Posts by Andrew Doyle

Joseph Bailey41 said:I actually knew someone just like that. In the end, he managed to pull himself together, get married, and eventually became one of those high-profile "conservative intellectuals" you see all over the news. As long as you're still breathing, there's always hope. 👍

Is this about that Markicke guy—"It’s Not Me, It’s My Right Hand"?

I personally knew a guy who went off to study theology, took a vow of celibacy, and then quite literally had a complete mental breakdown. They sent him to see these specialized "church counselors" to try and help him navigate the crisis, but eventually, he decided to walk away from the ministry entirely. He got married, has three kids now, and seems mentally sound... at least from what I saw the last time I ran into him in downtown Chicago... the man is smiling, enjoying life, and all that.

Then there was another one. This guy decided on celibacy only after he'd already left his mark in several different places. He opted for a total "spiritual overhaul"—whatever that means—diving into Hinduism, Buddhism, shamanism, LSD-ism, "Castanedism"... it kept him occupied for a while, but then he ended up having a few more kids. He still claims to be "enlightened" and happy, just without the whole celibacy thing.

James Ramirez55 said:When you find yourself stuck—those long stretches where motivation for any kind of progress just vanishes (even when you're young)—what actually gets you out of bed to chase those next wins?

If I had posted this ten days ago, my answer would have been nothing. Currently, the early sunrise makes getting up slightly less painful—though that’s a minor consolation at best.

The people who depend on me.🙂

I haven't seen a victory in ages, nor am I even looking for one.

...and regarding that "quantitative" argument, I’ve already told you why I don't buy it. You can't just crunch numbers when you're dealing with an entire spectrum of distinct emotions; they aren't things you can even begin to analyze from the same perspective.

Andrew Doyle said:You’re putting words in my mouth. I never even claimed that children should be sent to prison; I was simply steering the conversation back to the actual point at hand. The fact that a prison represents a specific type of punitive structure is an entirely separate debate and has absolutely nothing to do with our current topic. What we were discussing was an analogy regarding punishment. Your attempt to compare adult incarceration to a child being grounded as part of a disciplinary measure is completely absurd. It's like comparing apples to oranges—there is no comparison to be made here, especially when you look at the psychological implications. The two things are worlds apart.

Let’s get one thing straight: setting boundaries and implementing specific disciplinary methods isn't some coordinated assault on a child's self-esteem, their integrity, or their sense of self. That is a fundamentally flawed way to look at parenting. Instead, we need to view these actions through a much more pragmatic lens—they are simply responses to specific, undesirable situations that arise in real-time. We have to stop conflating guidance with cruelty. Every corrective measure taken should never be intended as psychological or physical punishment. In fact, "punishment" shouldn't even be the goal. If you think the purpose of discipline is to inflict suffering, then you aren't parenting; you're just being punitive. Real discipline is about managing behavior in the moment, not tearing down a child's spirit.

Look, we need to address the fundamental flaw in this line of reasoning. People love to point out shared components—for instance, humans and mice share an incredible amount of biological machinery, yet that doesn't make us the same species. It’s a false equivalence. The same logic applies here. A "bad feeling" can stem from a thousand different circumstances, but trying to pin it down using a single metric is a massive oversimplification. Nothing in this world operates in one dimension. Everything is part of a much more complex web of cause and effect. To suggest otherwise is pure hyperbole. You cannot compare the two things being discussed because the stakes are fundamentally different. In the end, putting someone behind bars will extract a completely different response from a human being than, say, grounding a sixteen-year-old on a Friday night. One is a lesson in accountability and understanding that actions have consequences; the other is a blunt instrument that misses the entire point of psychological impact. You simply cannot treat them as if they are even in the same universe.

feralranger As specified by feralranger: But I didn't input a single thing!

Do you remember that moment when you were insisting I claimed you actually wrote that children belong in jail? Look, your communication style is entirely your own business. You have every right to perceive it however you want and label it exactly how you see fit.

feralranger said:Furthermore, that was actually a very specific contribution to our discussion. It isn't just some vague analogy; stripping away someone's physical freedom of movement is precisely that—it is the deprivation of physical liberty. That element of punishment is, quite simply, physical. The psychological distress resulting from that loss of freedom constitutes the mental component of the penalty.

As I have already stated, every punishment is either physical, psychological, or a combination of both. There is no third option. And that is precisely why you haven't been able to propose a third category, have you? The fact that this doesn't align with your preconceived notions is entirely irrelevant. The facts remain as they are.

Sure, it’s absolutely your prerogative to label blatant imputation and projection as a "specific contribution."

feralranger said:Furthermore, that was actually a very specific contribution to our discussion. It isn't just some vague analogy; stripping away someone's physical freedom of movement is precisely that—it is the deprivation of physical liberty. That element of punishment is, quite simply, physical. The psychological distress resulting from that loss of freedom constitutes the mental component of the penalty.

As I have already stated, every punishment is either physical, psychological, or a combination of both. There is no third option. And that is precisely why you haven't been able to propose a third category, have you? The fact that this doesn't align with your preconceived notions is entirely irrelevant. The facts remain as they are.

Prison and punishing a child by grounding them for the weekend simply cannot be compared, no matter how many similarities you think you've found. I don't want to have to repeat myself:

Andrew Doyle said:You’re putting words in my mouth. I never even claimed that children should be sent to prison; I was simply steering the conversation back to the actual point at hand. The fact that a prison represents a specific type of punitive structure is an entirely separate debate and has absolutely nothing to do with our current topic. What we were discussing was an analogy regarding punishment. Your attempt to compare adult incarceration to a child being grounded as part of a disciplinary measure is completely absurd. It's like comparing apples to oranges—there is no comparison to be made here, especially when you look at the psychological implications. The two things are worlds apart.

Let’s get one thing straight: setting boundaries and implementing specific disciplinary methods isn't some coordinated assault on a child's self-esteem, their integrity, or their sense of self. That is a fundamentally flawed way to look at parenting. Instead, we need to view these actions through a much more pragmatic lens—they are simply responses to specific, undesirable situations that arise in real-time. We have to stop conflating guidance with cruelty. Every corrective measure taken should never be intended as psychological or physical punishment. In fact, "punishment" shouldn't even be the goal. If you think the purpose of discipline is to inflict suffering, then you aren't parenting; you're just being punitive. Real discipline is about managing behavior in the moment, not tearing down a child's spirit.

Andrew Doyle said:Bolded—what a "productive" contribution to the debate. 👍

Now, let's address what you were rambling about earlier. No, this isn't just a matter of being "quantitative," nor can it be reduced to such a narrow view. Regardless of whether you like it or not, these situations trigger an entire spectrum of emotional challenges. The mere reality of existential and life-threatening vulnerability is enough to completely dismantle your little analogy.

feralranger said:Furthermore, that was actually a very specific contribution to our discussion. It isn't just some vague analogy; stripping away someone's physical freedom of movement is precisely that—it is the deprivation of physical liberty. That element of punishment is, quite simply, physical. The psychological distress resulting from that loss of freedom constitutes the mental component of the penalty.

As I have already stated, every punishment is either physical, psychological, or a combination of both. There is no third option. And that is precisely why you haven't been able to propose a third category, have you? The fact that this doesn't align with your preconceived notions is entirely irrelevant. The facts remain as they are.

Honestly, up until this very second, I wasn't even aware anyone was actually looking for some mythical "third" category in this debate.

feralranger said:In essence, they are functionally identical. The only real distinction is quantitative. Being grounded, much like being incarcerated, represents a form of physical punishment because it is an undeniable fact that both methods restrict one's freedom of movement. Simultaneously, they serve as a form of psychological punishment due to the emotional weight they carry.

It is quite simply the reality of the situation, regardless of whether that aligns with your particular preconceptions or not.

Which is precisely why I find it rather tiresome when self-proclaimed experts, who rely on these types of psycho-physical punishments, act so indignant toward my friend because she gave her kid a quick smack on the backside... yet they see absolutely nothing wrong with the little boy who was raised strictly "by the book" by his mother—a professional psychologist—only to end up becoming a school-wide bully.

Bolded—what a "productive" contribution to the debate. 👍

Now, let's address what you were rambling about earlier. No, this isn't just a matter of being "quantitative," nor can it be reduced to such a narrow view. Regardless of whether you like it or not, these situations trigger an entire spectrum of emotional challenges. The mere reality of existential and life-threatening vulnerability is enough to completely dismantle your little analogy.

feralranger said:Nowhere in my previous post did I ever suggest that children are being sent to an institution explicitly labeled as a 'prison.' Let’s not wander into the realm of fabrication, shall we?

My argument was simply that the methods adults use—imposing confinement or restricting a child's movement (whether you call it house arrest or some other euphemism, the core concept remains identical)—function as forms of physical and psychological punishment. It is physical because it strips away the freedom of movement, and it is psychological because of the mental toll that loss of autonomy inevitably takes.

I was merely stating facts, not offering a philosophical dissertation on whether one type of punishment is superior to the other. Any form of discipline falls into the category of being either psychological, physical, or a combination of both. There isn't a third option to discover.

You’re putting words in my mouth. I never even claimed that children should be sent to prison; I was simply steering the conversation back to the actual point at hand. The fact that a prison represents a specific type of punitive structure is an entirely separate debate and has absolutely nothing to do with our current topic. What we were discussing was an analogy regarding punishment. Your attempt to compare adult incarceration to a child being grounded as part of a disciplinary measure is completely absurd. It's like comparing apples to oranges—there is no comparison to be made here, especially when you look at the psychological implications. The two things are worlds apart.

Let’s get one thing straight: setting boundaries and implementing specific disciplinary methods isn't some coordinated assault on a child's self-esteem, their integrity, or their sense of self. That is a fundamentally flawed way to look at parenting. Instead, we need to view these actions through a much more pragmatic lens—they are simply responses to specific, undesirable situations that arise in real-time. We have to stop conflating guidance with cruelty. Every corrective measure taken should never be intended as psychological or physical punishment. In fact, "punishment" shouldn't even be the goal. If you think the purpose of discipline is to inflict suffering, then you aren't parenting; you're just being punitive. Real discipline is about managing behavior in the moment, not tearing down a child's spirit.

Justin Richardson said:I know I don't really respect myself.
When I think about my anxiety, or this constant sense of being depressed, and I look back at all my relationships throughout my life—it's pretty obvious I never actually built up any self-respect (or self-confidence, obviously).
It’s always felt weird to me how other people seem to have at least a little more self-esteem than I do. How did they learn it, and why, honestly, haven't I developed it?

Do you guys think psychotherapy could actually make a difference here?
I guess it's probably a long road to get to something like that...

Absolutely.

As for everyone else... they're different people entirely—raised in different circumstances, different environments, surrounded by a completely different circle of people they learned from and observed. What I'm trying to say is, you aren't to blame for this. You are who you are, period. Focus on your own accomplishments and your strengths. As for that part where you're searching for and feeling like you deserve your place under the sun... yes, psychotherapy could definitely help there. It certainly helped me.

feralranger said:And yet, society insists on doing exactly that. A prison is essentially a form of physical punishment—via the restriction of bodily movement—coupled with psychological torment stemming from the loss of liberty. Even something as trivial as grounding a child is, in its own miniature way, a combination of both physical and mental discipline.

Point one: kids don't go to prison. We are talking about children here, not adults. Furthermore, you aren't even "grounding" a toddler; that's something that happens once they're older. You cannot simply lump all cognitive, emotional, and developmental stages together and then try to trivialize the situation by claiming a punishment is the same for a two-year-old as it is for a sixteen-year-old. Developmental phases are distinct and come with entirely different needs. Because those needs differ, the perception of any given situation differs accordingly. You can actually sit down and have a rational conversation with a sixteen-year-old about their actions, whereas with a two-year-old, that is physically impossible. Their understanding of cause and effect is fundamentally different.

With a small child, you just have to pull them away from danger immediately without making a whole production out of it. You don't sit down and debate a two or three-year-old about why they shouldn't run into a busy street in Chicago. With a sixteen-year-old, however, you actually have something to discuss, which allows you to implement specific consequences—like the weekend grounding example mentioned here.

Kenneth Barnes4 said:Then how was that guy in the video supposed to handle it?

No. You spank them. Then next time they find themselves in that spot, they won't think "oh no, I might die," they'll think "oh crap, my ass is gonna hurt." That's what they actually get.

Kids are my specialty. I've had enough time and material to study this stuff.

Dealing with kids is exactly like dealing with dogs. Fact.

They crowd the door, so you move them away. You tell them ten times, "get back, the door's gonna slam," and nothing happens. Zero results. But if you clench your fist and use an excited tone like, "WHAT DO I HAVE HERE? WHAT IS THIS?" they're all over you in a second. Why?

Because they aren't thinking about whether a door is gonna hit them or not; they're following their own impulses. As soon as you clench that fist and act excited, they react to the vibe. They think you're about to show them something cool. They're acting on selfish instincts. To them, it looks exciting, so they come over to see what the deal is.

Same goes for dogs. You yell at a dog not to run into the street? He doesn't give a damn. But the second you grab a treat bag and shout, "WHAT DO I HAVE HERE?" he's sitting right at your feet thinking he's getting a biscuit. That's the only language they understand, and that's how they act.

With adults who actually have the brainpower to analyze behavior, you use that to steer them—whether it's a kid or a dog—toward what's best for them. You play into how they function to get the result you want.

You guys are obsessed with what I said about violence because it's trendy nowadays to go after parents for giving a kid a dirty look, while ignoring actual neglect or other ways people screw over kids. It's easy to jump on "hitting is bad" because it's a simple headline.😠 🤣

Go ahead, tear me apart.

Doesn't mean I'm wrong.

God help us...🤦

Kenneth Barnes4 said:So everyone’s just going to ignore my points? It’s obvious words don't sink in with kids, and they aren't learning much from them. Sure, kids learn by example—that's a fact—but when a parent is trying to warn a kid about actual danger, it doesn't seem to be working the way I think it should. Look at history: parents used to use a belt to discipline their kids, and society was never more dysfunctional than it is today with that gone.

If there's actual understanding and respect for a kid's feelings and needs within the family, then getting a spanking once in a while to teach a lesson isn't a big deal to me.

Actions speak louder than words, but we’ve already established that. Words—and how they're interpreted—depend entirely on the child's age. The younger the kid, the fewer the words needed.

....so throughout all of history, parents punished their kids with a belt, and now society is supposedly more dysfunctional than ever because that's gone.

Today's generations didn't just drop out of Mars; they are a direct reflection of the generations that came before them. Just as previous generations were reflections of those preceding them, and so on. That "belt" did its job once upon a time and became woven into the very fabric of our families and lineage. It was precisely because of that "belt" (read: parenting style) that we ended up with so many "dysfunctional" (to use your term) relationships in society today. Many emotional wrecks have since become parents themselves, passing their "talents" down to their children. We even have an entire massive topic dedicated to "toxic parent" dynamics, where those same children come here to write essays while simultaneously trying to heal and survive in whatever way they can.

rocket86 said:Why the beatings?

Because of the old saying "spare the rod, spoil the child." That's the only reason.

Physical abuse teaches you nothing except how to be a victim: small, helpless, and utterly worthless. It molds you into someone defined by frustration and constant fear. Down the road, this carries directly into your relationships, where you either end up bending over backward to please everyone or you become the very person using force to get their way.

Any parent who thinks they need to resort to hitting a child just to make them "learn" something is fundamentally incompetent and weak. If they actually knew how to lead, they wouldn't have to rely on brute force, dominance, or intimidation just to be heard. And frankly, forgive my language, but screw any kind of "authority" built on terror.

electricbison6 said:Alright, here’s the backstory;
Until about six months ago, I was stuck with a total potato of a computer. Now, I finally upgraded to a high-end laptop, and honestly? It’s actually kind of boring... yet I still find myself wasting entire days glued to it..
I know I have a real issue with my screen time. Between the PC and my phone, I can't even focus on reading a book anymore... I started working out, though, and I’ve been hitting the gym hard every single weekday. I need help. I’ve finally decided I want to beat this digital addiction, but I have no clue where to start. I'm not making any money off this habit, and I definitely don't need these useless distractions cluttering up my life...
Any advice?🙏

Given everything that's been said, I highly doubt we're looking at a serious addiction here. What we're likely seeing is what happens to most people sitting behind a desk—just endlessly scrolling through forums and dodging their actual responsibilities. But hey, that's a "dependency" half the population deals with.
If you want to understand what actual computer addiction looks like, there is plenty of literature online, so go ahead and Google it (at least it'll give you a reason to spend more time staring at your screen). Real addiction leads to much more radical lifestyle shifts, often involving the total neglect of basic hygiene, severe social isolation, and even physical aggression when someone can't get online. Seriously, just look it up.
If you actually find yourself in that situation, there are specialists—mostly psychologists—in major cities who are more than willing to help young people dealing with those kinds of issues.

part of Maria Price3, which got incorrectly linked to my previous post that was already being discussed:

Brandon Lopez6 said:Romanticizing mental health struggles is a total slippery slope.

Oh, please! Because why wouldn't we just descend into pure catastrophizing instead of actually looking at the other side of the coin? The entire point of this discussion is to talk about the POSITIVE aspects of these conditions.

I mean, seriously, why on earth would any sane person embrace the idea that our lives are entirely predetermined by our genes?!

driftingridge6 said:You totally missed my point. I want to change *myself*. I don't want to feel this way anymore. That's the whole reason I asked the question.

Does he actually know how much your own insecurity triggers these boundaries?
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "numbing" yourself out. If there were, half the population would have tried it by now just to find some peace and finally feel comfortable in their own skin. There is no shortcut here. The only way forward is to carve out real time for yourself and face that insecurity head-on. There isn't a faster, easier, or painless route than that.

So, what kind of reaction do you get from him if you're honest and tell him you aren't feeling that deeper connection? Do you two actually dive into the heavy stuff together, or do you both just retreat into your own heads?

Excerpt from the Rules and Notices section of this PDF:

5) The following topics are subject to automatic thread locking:

- threads involving the psychoanalysis of people in your own life, specifically those attempting to dissect motives or hunt for hidden meanings behind someone else's words and actions.

I am putting serious pressure on the principal because the current schedule is an absolute joke—they have religious studies shoved right in the middle of the school day 😠

Does anyone know if there is actually any mechanism in this supposedly "secular" country that would allow students in public schools to receive actual education instead of just being forced to stand awkwardly in the hallway? And let’s be real, not every school has a library staffed all day to provide a legitimate alternative for them.

Jamie Lewis said:Honestly, I have this idea that I’d actually love being in a relationship with a girl struggling with her mental health. I picture myself driving her to her therapy sessions, looking out for her, and just being that steady support system she needs. To me, that kind of devotion wouldn't feel like a burden at all—it would be incredibly fulfilling. I truly believe that if you pour enough genuine love into someone, you can actually help them overcome their struggles. 🍿

I can't quite put my finger on why, but my immediate reaction to this take of yours is pure Misery. 😲

Jerry Robinson56 said:Don't just throw out "lithium" as a catch-all... that's only a solution for how you feel internally😁, but have you actually attempted to dissect the root cause of why these thoughts surface in the first place?

Yes, I have figured it out. They flare up when I'm under heavy stress or when anxiety and depression decide to kick down my front door. When those episodes hit, the thoughts just come crashing in. My medication has stabilized the anxiety and depression, so as far as my brain chemistry goes, I'm finally "level."
As for lithium—no, I haven't taken that. And frankly, I hope I never have to. I feel like I’ve already crossed some kind of threshold where I could easily spiral straight into the absolute abyss of mental illness.

Joseph Bailey41, I didn't realize either that so many things I considered totally normal and natural actually had specific psychiatric labels. It really is a case of the less you know, the more convinced you are that you're perfectly sane. 😁

For instance, I used to view my bouts of derealization and depersonalization as something almost interesting—a sort of lucid, creative facet of my personality that helped me channel my artistic side... until I sat down with the professionals and got handed a formal diagnosis.

R. I. P. Amon 🙂

Listen, everyone, please, just try to stand by one another as much as you possibly can... sometimes, honestly, nothing more than a few words of support is enough to make a difference...