Hmmm, we need to draw a fine line here. I'm not talking about the victim abusing their status in order to manipulate. I'm talking about when the victim cannot forgive. This is the "hard problem", if you will, of forgiveness. The irony is that forgiveness is a responsibility that lies solely on the victim; forgiveness is it's own power that lies in the hands of the weak. I mentioned taboos; this is the taboo of all taboos: Only the weak can imbue the world with forgiveness, because only the weak possess the power to forgive. This is the entire crux of the fucking gospel, people. — Noble Dust

This makes absolutely no sense. You need to explain this better.

Dude, have you seen Star Trek Discovery? What the hell have they done to the Klingons? Otherwise, I am growing kind of fond of it, despite the whole series change to make it JJ Abrams style. But, man, the Klingons! They look like orcs.

I don't know Maimonides, but that lines up pretty profoundly with the attempt at a philosophy of atonement (or whatever) that I've tried to espouse here in general. That specific idea right there seems paramount to this whole discussion: the victim becomes the sinner him/herself. — Noble Dust

I said the same thing in an earlier post, whereby people who economise their behaviour with others, seeking forgiveness not because there exists any genuine issue but rather as a display of authority and power, dragging things out unnecessarily to play the victim as an actual method to control. I know this from experience of minor things; I have done wrong and I would sincerely apologise and recognise my wrong, but they remain haughty and agitated and feel justified in being dismissive that makes you feel like there is worthlessness to an honest apology. That is just as immoral as it is for a person who fails to see the value in moral principles.

This sounds dangerously manipulative to me. — Noble Dust

It depends; if you cannot communicate with someone through forgiveness, sometimes the best thing to do is to stop talking to them. Your heart may forgive them, but what you desire is to effect change, for them to experience empathy and realise that their actions are hurting you enough to stop you from talking. Empathy is the foundation of moral consciousness. I hardly call that manipulative, though I can see where the danger in that lies. It is true, the only real goal we have is to effect change in ourselves, but the choices we make and how we act with others is a part of us already.

So you define unconditional love as the capacity to give love to all? — Noble Dust

Yes.

It's helpful to remember that this is a scripture where the Hebrew poetic device of intensification is being used; if he sins once, rebuke and forgive; if seven times, and he repents 7 times, forgiveness still stands. I would interpret that particular scripture as saying that the more chronic the sin, the more in need of forgiveness the perpetrator is. The intensification seems to signify how dire the need for forgiveness is, the more egregious the sin. So no, repetition of behavior doesn't necessarily always mean unwillingness to admit wrongdoing; it signifies an even more intense need for both reconciliation, and then subsequent forgiveness. Jesus seemed to prefer hanging with prostitutes, tax collectors, and lepers. Those at the bottom of the moral well seem to understand the heights above them the best. — Noble Dust

I had the chance to experience Yom Kippur when I was in Israel late last year, where my housemate orally translated the somewhat conditional forgiveness in the Tefilah Zaka prayer and explained the meaning of this restoration of life (happiness) attributed by the purity of intention and devotion. One is cleansed by the honesty of admission, however the transgressions here are really those that we make. In a sense, this appeasement for our sins narrates an understanding of when others sin, it gives us compassion to sympathise or at the very least appreciate the possibility for atonement, but there is a reverse attitude in that the wrongdoer should seek forgiveness. Maimonides writes about making an effort to ask for forgiveness when you have wronged, a thousand times if he is your teacher, but in that effort if the victim still refuses to forgive then the victim becomes the sinner him/herself. So, it is not about making the same mistake over and over again and asking for forgiveness each time, but rather making an effort to ask for forgiveness over and over again for the wrong deed committed. That makes sense to me, our responsibility to uphold principles.

The way that I have always interpreted that quote is really about me, my compassion and perhaps even my strategic ability to effect change on a person who clearly has issues; it is not necessarily about forgiveness or to just say that you forgive, but rather one must always subjectively forgive, but act in a way that will enable them to recognise the wrongs in their behaviour (if possible). What I mean is that my heart always forgives but I don't always act on this forgiveness, because sometimes in doing so could result in the opposite effect that I intend.

So, why are you asking whether reconciliation and forgiveness are mutually exclusive, in this context, and/or in a philosophical context? Sorry, I was too lazy to read the rest of the thread, so maybe it's been addressed. It seems clear to me that they aren't mutually exclusive; it's just that they often don't accompany one another, due to emotional problems like denial, bitterness, pride, shame... But obviously the ideal reparation would be made up of both. So on a spiritual level, true reparations means reconciliation built out of forgiveness, driven by unconditional love. — Noble Dust

I think the question really stems from my experience where I came to realise that I have always forgiven her but could never reconcile with her because the latter is a mutual or joint effort that relies on communication, something she was unable to do previously. It needn't necessarily be admission - which is a type of expression that speaks of an honest desire to reconcile - but rather it could also be empathy, that while I may not understand why certain actions hurt you so much, the fact that you are hurting is also hurting me, and I don't want that. Love forms the fundamental basis of any moral action and I came to realise that any suffering I experienced was borne out of the failure to communicate and ultimately reconcile and not the need for forgiveness.

As much as I'm no longer a Christian, I do feel a real sense of spiritual bondage in the world. The world is literally in bondage to the cycle of oppression and dehumanizing behavior; there are moments where an action like forgiveness attempts to cut the bonds, and a spiritual power fights back and prevents the cut. — Noble Dust

I was recently asked to write an article for a hiking magazine about my trip to Hawaii, and I wrote the following about the meaning of Aloha. "It is an inherent respect for the eternal connection between the individual and nature, the fixed relationship between your soul with the very fabric of the world. It is the actualisation of compassion and empathy in every action and decision, in every word where the suffering of others also means the suffering within and where nature, animals, the earth as a whole is a part of who you are. One is committed to take care and protect the environment just as much as they are themselves. Aloha is not about the individual, but an individual consciousness of being a part of the whole."

I myself don't follow any religion, but I believe in God (without anthropomorphic qualities) and I think that the capacity to give love - call it unconditional, namely the capacity to give love to all - is the very moral foundation or consciousness in which we should struggle to achieve, because we are a part of a whole whether or not capitalism and economics would allow us to admit and it is our responsibility to care for others in as much as we would care for ourselves. That is why I appreciate the suggestion that we need to first take the beam out of our own eye first.

Even Buddhism holds to this belief - ignorance is evil. According to Buddhism, ignorance of facts, e.g. not knowing the ephemeral nature of all things, leads to suffering. Now that I think of it, Buddhism takes an indirect route to evil i.e. it's not a well developed concept as is in the Abrahamic religions. Rather, the focus is on suffering and I suppose evil is a type of suffering. So, what I'd like to know is ignorance of what leads to evil? — TheMadFool

My understanding of Buddhism is limited, being more acquainted with the Abrahamic religions and it is a certainly well-developed concept; in Judaism according to Maimonides, evil itself is neither real nor is it a part of creation but rather a formation caused by the material world; ignorance to evil is exemplified in Cain and Abel. Our intelligence is a form that determines our nature and any neglect of this form becomes the source of evil, which is why we were given the scriptures and the commandments. This philosophy is similarly adopted by Ibn Sina vis-a-vis Islam, only evil exists because it is necessary to contrast good or morality as that ultimately maintains the cosmic order but those who are evil are determined by a choice to be ignorant. "Ignorance" is intellectual, a lack of willingness to appreciate the reason required for morality, which is where the capacity to resist the temptation for evil in the material sense exists.

Could it be that your ignorance of the facts - of the nature of people - led to your suffering? — TheMadFool

It is a combination. When you are threatened, for instance, of physical harm, there are a number of effects that this can have on you. You feel rejected, afraid, confused and this can show physically where you feel anxious, your hands shake, things start to go wrong for unknown reasons, weight loss or whatever. You suffer considerably and the reasons are factual, you were actually threatened and this had an impact, however knowledge - of the nature of people - can enable us to reduce that impact by understanding why this said-person threatened you in the first place; they are mentally unstable, or a drug-addict, or it is cultural. Sometimes, trying to find that line between the two can get blurry but it is reason and compassion that empowers us or at least repels the suffering. We also learn to avoid such people, keep them away from us and keep the right people in our lives that ensure the sustainability of happiness.

I@m reading Levinas at the moment. I think his 'pardon' is generally taken as something very close to forgiveness:

Active in a stronger sense than forgetting, which does not concern the reality of the event forgotten, pardon acts upon the past, somehow repeats the event, purifying it. But in addition, forgetting nullifies the relations with the past, whereas pardon conserves the past pardoned in the purified present. The pardoned being is not the innocent being. The difference does not justify placing innocence above pardon; it permits the discerning in pardon of a surplus of happiness, the strange happiness of reconciliation, the felix culpa, given in an everyday experience which no longer astonishes us.
— Levinas — mcdoodle

I actually want to read more on Levinas, despite the fact that I had to read the quote several times before understanding what was being implied, which then resulted in an agitation similar to that against Kant or Heidegger where the explanation could have been dramatically simplified to enable accessibility. Nevertheless, the differences in the concluding effects is something to think about, whereby reconciliation needn't actually be 'become friends or associates' but rather being liberated to allow for happiness to be permitted somehow.

Such a philosophy is clear that pardon/forgiveness is part of a subjective view towards others/the Other. To feel somehow obliged to forgive means that forgiveness is not what's in your heart, or so I'd see it. — mcdoodle

When you say 'whats in your heart' are you attempting to imply authenticity, the honesty behind an apology?

Frankly, though, I think I have achieved reconciliation with many people over my life without forgiveness, either by me of them or them of me. In such cases forgiveness would remove a part of me that I wish to keep: a sense of myself, of the wrong that was done to me. I can however love the person who wronged me. Forgiveness is not some sort of pre-requisite to that, not for me. — mcdoodle

This returns to my original point where I said the shift in my appreciation for the ethics behind forbearance in relation to reconciliation without necessarily forgiving the said party. The problem is that with forbearance you have to reconcile without forgiveness, to just tolerate that clearly shows - going back to your quote on Levinas - the 'forgetting' which is not really forgetting since there has been no forgiveness but rather nullifying any emotional connection. You shut them out, which is no different to simply keeping them out of your life. This is perhaps what we do with intolerable people in the workplace, but it would be something to think about if you do it with people you know personally. There seems to be some level of the lesser of two evils in a way where some people would prefer to live with someone who has wronged them rather than be alone with your principles.

My brother and I had some nasty interactions when we were kids. In the last 10 years it has turned out we are good friends. — T Clark

I can say this is also occurring with one of my sisters, not that we are good friends at the moment, but recent contact and communication has brought me some comfort in that our heartache and experiences are aligned at conscious level for the first time, and there is a sense of relief when someone can actually understand what you are saying. She recently had a baby and I went through some tough experiences that we both came to realise how much our mum suffered at the hands of a very cruel man. Her husband is American and very loving and kind to her that she realised through him that our dad manipulated and confused us into thinking we were bad or that something was wrong with us, whereas I was treated really badly that made me recognise the same thing. We both also decided to educate ourselves and I think this is what allowed us to form clarity to our personal difficulties as we began to appreciate how strong we are as women for having a really bad dad. The others, however, are still stuck in the cycle of thinking that violent behaviour is 'normal' which is what our dad wanted us to think.

I've been unhappy almost all of my life. Maybe that's it - I recognize that my unhappiness is not based on what someone else has done. It's based on my own behavior, failure, weakness, fear.

I guess that's it - I don't get it. Forgiveness, that is. I don't understand it. I don't need it - from either side. I don't find it satisfying when someone forgives me. It never even crosses my mind that someone might need it from me. I guess that might not be a very satisfying response from your point of view. — T Clark

There is such a thing as forgiving yourself and reconciling with your past; some people remain unhappy because they form a habit of unhappiness, it becomes a part of their identity as though the unhappiness itself is a form of happiness. There is a difference between playing the victim - that keeps one stuck in the same cycle - or being ballsy enough to understand your past - that allows you to move on. Real happiness is that peace you talk of, but not just peace around you, but peace with yourself. Unhappiness shows the lack thereof.

Forgiveness, reconciliation, justice, revenge, anger, hatred, love.

Which is the odd one out? — Jake Tarragon

You?

Lacan was wrong. The mirror phase isn't only during childhood, it is for your entire life. Human beings, as per Aristotle, are imitative creatures. All of life is imitative actually, not just humans. Humans are just more imitative than other animals. What psychoanalytic theory tries to deal with rather unsuccessfully are the results of the decoupling of desire from the object (which Aristotle analyzed) and its refocus on the model of imitation. Its fascination with the model is what gives rise to psychopathology. Kierkegaard had some understanding of this too. — Agustino

Did you read what I wrote? We carry that with us because it weaves itself into the fabric of our identity, hence the ego, as we contrast and differentiate as part of our learning. It is how we perceive and interpret the external world and why language and communication plays a fundamental role and again why psychoanalysis attempts to articulate this narrative that we have formed. This process of identification is formed from when our language is not yet sophisticated enough to appreciate reason and while we may grow and develop, those emotive and imaginative attachments remain, the desire is the stimuli to this psychopathology.

I don't actually share your view on this issue (at least I don't think so), there are some family resemblances though. — Agustino

When you say love is a choice. Click the link, buddy.

Do you classify yourself as a determinist too? — Agustino

Nah, I like freebies.

That is because a child takes the parent as a model of imitation. Even when the parent hurts the child, the child is still attached to the parent, because the very hurt signals a superior sufficiency of being in the parent that the child is shown to lack, so the child paradoxically seeks to imitate and become even more like the parent. This double bind is painful. The more violent the parent, the more attached the child becomes. The interiorized sense of lack always propels the child forward in seeking dominating models - the masochistic desire of course isn't because the child takes pleasure in pain, but rather because the proximity of the pain signals a self-sufficient model that the child can imitate and hence achieve the same self-sufficiency of being. The child cannot forgive the parent easily because the parent as model becomes rival - it is precisely in its rivalry that the parent is shown to have superiority of being. And the child wants this superiority of being. It is propelled by the desire to become invincible - of course a desire which is impossible and self-defeating. — Agustino

I spoke with you not to long ago about this subject and am quite surprised at your interest, nevertheless pointing out to you the Lacanian mirror phase during childhood is where we first establish an idealised version of personhood (through our parents) when we are children as a way to contrast with our own identity and it is thus the beginning of the formation of our ego. However, this identity is formulated on a rather infantile ideal as represented by our parents, something we start to doubt but we are not sure why and as we grow older we transfer this idealised version to society or other people. The emotive influence that compels us is because during childhood the identification process is emotionally considered the right thing to do that we continue believing that, there is no reasoning behind it, we just immediately and unconsciously believe that we need to contrast ourselves to others. It is how we learn.

We reach a stage where we no longer need to and unfortunately not many people reach that stage or at least transcend it because it challenges their identity and that can be frightening; the transcendence is when idealised versions of ourselves is through universal moral principles. We find that self-sufficiency because we are able to transcend this identification process from other people and start focusing on our own actions and behaviours, ultimately removing ourself from that emotional grip and start using reason.

I already told you - a choice. — Agustino

I feel like you are quietly adapting to the things that I say. It makes me wonder why you always seem to be antagonistic to my views and then sometime later you suddenly have the same ones.


O the magnanimity!

Those things and because you love her. — Hanover

This may sound absurd, but I love everyone. What I mean is that I believe in everyone, or that I believe everyone is capable of being loving, perhaps in a Rousseau kind of way. Whatever circumstances - being it social, economic, cognitive - that cause people to become evil does not necessarily mean that they have escaped their nature. Evil is psychological.

"ONE year ago today, a shooter entered a one-room Amish school in Nickel Mines, Pa., dismissed all but 10 girls, and fired at them execution-style, killing five before shooting himself.

Within hours, the Amish community forgave the killer and his family. "

Something truly inspiring really. — Hanover

The killer is dead. That changes the nature of this forgiveness.

I think that I'm pretty good at forgiveness, but seeing as I'm a loner anyway, I'm not so great that reconciliation. I have broken off relations with many people, and I eventually come to a point where I see my own mistakes, or see where they were coming from, or am simply no longer angry with them so that I no longer feel negatively towards them, or bother to think of them at all anymore, but that usually don't imply a restoration of relations. — Wosret

I remember Michel Foucault due to the authorship of I, Pierre Rivière, having slaughtered my mother, my sister, and my brother talking about the differences between himself and his brother vis-a-vis their relationship with their mother, who appeared to be a difficult and dominating woman. His brother found it intolerable to a point that it affected his emotions and his capacity to function, possessed and perhaps even somewhat tortured by the profound confusion the emotion wrought, while Foucault himself managed and eventually transcended the emotional grip, perhaps for the same reasons I have, finding that intellectual foundation that enabled me to see things as they were and not entirely what I would like them to be.

I think that is the biggest flaw we have when it comes to familial relationships. We tend to view our parents in an idealistic sort of way, perhaps a result of our childhood cognitive limitations. We are told that 'this is what makes a good parent' or 'this is a woman who epitomises a good mother' and we therefore fail to acknowledge that our parents can also just be human beings with flaws. They are just like you and have little to no skills in raising children, perhaps even being a good person. What distinguishes between Foucault and his brother is this attachment to an ideal.

Here is my advice about how to manage your intimate relationships. This is based on decades of study and experimentation - Whatever guidance I give you, do the exact opposite. I have not been notably successful in this area. You know what you need to be happy. I don't. I would never criticize your judgment on that and I wasn't. — T Clark

T Clark, I am not asking for your advice, even one as hilarious as this, I am more than capable of being decisive in my decisions with people in my personal space and who I choose to have around. The primary impetus of every decision I make is based on the objective of happiness. I am asking what you think the nature of forgiveness is.

You can attempt to convey your answer philosophically (my preference), religiously, personally, whichever way you feel most comfortable in narrating your opinion as I will endeavour to translate it, but let it be an attempt at the very least.

The thing I regret most about my relationships is that I was not friends with my partners before we became lovers. Love and sex are very dangerous. Friendship provides a protected place, a harbor, when there are storms. — T Clark

Friendship is the fundamental basis of every relationship. People often come confessing their immediate affection and desire for intimacy with me without even knowing who I am, and that frightens the crap out of me because I never allow anyone into my personal space until I feel comfortable knowing that they are friend-worthy. The concept of 'brotherly-love' or the love between two friends, for me, teaches the most powerful lessons of empathy and it makes us care for the person as they are and not what they will give us that once two people have become friends, only then can they move on to become lovers. This then becomes the foundation of the relationship and so you love and respect the person for who they are as an individual and vice-versa while sharing emotions and experiences with one another.

This is why 'building trust' as said by @Baden is fundamental during reconciliation, because it is the same foundation that needs to be structurally applied to ensure that this process is genuine and will be strong enough to hold the weight of the arrow of time.

Forgiveness is an act of a victim. Do you feel victimized? Do you feel a wrong was done to you? Or did you realize that you were mistaken and that you were never a victim? — TheMadFool

The wrongs did happen, that is clear, however what changed was my level of altruism, my capacity to feel compassion and appreciate the vulnerability that caused those wrongs. The idea of being a victim dissipated with reason and forgiveness became an entirely subjective phenomenon. This is why I don't hate anyone, because I hold firm the Socratic notion that evil is ignorance. Reconciliation, however, is different because it is a mutual effort and so while I can do the above mentioned, I nevertheless refrain from any physical contact as I slowly rebuild and communicate from afar. This is really just a way of protecting myself from being hurt, but no, I was hurt and there is no mistake in that.

No difference. But predestination and fatalism and predeterminism are different from determinism. — Agustino

Gracious, I think I may need an explanation for this one. :-O However I must admit that I had always held in my mind that you believed in determinism, so it is good to know that is not the case.

Does being angry involve hating? Not forgiving per the definition above entails wanting to punish someone and/or being angry with them. That sounds to me like hating someone or wanting to punish them (do violence to them). — Agustino

That violence is called seeking revenge, an entirely different subject to one being unforgiving; punishment is not always about hurting people for doing wrong but about upholding values.

"having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees [of the law] that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross!" Colossians 2:14 — Agustino

If you continue to read the Colossians, it also states in 3:9: "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds." If you prefer to exegete in that language, biblical hermeneutics is more than fine by me. The teachings are all about love, about oneness but this is sourced in the virtues and moral principles that we adhere to and its about our dedication to righteousness. The importance of authenticity was a source that would drive Jesus to anger, Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. And don't forget, there is nothing wrong with be passionate about right and wrong, as it is rather lukewarm to simply just accept an artificial apology of one consistently making the same errors; I know your deeds, that you are neither cold or hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. I'm going to sleep now. Sweet dreams :-d

I see forgiveness as a processes on an interpersonal basis, a processes that varies greatly depending on who all are involved. There is a difference in forgiving a child, a parent, a friend, a lover, or a stranger. It has to do with fairness, harm, and pain. — Cavacava

This is how I see it too; the intensity of a parent hurting you is more than a sibling, in as much as it is easier to forgive a sibling for hurting you than it is a friend. There are many factors to consider and any reasonable efforts to hold your moral ground while at the same time balancing your personal emotions can be tricky that having an absolute 'just forgive' or being completely unforgiving without really thinking things through is wrong both for yourself and for the principles in question or wherefore the wrongs have been breached.

How many times have we heard a child or adolescent say to a parent "I hate you", and we discount it because we understand that they really don't understand what it means to hate, how deeply this word can cut. It is quite another thing for a parent to tell a child or adolescent that they are worthless, or no good. — Cavacava

I don't believe in hatred, despite the last thing you say above happening to me; my siblings tormented me about my appearance that I believed I was not attractive to a point of keeping away from men entirely. I quite literally thought I was ugly and that wound was very deep, but I still managed to forgive them because I was able to reason that it was all a reaction. I have never hated anyone, I have only found an act based on a bad decision, choice, idea to be abhorrent, though there is always a part of me that desires to expose why it is bad as a way of effecting a reminder that there is meaning and value in holding to the right principles. Actions can hurt people so apologies should not be superficial, but it should be actual to remember the meaning of morality and to be altruistic enough to care. This is why acknowledgement is important. One of my favourite movies Dead Man Walking exemplifies my type of reasoning. Punishment is a way of showing the value of principles or the principle in question. When it is broken and the person genuinely feels guilt, it would be vicious not to forgive but if any admission of guilt is artificial because they know that they can get something out of it including the act repeating itself, a certain responsibility follows you that how you act becomes more complex.

A friend you count on, or some one you love, may inadvertently hurt you and be quite unaware of the pain they have caused you, unless you tell them. In a lot of ways, I think dialogue is the source of openness, from which honest reconciliation, and forgiveness (healing) are possible. — Cavacava

This is absolutely right and a lack of dialogue is the very source of grief, where you hurt the most. When you can't communicate to them either because they escape you or hide from you or they just simply don't hear a word that you are saying, that is where you feel the most pain. If you can't communicate with them, you have to let it go otherwise you will end up hurting yourself.

No, I don't think I ever said that :s - when did I say that? Believing that everything is predestined is against my spiritual position, and I don't believe I would ever have said that.

I may have said in the context of Spinozist philosophy that everything is determined, in the sense that everything has causes for it. However, I distinguished this from fatalism which holds that everything is pre-determined. — Agustino

What is the difference between predestined and predetermined?

Yes, that is a very big difference. You have set a very high bar for yourself.

Also - I don't "concede to prevent incidents." I try to act with compassion and effectiveness. Very often I fail.

I don't expect you to change how you are and what you feel and believe. I'm just telling you how I see it, how I try to live my life. — T Clark

I don't think it is a very high bar to want to marry someone who you can have a rational conversation with; playing games, nourishing egos, that sort of thing is not for me. I ask for that since you will be spending a lot of intimate time together and most of any relationship is based on the conversations that you will have. If that is too much to ask, then I would rather be alone and face the hardships that come with that rather than be unhappy in a relationship as long as I am not alone. Lesser of two evils.

I appreciate you telling me how you try to live your life in as much as I am doing so with me, but I think that trying to be compassionate and effective vis-a-vis your own statement that you stay silent because that is the quickest formula of ending any conflict with your wife who has hurt you a number of times is enough to say that you are conceding to prevent incidents that is compassionate and effective for you.

Marriage is really hard. No one in my life has been as cruel to me as my wife can be. I don't forgive her, it never gets that far. I know her, I see her. I know the part of her that does what she does - the things I like and the things I don't. My goal is to deal with her behavior. I know that if I don't get angry and push back, the incident will be over. That doesn't mean it doesn't really hurt. It hurts a lot. We've been married for 40 years and together longer than that. It still hurts and I still fail to react the most effective and, coincidentally, the most compassionate way. — T Clark

Conceding to prevent incidents from escalation is perhaps the key difference between you and I as people since, for me, my ideal partner and I would communicate any concerns rationally and effectively. If they are unable to do this, they would not be my partner as I would hate to be in a relationship that involves this power struggle and especially playing games. It ends up hurting both parties and I refuse to be hurt.

There is a big difference between holding onto principles and holding onto beliefs. You could also potentially be moved by a neo-Nazi, unless what you are really trying to say is that Augustino's beliefs align with yours and you find that moving?

So, there is only free-will?
— TimeLine
Absolutely. How could there be anything else if God is Love? — Agustino

Wasn't it you that said everything is determined? So, now there is only free-will? Are you shifting your beliefs to suit the argument at the given moment?

It is of course not the one who loves who is fooled. Jesus Christ wasn't fooled when He was put on the Cross. He knew exactly what was happening. It was Satan who was fooled. That is why in Dante's Divine Comedy there is the image of Satan nailed to the Cross - because that is what happened. Through his innocence, love and non-violence, Jesus exposed Satan for the murderer and liar that he is. And a lie that has been exposed no longer works :)

Love is not fooled in its innocence and forgiveness. It is worldly wisdom which is fooled. — Agustino

What has this got to do with what I asked? I said that when a person apologises more than once by repeating the same mistake, it is verification that they are being dishonest. I am happy to discuss the ethics of Jesus but this is just you floating on a cloud.

If the law is meant as punishment, yes, that's the wrong direction. If it's meant to keep criminals off the street or even to rehabilitate them, that should be judged based on how effective it is. — T Clark

When you keep people out of your life because they are hurting you, that is a form of punishment. You are conveying the same message the law is attempting to convey, which is that justice prevails by effectively keeping criminals from harming people, just like how you are saying morality prevails by effectively keeping the said-person from harming you. Any rehabilitation that developed following this act is not up to the law in as much as it is not up to you, but the attempted effect is to rehabilitate, to make them see that what they have done is wrong and to allow others to abide by these laws.

Blaming someone, judging someone puts a weight on your shoulders. From what you've written, it seems like you will understand what I mean. Forgiveness takes that weight off. It's a release. You become freer. It doesn't mean you have to ever see the person again. — T Clark

Playing the victim is entirely different when you actually are a victim; if you have experienced a wrong from someone else, that is not blaming them for the wrong, it is stating a fact. It is contrasting to moral principles, which is the fabric of our humanity. The weight of that forgiveness is established when that fact is acknowledged, because there is no longer a rigidity or halt, there is the opportunity that peace affords, the channels of communication are opened.

What you are saying is ignorance, not forgiveness.

Punishment is self-inflicted. Vice and sin are their own punishments. — Agustino

So, there is only free-will?

It is relevant for me to be honest when I apologize, but not for the other. I will assume that they are honest because we should always try to think the best of our neighbors. — Agustino

There is this saying, Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Indeed, when a person first conveys repentance, you show this forgiveness. But, any act repeated is verification that the repentance itself was artificial. You assume honesty within reason but if you forgive an act that is repeated, you are a party to this lack of 'magnanimity' that makes one firm in virtue.

Any act often repeated soon forms a habit; and habit allowed, steady gains in strength, At first it may be but as a spider's web, easily broken through, but if not resisted it soon binds us with chains of steel.

But to forgive her would show great magnanimity of soul, and expose her evil to herself. You do not realize that this is actually the biggest punishment that can be dealt. It's much worse than anything else I could do, for it is the only action that refuses to justify her behavior. — Agustino

So, now you do believe in punishment? So, there is a hell?

This magnanimity is a hallucination of reality because your forgiveness is irrelevant if she is not genuinely repentant, proven if she repeatedly makes the same mistake. The problem here is that you are arguing against authenticity and you need to prove why it is not relevant for a person to be honest when they apologise. So far, notwithstanding your religious position, there has been no reasonable attempt to do so.

Judging leads you in the wrong direction and makes you less effective. — T Clark

Are you saying the law has lead us in the wrong direction?

I have a different attitude towards forgiveness than you do. I think it's a factor of personality and also experience. For me, forgiving someone is something you do for yourself, not the other person. It's a surrender, a release. There is one thing in my life I did that I really regret. Many years later, I asked my friend for forgiveness. She thought about it and said - well, I don't really think you need to be forgiven. Then she did anyway, just in case she was wrong and to make me feel better. I guess when it comes down to it, I don't believe in forgiveness. I don't believe it's necessary. If you ask for it, you're asking the other person to let you off the hook. — T Clark

I actually understand this, however I could be wrong. Are you attempting to convey that when any acknowledgement of wrong is formed, forgiveness is unnecessary because it has been articulated either subjectively or to the said-party and the forgiveness is really an acknowledgement of the acknowledgement itself? So it isn't really forgiveness but rather an acknowledgement? I would like you to think about building trust when you think of your response to this.

As for reconciliation, again - it's something you do for yourself. You can forgive someone and not reconcile. This person that keeps hurting you and then apologizing - maybe you can just put them out of your life. That's not necessarily unkind, mean spirited, or inappropriate. It can be not worth the trouble to reconcile. — T Clark

I agree, I think reconciliation is a lot clearer in that it is a mutual effort, however there needs to be meaning in this reconciliation, an honesty and authenticity that would enable it to adequately work, which requires building trust. Keeping that person out of your life is indeed not an unkind thing to do neither is it immoral, on the contrary it is a form of punishment as you attempt to articulate both your position on this said wrong and what you expect from others to be allowed to be in your personal space.

@Augustino is saying that if his wife cheats on him repeatedly, he needs to represent himself as a moral person by continuously forgiving. He is being paradoxical.

I remember when Pope John Paul II went to the prison where the man who had shot him was locked up. They sat down, talked, and John Paul forgave him. It was a simple act of kindness and commitment and I found it very moving. I remember the guy was shocked and moved. — T Clark

I wonder what rewards - other than protection - he received for his conversion.

It follows from the fact that a great soul can accept those smaller than themselves. — Agustino

A person who requires excessive contrition in order to forgive - who demands authenticity - is a person who lacks the virtue of magnanimity of soul. Don't judge and you will not be judged. — Agustino

Are you saying there is no hell?

It also follows that you cannot reason with an ignorant egotist, like those people who pretend to be holier-than-thou when they clearly contradict themselves. Being honest is not an excessive requirement, it is reasonable and virtuous and if you cannot see that saying it is moral to forgive a person consistently making the same mistakes when if you were a moral person you would prefer to help them see the meaning behind the apology itself so that they stop making the same mistake - where does the substance in our moral fibre come from? - than, what can I say other than good luck to you, O magnanimous one.

I find forgiveness rather odd. In order to forgive, one must first condemn. It seems like an internal moral economy; you done me wrong, you owe me - but I'm going to forgive the debt. But then, I'm not going to forgive the debt until you repent, that is until you acknowledge the debt. This being a part payment? Or an undertaking not to do me more wrong? Perhaps forgiveness is a gift that can only be meaningfully given to one who feels a need for it. — unenlightened

It is all dependent on the condemnation itself, indeed there are many people who economise their behaviour with others, seeking forgiveness not because there exists any genuine issue but rather as a display of authority and power, dragging things out unnecessarily to play the victim as an actual method to control. But, in the instance where there was an actual situation - say for instance a car accident that involved a fatality - some form of condemnation exists depending on the causes. Was the person drink-driving? Was the person speeding? There needs to be a justification behind the condemnation first before seeking forgiveness.

Reconciliation is a more mutual affair; we reconcile our points of view of the past; we understand each other. It's not something I can do on my own, and it's not inherently unequal. It requires truth. — unenlightened

The problem here is that reconciliation requires forgiveness. So, what happens then?

By saying that, you are actually saying something about yourself.

Their lack of honesty is theirs, why is that relevant to you? Their apology has no meaning or substance. That says something about them, not about you. If you treat them as if that's the case though, you will justify their behavior and aggression towards you by the low esteem you hold of them. — Agustino

Because @baden is correct, our relations and interactions are the fundamental basis of who we are and we contrast and identify ourselves with others that make them just as much a part of us as our own subjectivity permits. When he said:

... true reconciliation requires a rebuilding of trust. — Baden

He is denoting authenticity and this reflects not only your personal moral position, but your ethical convictions as well. What you are saying is that you don't care about other people, you don't care about the well-being of the community as long as you are safe from being morally liable, which I find to be paradoxical.

How you forgive does actually say something about you.

The authenticity is irrelevant. We are not to judge our neighbor. If they lie, that is their fault. But if you act and expect them to lie, that is your fault, for you have justified their behavior by your low esteem of them. They will say that you expected them to lie again anyway. Their behaviour would condemn itself if you weren't to condemn it. — Agustino

Authenticity is certainly relevant and while your example may be correct, likewise it is not about expecting them to lie but rather whether your actions of continually forgiving them despite the lack of honesty reduces apologies into nothing but a word with no meaning or substance. We find evidence or "proof" when mistakes are not repeated so indeed you can reconcile with such a person, but you cannot forgive.

That's not necessarily the case. My point is that "the gods", or "luck" or "fortune" or however you want to call it plays a much bigger role in success than is often attributed to it. The Ancients were well-aware of this - if someone was rich in Ancient Rome, they attributed it to Fortune, not to themselves. And that was correct.

Man cannot do anything without the blessings of God.

You can be the smartest, strongest, best prepared, most disciplined and still lose if luck isn't on your side. But on the other hand, if luck is on your side you can be the most despicable, weak, cowardly, least prepared and undisciplined and still succeed. — Agustino

If there are blessings given to us by God it is that we are endowed with greater or lesser cognitive abilities. IQ tests that are non-cultural attempt to ascertain a person' actual intellectual capacity by measuring visual and spatial, non-verbal and numerical reasoning because it is our capacity to adapt quickly and effectively that enables us to learn. I know of high school drop-outs that are very smart but just don't yet have the skills to articulate it that an education can give them. A 45 year old man with no education does not necessarily lack intelligence; he may have grown up in an environment that culturally prefer employment over education and his disadvantage is constructed by his environment.

A person cannot suddenly become an entrepreneur but they have the skills to be one already. "Luck" is limited to random events like escaping death or having the moment where an opportunity presents itself but it cannot be applied to such broader categories. An entrepreneur requires sustainable skills working across multiple platforms and there are a number of factors to consider including the network of relations together with the foresight as to how decisions and choices will likely impact the future and other social and environmental influences that determine our existential position.

If someone was rich in Rome, its likely a lot of other people were suffering because of it. You can call it fortune, but it is no different to white collar criminals alleging innocence through economics.

Though there have certainly been poor 45 year olds with few skills who did turn into affluent entrepreneurs >:O - it's to a large degree a matter of luck also. — Agustino

Luck is incompatible with knowledge at an epistemic level and those poor 45 year olds with few skills who did turn into affluent entrepreneurs likely had pre-existing cognitive abilities that enabled them to adapt and learn with the incentive to improve their situation. It is not causally due to this phenomenon of luck, they knew that an opportunity presented itself and worked towards attaining it.

I think you and I come from different places. I have lived my life in fear of what people think of me. To me, the feeling of responsibility is cold and bitter, and it feels good. Maybe the best thing I've ever felt. — T Clark

We interpret the external world through the language of our desires and emotions as well as our social and environmental influences, but in the end we are articulating a narrative from an internal structure and without honest self-reflection, without taking care to favour reason and seek knowledge, what are we but slaves to a futile display? What one ends up feeling is the success or failure to this display, this identity formed in parallel to what is expected that is either congratulated or shunned. Where do you come in? Indeed, our interactions enable us to differentiate and progress, but it should not be the foundation for our motivations.

And it is not telegraphic, it is melodramatic with a hint of condescension.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and trying to learn how to deal with the many mistakes I've made that hurt someone. Taking responsibility is not an emotional response. It's a surrender - opening yourself up to the consequences of your actions. Repentance to me means guilt. To me, guilt is a way of avoiding responsibility. Guilt can be forgiven, responsibility cannot. Does repentance mean something other than feeling guilty to you? — T Clark

I once thought I loved a young man but I mostly loved him as a friend or really wanted to be friends and for a long time I was hurting at why he was cruel to me. I saw him recently that evoked within me a sense of confusion; perhaps more of an awakening that reminded me that there was a reality I was unable to see beyond my own imagination and that I was trapped in for a long time. But my attempt to survive made me imagine that he was my friend, that he cared for me like how I cared for him to make myself believe that there was one person alive that would not abandon me like how my family did; and it was that I was really hurting about.

So, several times he walked right past me and happily ignored me and that hurt me enough to wake me up and realise that he does not care if I were dead or alive, that in fact his cruel behaviour was just that and not some external show when secretly he loved me as I made myself believe. I was slammed with a reality that finally helped me recover from the hurt and I know this because a couple of months ago I decided to have a look at the social network site of his partner, a thing that I would never do as it stands against my principles, but something compelled me after so long. And when I saw her, I thought she was the most adorable thing ever. I realised he was just a child, having fun and their happiness strangely enough made me happy and I could never have expected anything more from just a little boy. He did a lot of wrong, but I was able to let go and that was when I felt my time for recovery is almost at an end.

It is not about him hurting me, you see, neither is it about getting revenge but it is about the mistake I made toward myself and the acknowledgement of my wrong-doing. Penitence is not guilt but an admission and an authentic one not masked by our imagination that enables us to take one step closer toward being virtuous and wise, to form a genuine moral consciousness. At the time, where he was no longer around, I cried and cried and that was my emotional response to gradually becoming accustomed to the reality that I am alone.

I am still in the process of fully healing, but I am definitely very close to transforming into someone much stronger, much more independent than I ever was because I had the balls to face this existential reality.

You are laboring points that I don't disagree with. I want you to understand what the OP is saying. To do this you must abandon what Pierce or anybody else says about semiotics. Let me try and walk you through the concepts so we know where our opinions diverge. — MikeL

That is like reiterating over and again about the categorical imperative by asking one to abandon Kant. I don't need you to walk me through the concepts, I need you to understand that semiotics is not 'everything' but a process of articulating and interpreting signs based on a signified and the signifier, an object and you that enables meaning to an interpretation. Without solidifying your point rooted in this specific interaction, you are no longer talking about semiotics and sure, you can abandon Pierce since his theories have since progressed, but you are not presenting a strong enough case.

What I am saying is that I can understand the meta-scientific inquiry of semiotics based on finding this interpretative meaning in physical reality - that is the signifier and signified based on the information between you and the scientific material world - but your attempts at ameliorating this has since been unsuccessful, to me anyway. The actual science of meaning-making in semiotics is multidisciplinary, as mentioned already such as cognitive science, psychology, linguistics, even epistemology, but without an adequate focal point using pre-existing literature on the subject makes it hard for me to ascertain what your point actually is.

Do you agree that between the first two images and the third there has been information loss? — MikeL

No. Semiotics is not about the loss of information based on what we know in science as a whole, but the meaning that we obtain from the information to articulate and interpret its signification to the individual. The first image is all that is necessary for the doctor to develop meaning that will enable him/her to understand cell membranes, but a molecular biologist would understand from the first two that there is not enough information. That, however, does not mean that there is an error occurring.

The point is to recognise that a "realm of information" or semiotic interpretance becomes possible at the limit of physics. It is itself a natural or immanent fact. The world is on the whole entropic and dynamic - always in motion and running down an energy hill. But immanent in that is then inherently the "other" which is the possibility of a "non-physical" mark. — apokrisis

There is the same sophistication in language, hence why language is arbitrary to ensure that it adapts to the dynamism and why we progress through negative differentiation. Really well said, though.

Okay but objectively, because there is a difference in physical strength between men and women, it is physical strength that is associated with masculinity. Physical strength isn't used to denote just the physical aspect though as it seems to, but rather any kind of brute force that overwhelms the other through its very application. That's why control over the army is similar to physical strength - it is masculine, the kind of power that overwhelms by brute strength - by compelling the other will to obey it forcefully, rather than - for example - persuading it or manipulating it.

Persuasion is born out of love, but manipulation and brute strength are forms of violence. — Agustino

Thus a person without physical strength is not masculine? One of my friends, for instance, is a physically muscular Samoan guy who is a giant marshmallow and wouldn't hurt a fly and squirms at the sight of violence. Is he masculine? Just like how the ideology of nationalism is imagined and yet the depth of this social construct is nevertheless contained within a highly sophisticated and productive network that materialises the unreal, you are transferring this phenomena into an objective reality that does not actually exist neither is it natural. We are attempting to define ourselves within society by adapting to the social construct of masculinity as a way or language to articulate your relationship with your environment and form a bond with it. If we deconstruct the psychological foundations of masculinity in an individual, it exhibits a vulnerable person who has a distorted ego that attempts to adopt this appearance as a way to culturally signal that he epitomises what society has formed as an archetype. It is just an image.

Real masculine/feminine are in Forms, the material or physical is merely symbolic as we communicate to others through body language. "I am a man. I am not weak. I can hurt you so back off." But, without any clarity of what masculinity actually is vis-a-vis forms, i.e. courage and a strength of will, all the physical represents is conformity to the social construct. It is an empty shell. This is why in aggressive, paternalistic cultures that promotes violence as an indication of masculinity, gender-based violence is at epidemic proportions along with suicide rates due to the unwarranted pressure. An army without morals is dangerous.

I would say that that's precisely one thing that makes her more masculine than you in that regard. — Agustino

Mistake. Why? See your own quote next:

Many people treat virtue and compassion as weak and ineffective - but the truth is that they are like two swords - the sharpest of swords. — Agustino

This is what the masculinity/femininity paradigm represents; justice, righteousness, loyalty, moral firmness that contains the very solidity and effective prowess that transcends the material form. It is subjective and representative of the choices that you make, the fruits of your labour and not how you appear which only indicates conformity.

Real love does not require the consent of the other, it is purely an individual choice - it only has to do with the individual, unlike violence which always has to do with the other. Nothing, not even rejection, can stop real love from loving. But from the point of view of the wicked party - of the violent party - love is the absolutely most violent and cruel phenomenon. — Agustino

Love is not violent, you see when you become capable of transcending the social construct and forming an idealised version of yourself based on moral consciousness, your love becomes universalised. You understand the ebb and flow of giving love that it cannot be violent or cruel; you have moved beyond the need to feel anger or hatred because you become whole and are no longer attempting to communicate or articulate who you are to the material world around you. Just as one imagines and falsely follows social archetypes and constructs and become fixated on continuously trying to prove himself to an insatiable and unsatisfied environment in all its futility, letting that go and embracing who you are is what one would call self-love.

Only two individuals who have transcended social constructs to universalise love by forming an idealised version of themselves based on forms and morality are they capable of being able to "see" and ultimately experience "real" love with someone who has also done the same. It is two individuals of the same nature sharing. If you follow an archetype, you are conformist who follows society and are thus vulnerable to loving the same, which would certainly make it cruel; if you don't know yourself, how can you love others?

In order to understand our local layer we make assumptions about the nature of the objects in it. It is a planet would be an assumption. — MikeL

What? Why would "its a planet" be an assumption?

From a cosmological perspective we see a Planet - this is a semiotic term. It sums up a whole bunch of information into one discreet package. — MikeL

Need I remind you that semiotics is the study of signs? Hence why I mentioned Pierce; something that is symbolic is one part of a tripartite system, whereby a planet is iconic according to Pierce, not symbolic. It thus changes the structure of the argument and how we articulate this to form meaning.

A planetologist may describe it in terms of their semiotics. It is a gas giant 2 billion miles in diameter with an iron core and sulphur-dioxide atmosphere, a rotational period of 2.3 days, a surface pressure of 10 million KPa and a core pressure of 40 billion kPa, a surface temperature of 600Kelvin and a core temperature of 6000 kelvin.

Between the two there has been information loss. — MikeL

?

I can see how the use of semiotics would be possible in metascientific enquiry and the significance our interpretations have to the structure of our representations, but our thoughts of reference that may contain predisposed mental constructs becomes much more complex in the field of science as it is dominated by a sophisticated interpretative structure based on factual evidence. From a Saussurian perspective, language is this tool and at fundamental level requires a signifier (object) and the signified (representation) that are both arbitrary but nevertheless unequivocally inseparable and how much you know about planets are further defined by a structure or flow in syntagmatic meaning or paradigmatic where meaning is formed through a themes between groups. This enables us to articulate, to communicate, to organise our vocabulary.

The cosmologist cannot claim to fully understand the cosmos without fully understanding the planets in it. They can only claim to understand their part of it - the local level. — MikeL

A cosmologist is not a planetologist. They share information, work together in a complex network of interconnected contrasts and negative differentiation, which is why language is arbitrary to afford this flexibility. That is how we progress and learn. A philosopher of mind is not a cognitive scientist neither a psychologist, but by contrasting and sharing they advance their narrative in their respective fields. There is no sudden predefined structural categories.

How can you acknowledge your failure if you don't feel repentance? The latter is an emotional response to the acknowledgement.

When we are faced with such enormity of information we can no longer hold tenable the assertion that we truly understand the system we are investigating. Outside of our local understanding, when asked why a system works a certain way we enter into infinite regress or egress depending on if you are a top down or bottom up kind of thinker. Ultimately there is no answer to the why question. There is no full understanding that can be derived. — MikeL

The enormity of information is the very reason why we have symbolic representations as part of our associative process to metascientific enquiry; take cosmology, that attempts to build a narrative to articulate the universe both past and present to establish symbolic meaning to our investigations within astrophysics viz., the indexical and iconic. It does not 'blind us to the bigger picture' on the contrary it is our attempt to cognise something that cannot be seen otherwise. That is the point of semiotics, which is why you still are not making sense to me. If you want to give some specificity to your point by providing an example, perhaps we could work from there.

That's not how we do it in Australia.

Wait, what?

You are right that my use of the term semiotics is based on the idea that complex molecules etc can be represented simply by describing function. — MikeL

I am still trying to understand whether your question is related to the philosophical analysis of conceptual, epistemic, maybe even the methodological basis of metascientific inquiry using Pierce' system or even structuralism. I don't see you mentioning him, which makes me doubt you even understand how semiotics could be applied to scientific analysis. Accessibility to scientific literature has indeed enabled a more broader reach by simplifying the exchange of knowledge through signs.

For instance, Pierce' theory is modelled on a tripartite sign system of symbolic (meaning is given to a symbol through an associative process of signification between sign and object), iconic (shared quality defined by a sensory feature) and an indexical (representative of causally identifiable facts). A deduction is an observable fact and thus would feature as an indexical, while an induction is symbolic etc. This is particularly interesting with qualitative analysis in biology among other sciences.

You just seem to be praising it with random statements but there is no substance in what you are saying.

nyway, part of that orthodoxy is the assertion that males have all of the power and receive all of the benefits of the dominant system, females benefit in no way from that system and are brutally oppressed by it, and, therefore, no organized movement fighting for the rights of males is needed. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

This is no different to a racist complaining about how underrepresented minorities are getting all the benefits through positive discrimination.

And then you say:

Warren Farrell shows in The Myth of Male Power that men, among other differences, have longer commutes to work on average than women do. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Let me welcome you to the desert of the REAL

1. Global estimates published by WHO indicate that about 1 in 3 (35%) women worldwide have experienced either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence in their lifetime.
2. Most of this violence is intimate partner violence. Worldwide, almost one third (30%) of women who have been in a relationship report that they have experienced some form of physical and/or sexual violence by their intimate partner in their lifetime.
3. Globally, as many as 38% of murders of women are committed by a male intimate partner.
Violence can negatively affect women’s physical, mental, sexual and reproductive health, and may increase vulnerability to HIV.
4. Factors associated with increased risk of perpetration of violence include low education, child maltreatment or exposure to violence in the family, harmful use of alcohol, attitudes accepting of violence and gender inequality.
5. Factors associated with increased risk of experiencing intimate partner and sexual violence include low education, exposure to violence between parents, abuse during childhood, attitudes accepting violence and gender inequality.
6. At least 20.9 million adults and children are bought and sold worldwide into commercial sexual servitude, forced labor and bonded labor. About 2 million children are exploited every year in the global commercial sex trade.
7. 54% of trafficking victims are trafficked for sexual exploitation. Women and girls make up 96% of victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation.
8. It is estimated that of all women who were the victims of homicide globally in 2012, almost half were killed by intimate partners or family members, compared to less than six per cent of men killed in the same year.
9. Worldwide, almost 750 million women and girls alive today were married before their 18th birthday. Child marriage is more common in West and Central Africa, where over 4 in 10 girls were married before age 18, and about 1 in 7 were married or in union before age 15. Child marriage often results in early pregnancy and social isolation, interrupts schooling, limits the girl’s opportunities and increases her risk of experiencing domestic violence.
10. Around 120 million girls worldwide (slightly more than 1 in 10) have experienced forced intercourse or other forced sexual acts at some point in their lives. By far the most common perpetrators of sexual violence against girls are current or former husbands, partners or boyfriends
11. At least 200 million women and girls alive today have undergone female genital mutilation in the 30 countries with representative data on prevalence. In most of these countries, the majority of girls were cut before age 5.
12. One in 10 women in the European Union report having experienced cyber-harassment since the age of 15 (including having received unwanted, offensive sexually explicit emails or SMS messages, or offensive, inappropriate advances on social networking sites). The risk is highest among young women between 18 and 29 years of age.
13. Twenty-three per cent of female undergraduate university students reported having experienced sexual assault or sexual misconduct in a survey across 27 universities in the United States in 2015. Rates of reporting to campus officials, law enforcement or others ranged from 5 to 28 per cent, depending on the specific type of behaviour.

But, we wouldn't want you to be late for work, now would we.

It seems clear to me that no amount of reasoning will enable you to see how absurd you are. And that is what you are.