Gratitude, Good Wishes, and Goodbye

James, does your uncle have grown children who now qualify as "fully functional adults"? By that, I mean: Do they live productive, independent lives without mooching on mom and dad? If so, then he did his job as a parent.

All else comes second.

Post 41

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 12:13pm

I would just like to state that I do not find Jennifer Iannolo either delusional or dysfunctional.

Remember Jennifer? You know, the person that this thread is about? The one that such comments will apply to, by default?

Let us not get into floating abstractions here, of all threads!

Post 42

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 4:13pm

Michael: �Homes are intended to house families, and the members of a family normally try to settle their disputes through negotiation rather than spitting in the owner's face or shitting on the floor.�

If you believe that families consist of �owners� and �members�, then I guess your analogy holds. But I�d say that sort of attitude is a sure road to dysfunction.

Sure, David Elmore�s comments were pretty strong, but it�s a bit late, don�t you think, to start complaining now about the state of the floor. The fundamental tone was set long ago. Elmore just upped the ante and dumped on the wrong person. Not very clever, but that just highlights the conflict of interest that is inherent in these sorts of venues, where some of the players are also the referees.

Brendan

Post 43

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 5:41pm

I am going to miss her.

Post 44

Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 7:50pm

Hold on Brendan. You're the one who mentioned home with "property rights."

Now you find it strange that I mention home with "owners"?

So why don't you just try bitching without the metaphors then? You're getting them all mixed up.

And yes, guys. I miss Jennifer already. She rocks. Kat and I love her.

We love Solo and the good people here too.

But I don't own Jennifer and I don't own Linz/Jeff/Joe either. They are the ones who have to work this out.

Shit anyway.

Michael

Post 45

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 4:05am

Michael: �Hold on Brendan. You're the one who mentioned home with "property rights." Now you find it strange that I mention home with "owners"?�

In a home the property rights are usually owned jointly � it�s �our house�. When it�s �you� vs �me�, and property rights enter the dispute, the home is headed for dissolution.

I�m not bitching � just identifying what I see as some structural problems that exacerbate the recent dispute. You obviously don�t agree with me. That�s OK, and as you say, Linz/Jeff/Joe are the ones who have to work this out.

Brendan

Post 46

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 11:40am

Brendan,

I don't mind you bitching. Just the double standard on using metaphors.

Besides, I am not too much in the mood right now. I am grieving the loss of Jennifer.

Michael

Post 47

Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 11:41pm

Michael: �I don't mind you bitching. Just the double standard on using metaphors.�

I�m not invoking a double standard. A double standard is when you selectively apply one standard to some, and another standard to others. Clearly, I�m not doing that. In fact, I�m suggesting that a consistent standard should be applied to all.

What you may be arguing is that I�m mixing my metaphors, but that claim would also be unfounded. A mixed metaphor is where two or more metaphors are drawn from different fields of comparison, with incongruous results. For example: �SOLO stands on the abyss; let us march forward together� is a mixed metaphor. But my metaphor deals in homes and guesthouses, which are both residences, and I�ve stayed with that metaphor consistently.

Brendan

Post 48

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 12:09am

Brendan,

(sigh)

Homes are intended to house families, and the members of a family normally try to settle their disputes through negotiation rather than reaching for their property rights. Once they start doing the latter, it�s usually a sign of a dysfunctional family, one that is in dissolution.

(My emphasis) "Owners" are those who have property rights, the last time I looked. That's your metaphor, dude.

Michael: �Homes are intended to house families, and the members of a family normally try to settle their disputes through negotiation rather than spitting in the owner's face or shitting on the floor.�

If you believe that families consist of �owners� and �members�, then I guess your analogy holds.

I am not the one who made the analogy of families consisting of "owners" and �members.� You said it, by saying "their property rights." (Who has property rights? Why owners, of course.)

So when you used this metaphor, it's OK. When I used it, but with different words, you complained as if it were my idea and my analogy.

What gives?

If it's going to be arguing like that, it's better to bitch without the metaphors. Makes more sense, anyway.

Michael

Post 49

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 1:27am

MSK,

1.I agree with Brendan on the overall issue.
2.The idea that Brendan's statement about "family members" reaching for their "property rights" implied that all family members have precisely the same property rights, or that some family members could have no legal property rights with respect to the house, is, to put it in the politest terms, puzzling to me.
3. Brendan's point was simple: if my father had to start asserting very seriously his ownership of our house as a take-it-or-leave-it reason for his position on this or that issue, then that is a clear sign that the my family is falling apart.

You don't have to agree with Brendan as I do. However, there is no need to reduce the disagreement to verbal gymnastics.

Cheers,

Laj.

Post 50

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 5:12am

Laj, I have no issue with parents enforcing their values in their own household via their appeal to their ownership of the property, especially when they have adult children still living with them. More broadly, as long as parents have legal responsibility for their minor children, they need to have commensurate authority over those minor children. Once those children become adults, the parents can legally give them a "kick out of the nest" and tell them to "sink or swim." I know of households where the children stepped so far across the line of rational values that the parents had to do this for the good of all concerned. In the United States, people call this process "tough love."

Post 51

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 5:52am

Laj,

I was OK with Brendan, even disagreeing, until he complained that I was doing what he just did. Not good rhetoric. Not good argument. I merely suggested that he use another line of discourse.

I am very sure that if I had made the same mistake, I would have been called on it.

Damn Objectivists. It's hard to get them to admit a mistake, even when it's in their face.

Cheers to you to,

Michael

Post 52

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 7:37am

Luther,

You are right. I agree that using Property Rights as a measure of last resort when reasonable communication has broken down is necessary in some family conflicts,including the situations you wrote of. The bigger point is that Property Rights do not determine the causes or the moral responsibility each family member possesses for the dysfunction.

However, the sense of community that comes in a family is partly based on a feeling of ownership on the part of the child. That some derelicts turn this feeling of ownership into a sense of entitlement doesn't vitiate the fact. And I would be wary of the person who considers himself a good father and often resorts to King-Of-The-Castle arguments to justify his actions.

MSK,

OK. I don't think that Brendan was complaining about your doing what he just did- I think he criticized your analogy just as you criticized his. Since the analogies arise out of contrary perspectives of the situation, I'm not sure what the problem was.

Cheers,

Laj.

Post 53

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 8:46am

Laj,

This is really nitpicking, but the problem is rhetorical.

(1) You say Stance A is true and use Metaphor A to illustrate.
(2) I say Stance B is true and use Metaphor A to illustrate (using some different words).
(3) You say Stance B is not true because Metaphor A is too limited to prove that.

You just shot yourself in the foot.

Michael

Post 54

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 2:47pm

Abolaji: �Brendan's point was simple: if my father had to start asserting very seriously his ownership of our house as a take-it-or-leave-it reason for his position on this or that issue, then that is a clear sign that the my family is falling apart.�

Thanks, Laj, that�s exactly the point I was making.

Michael: �So when you used this metaphor, it's OK. When I used it, but with different words, you complained as if it were my idea and my analogy.

Compare these quotes:

Brendan: �Homes are intended to house families, and the members of a family normally try to settle their disputes through negotiation rather than reaching for their property rights.�

Michael: �Homes are intended to house families, and the members of a family normally try to settle their disputes through negotiation rather than spitting in the owner's face or shitting on the floor.�

Who makes a distinction between owners and members? You do. The clue is in the words �owner� and �members�. That�s why I said: �If you believe that families consist of �owners� and �members��.�

Perhaps I didn�t express myself very clearly. Let�s say: �If one believes that families consist of �owners� and �guests�, that sort of attitude is a sure road to dysfunction.�

As for the felicity of the �home� metaphor, it�s part of SOLO�s Credo. If you have a problem with it, you could take it up with the, er, owner.

Brendan

Post 55

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 4:58pm

Well hell, Brendan.

Let's just keep going on this all year long. Being wrong's a bitch ain't it?

Your metaphor stated clearly "members of a family" and "reaching for their property rights."

Well owners are who have property rights, dude. Just because you didn't use the word "owner" doesn't mean that it isn't there in your metaphor. You simply described it.

You then complained about me using "owner" with "family member."

If you still want to deny it, go ahead. I ain't posting no more on this.

Dayaamm!

Earth calling Brendan... Earth calling Brendan... Earth calling Brendan...

Michael

Post 56

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 6:31pm

Brendan wrote:
>Homes are intended to house families, and the members of a family normally try to settle their disputes through negotiation rather than reaching for their property rights. Once they start doing the latter, it�s usually a sign of a dysfunctional family....

MSK, this is basically what Brendan is on about. Are you really saying you *disagree* with this? Is *anyone* disagreeing with this? It hardly seems unreasonable enough to warrant "...Earth to Brendan..." to me. In fact, James Heaps Nelson provides a typical example of this particular genre of parenting, and its results.

So yes or no?

- Daniel

Post 57

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 6:41pm

Daniel, I agree with Brendan that such actions offer a symptom of dysfunction. However, the treatment for the dysfunction may demand the exercise of property rights to terminate a codependent-enabling relationship. I made that point in my post. I agree that a more functional family would have strong skills of empathic communication and resolve disagreements without forcing anyone out of the house. That said, members of a household need to accept the basic fact that the owner will have the final say about such matters. If the owner wants to enjoy warm, familial relations, he will seek to mesh his values with those of the other family members. If not, then by default he will rule with an iron fist and suffer the consequences. This latter condition commonly gets called "dysfunctional" and reflects the state of affairs of many households today.

Are we in sync here?

Post 58

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 7:11pm

Daniel,

I don;t want to talk about the hapless misuse of the metaphor any longer. Let's talk about the issue. I'll even take out the word "owner" in mine.

Brendan's ("owner" and all):

Homes are intended to house families, and the members of a family normally try to settle their disputes through negotiation rather than reaching for their property rights. Once they start doing the latter, it�s usually a sign of a dysfunctional family....

I would say that depends. Brazil is basically a patriarchal country where I have lived and there is a tremendous amount of property rights spoken in families during disputes, generally by the head of the family, and the oodles of families there are not necessarily dysfunctional. That is my own empirical observation.

I don't like this whole metaphor the way he said it anyway as it is completely one-sided.

Mine (with the intimidating "owner" taken out):

�Homes are intended to house families, and the members of a family normally try to settle their disputes through negotiation rather than spitting in the head of the family's face or shitting on the floor. Once they start doing the latter two, it�s usually a sign of a dysfunctional family...�

Now would you agree with that?

Michael

Post 59

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 8:52pm