others on how to deal with stuff. Sometimes you have to go through a problem to truly understand it on a deep level. And from that, you learn things. A problem gives you a choice, which is to either sink or swim. If you swim, you pick up a skill, and knowledge (become stronger, more resillient, less likely to fall apart if it happens again). Another very simple example is this : If you learn a martial art, and you spar with someone, they're not trying to beat you up (kill you), they're encouraging you to summon what it takes to deal with the situation (become stronger).

What a complete crock of shit. You revel in your angst, so fucking what? Are you equating your Saturday night panic attack with real trauma? You are able to fix yourself with a couple of bus rides and accidentally ending up at pubs where you think that you dominated the conversation, good for you.

!	MODNOTE The report regarding this post has been dealt with and closed. Durro

rEv...

Yes, there's more to it than that, and yes, people who have that outlook are the exception and not the rule. What does that show? It shows that not many people have an outlook which happens to work. You should know this, you have depression, you should be aware of ths stuff. My sister has had depression for years and she's most definitely the rule, unfortunately. Arguing that it's the exception rather than the rule is like saying "eating healthily doesn't make you healthy and the reason is that not a lot of people eat healthily but some do and they're healthy". You see the problem there?


Sennekuyl...

When people go through very bad things, obviously that's terrible. But I'm not saying "yeah, go on, experience bad things, it's great". I'm talking after the fact, and during. I'm saying that anyone who finds themselves in a bad situation, whatever it might be, can benefit from that outlook, pick themselves up, and move on (closure). I'm not saying it's easy, or that it's not counterintuitive, but it's something to strive for. Indeed it's hard, hence the exception rather than the rule. No counsellor or therapist would ever say to someone who's been raped or whatever, who says that they've decided to bend over backwards to turn the whole thing around in their favour (become stronger), and to summon up everything it takes (realise their potential) to learn from the experience and take what's happened and reinvent themselves as the very best person they can be, "oh no, don't do that, come on be a victim for the rest of your life".


oldskeptic...

I don't revel in anything. Quite the opposite. Yo've missed the point in spectacular fashion.

Do we apply "What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger" or "A stitch in time saves nine"?

Oh and this isn't about how individual react, but how society functions.
No one has advocated telling people that they are victims and to do so for the rest of their lives. Strawman. I personally am against the idea I should have no interest in preventing adversity now that will adversely affect the society, and indirectly me, I'm going live for the rest of my life.

This is getting far from the OP. The problem is with the baseless. Why conjure up a feeling to base an assumption on?

My father-in-law is a Polish Jew who fled to Russia when the Second World War broke out, and spent the rest of the war hiding from tha Nazis. When he returned home he found his immediate family had all been killed.

I'm sure he will be pleased when I tell him that he's better off because of this experience.

Raliegh Marsden wrote:
Xrayzed...

It appears that you didn't actually read what I wrote, seeing as the answer to your question is contained within what I said, which you've quoted. Let me repeat it for you : Yes. Is that any clearer?

Then perhaps you could explain what you think your response added to my original point.

Raleigh wrote:
No, oldskeptic, I'm not saying that it's commonplace for someone to become stronger as a result of having gone through adversity.

Maybe you are not now, but you have said it. In fact you have portrayed it as the norm.

Raleigh wrote:
The reason why it's not is because too many people don't have the outlook that if it don't kill ya it makes you stronger.

Ya lost me there.

Raleigh wrote:
So yes, an awful lot of people don't become stronger. But they could, if they had the right outlook.

I’ll recommended your self-help program to all the abused three-year-olds that I come across.

Raleigh wrote:
Stephen Hawkins is a good example of how stong you can be despite adversity. That in itself shows the potential of what can be achieved, and it actually proves the power of that outlook.

You are only proving my point by using someone that I brought up. And by the way it is not Hawkins it is Hawking.