the cost of free-will

uberrogo said:
After thinking about this for awhile I still dont get it. Please clairify.
Click to expand...


Haha, never said my ideas made sense. Have you ever had a situation were you were ok with doing or watching something, but knew it was completly wrong anyway? It's sort of like that.
 
IndigoSensor said:
Haha, never said my ideas made sense. Have you ever had a situation were you were ok with doing or watching something, but knew it was completly wrong anyway? It's sort of like that.
Click to expand...


Is this still one of those times?
 
alt ctrl del said:
Actually, those called childhood protectors are usually co-dependant. They end up feeling their necessary role is that of rescuer or caretaker. They feel that in order to be worthy of love, they must be rescuing someone. So these protectors end up seeking relationships in which the other party is totally dependant on them. The rescuer is dependant on the victim and the victim is dependant on the rescuer, and neither are able to form a stable identity without the other..

This is what forms a co-dependant relationship.
Click to expand...

infj...introvert.....called the Protector by some....not childhood protectors. The introversion coming from an abusive childhood is frequently the result of one's protecting oneself from abuse by being quiet. The Protector seeks to protect all, not a single person in a relationship. Their inner feelings they usually do not understand unless they have been given sight of these interpretations of personality types. They may feel better when helping someone, but do not feel the need to do so to be loved. Their intentions are genuine to help people in general, "asserting themselves often from the background not seeking glory", and it becomes their heart as a heart of genuine love. I do not know about childhood protectors. I honestly feel a unique relationship for a mature infj could be another infj, rather than looking for someone to "protect".
 
just me said:
infj...introvert.....called the Protector by some....not childhood protectors. The introversion coming from an abusive childhood is frequently the result of one's protecting oneself from abuse by being quiet. The Protector seeks to protect all, not a single person in a relationship. Their inner feelings they usually do not understand unless they have been given sight of these interpretations of personality types. They may feel better when helping someone, but do not feel the need to do so to be loved. Their intentions are genuine to help people in general, "asserting themselves often from the background not seeking glory", and it becomes their heart as a heart of genuine love. I do not know about childhood protectors. I honestly feel a unique relationship for a mature infj could be another infj, rather than looking for someone to "protect".
Click to expand...
I think we're talking about two totally different things. I'm talking about co-dependant relationships.

A history of childhood abuse or a dysfunctional environment are major factors in what contributes to a person becoming co-dependant as an adult. The 'protector' role in the co-dependant relationship arises when a child grows up in a dysfunctional household in which they take responsibility for their siblings upbringing and even the caretaking of their parents or guardians (for example, if parents or guardians are substance abusers or have untreated mental health issues.)

That's what I meant. I'm not talking about the infj.
 
I think everything else talked about is somewhat related. How many times can everyone keep saying the same thing over and over and over again, anyway?
 
tovlo said:
OK, well then about a quarter page ago.
Click to expand...

tovlo,
Please forgive me for hijacking your thread. Conversations lead places sometimes. Forgive my thinking I needed to ask for it.....it was for the spirit of the group.
 
Last edited:
just me said:
tovlo,
Please forgive me for hijacking your thread. Conversations lead places sometimes. Forgive my thinking I needed to ask for it.....it was for the spirit of the group.
Click to expand...

No forgiveness needed (though if you desire it consider it granted). Shai Gar just asked a question and I felt like answering.

Threads go where they will and I have not felt any compulsion to direct it's course.
 
just me said:
I would like to see the state of Minnesota issue a statement allowing the woman to return the child for treatment without having to face any criminal charges for either of them. If it is done so to state it was for this case only and not to set any kind of future precedent, it might show empathy and sympathy is part of a legal system in special cases. If the state truly has only the safety and well-being of the child as their primary concern, can they look past what has happened to actually try to get the child help?
If the Mother is seeking other help and finding it, it would give the child the opportunity to return for aid should they see the other help not helping. Is that too much wishful thinking?
Click to expand...

You wishes have come true. Daniel Hauser has returned home, will be getting the chemotherapy, and he will not be put in foster care.
 
tovlo said:
You wishes have come true. Daniel Hauser has returned home, will be getting the chemotherapy, and he will not be put in foster care.
Click to expand...

Please keep us/jm updated. It seemed the only fair thing to offer as a state government made up of people whose concern was stated as being for Daniel's well-being instead of their laws. I would like to also know if this was his own choice. Thanks for the update!!
 
I've been following this story for a while.

This is a very dangerous slippery slope. It may not seem so on first reflection but this kind of ignorance can be very dangerous to the population as a whole.

What I think this really is, is an arguement over the preservation of potential.

As a 13 yr old with a curable cancer, he has the potential to grow up and pursue life, liberty and happiness. He has the potential to partake in all the pleasures life has to offer. Does a government have the responsibility to preserve the potential of all individuals under it's purview?

Is the government actually working in the best interests of the child by refusing the parents the right to make these kinds of medical decisions? Could the government actually be preserving the kid's rights by denying the parents theirs? Whose rights are more worth protecting? The parents who are able to make legal and binding decisions, or the kid who hasn't been granted that priviledge, the priviledge to make decisions for themselves, yet.

Would this even be an issue if the cancer was stage four pancreatic instead of lymphoma?

My other interests in this family stem from the extent they take their holistic/alternative medical decisions. How are they picking and choosing what kind of modern medicine they accept and what they treat holistically? Is it all or none, or whatever they 'feel' is right?
 
just me said:
Please keep us/jm updated. It seemed the only fair thing to offer as a state government made up of people whose concern was stated as being for Daniel's well-being instead of their laws. I would like to also know if this was his own choice. Thanks for the update!!
Click to expand...

I don't know a lot. I do know that he started chemotherapy today (or yesterday, I can't recall) at a Children's Hospital where they have combined alternative with traditional therapy for quite a while. My understanding is that he will undergo the traditional therapy, but will receive any of numerous options for supplemental alternative therapies. This particular hospital is very focused on empowering and educating the patient, so I'm pleased he will be receiving care here.

The family has stated they want their privacy so I'm not hearing much more about it on the news.

I did see on the news yesterday the Hauser's had set up a website for updates and donations, but when I went there it had been shut down and there was a re-direct to a law firm.

I just hope the best for all involved.
 
Last edited:
alcyone said:
Does a government have the responsibility to preserve the potential of all individuals under it's purview?
Click to expand...

This is certainly a debatable question. I am of the opinion that the best care provided is to put energy into education and then trust in the decisions people make with that information, even if it is different than the choice another might choose. I am very aware this is one of numerous legitimate perspectives. There are those who would argue convincingly about the betterment of the society as a whole if the government takes a more active role in directing the activities of it's citizenry as it sees best, but I personally fear this is where the slippery slope lies.

Is the government actually working in the best interests of the child by refusing the parents the right to make these kinds of medical decisions?
Click to expand...

I think primarily the government is acting in it's own best interest by refusing the parents the right to make these kinds of decisions. I think the government is charged with maintaining the society it governs and so it works to protect the potential productivity of that society as it sees best.

Could the government actually be preserving the kid's rights by denying the parents theirs?
Click to expand...

I think absolutely that could be the case in many situations. My sense is that it is not the case in this situation.

Whose rights are more worth protecting?
Click to expand...

I see parents as being granted guardianship rights while a child matures, but for me, the primacy of rights belong to the child as the individual in question and not the parents. I still believe that consideration is due to the perspectives of the adult charged with care of the child, but I would always keep the right's of the individual in question (the child) as the primary concern.

Would this even be an issue if the cancer was stage four pancreatic instead of lymphoma?
Click to expand...

Not likely in my opinion.

How are they picking and choosing what kind of modern medicine they accept and what they treat holistically? Is it all or none, or whatever they 'feel' is right?
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about their previously chosen approach and so cannot comment on this. What do you see as the significance of this question?
 
This'll be the last post on page 1 for Shai Gar. :wink:

To me, this all boils down to how much power parents vs government has over childrens' lives.
Von Hase said:
INFJ's see what will be, and know how it should be.
Click to expand...
What I see here is a grey area, being slowed defined and shaped. Shaped so that government has more and more control over how children are raised. That's a problem for me because I know this should not be. I honestly do NOT trust government. I'm okay with government making laws, but it's a major problem for me when it starts to involve individual families.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top