Driving in the car with Grandma

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

toypup wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
toypup wrote:

But there is a difference between compromising on a position and
compromising on a fear. There is no compromising on the fear,
because the fear level is exactly the same no matter where Grandma
drives the baby. Compromise on something like what time the baby
sleeps or the foods she eats or something, but not fear.

I disagree with this concept of fear. I don't think
fears are that immutable. I don't think people need to be
held hostage to their fears. I think that people make choices
to deal with their fears fairly frequently. Everyone has them,
and most have to confront at least some of them. I think this
is an artificial and unnecessary distinction. It's not easy
to confront one's fears, but it's generally doable for those
who wish to do so, barring abnormal psychiatric sorts of
situations.

It is not for you or anyone else to determine that someone should not
fear something and needs to get over it.

Good heavens, how many times do I have to say this!!!?
*I* am not making any judgment about who has to get over what
when. What I am saying is that fears are gotten over not

You say this and then you completely erase it by saying that someone
has to face their fears. That's a judgment.

through tincture of time, but through someone having the
courage to make a decision and act on it. In other words,
the idea that one has no control over fears and is simply
held hostage to them until some miracle happens and they
fall away is flat out bogus. Fears are overcome, if they
are overcome, by making a decision and taking steps to
confront them.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Rosalie B. wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

toypup wrote:
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
toypup wrote:

But there is a difference between compromising on a position and
compromising on a fear. There is no compromising on the fear,
because the fear level is exactly the same no matter where Grandma
drives the baby. Compromise on something like what time the baby
sleeps or the foods she eats or something, but not fear.
I disagree with this concept of fear. I don't think
fears are that immutable. I don't think people need to be
held hostage to their fears. I think that people make choices
to deal with their fears fairly frequently. Everyone has them,
and most have to confront at least some of them. I think this
is an artificial and unnecessary distinction. It's not easy
to confront one's fears, but it's generally doable for those
who wish to do so, barring abnormal psychiatric sorts of
situations.
It is not for you or anyone else to determine that someone should not
fear something and needs to get over it.
Good heavens, how many times do I have to say this!!!?
*I* am not making any judgment about who has to get over what
when. What I am saying is that fears are gotten over not

You say this and then you completely erase it by saying that someone
has to face their fears. That's a judgment.

I did not say anyone had to face their fears. Please
don't put words in my mouth. I said that the way people get
over fears is by facing them, not through tincture of time.
I said that having one's actions dictated by fear has
consequences (duh--how's that for a no brainer?). I said that
I have a lot of respect for people who face their fears, and
that as a result I strive not to be limited by my fears. I
did not say that everyone has to face all their fears or that
anyone else had the right to tell a person to do so.
I don't care if you disagree with me, but I do care
that you don't misrepresent my position.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Rosalie B. wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Good heavens, how many times do I have to say this!!!?
*I* am not making any judgment about who has to get over what
when. What I am saying is that fears are gotten over not

You say this and then you completely erase it by saying that someone
has to face their fears. That's a judgment.

I did not say anyone had to face their fears. Please
don't put words in my mouth. I said that the way people get
over fears is by facing them, not through tincture of time.

Yes you said " What I am saying is that fears are gotten over not
through tincture of time, but through someone having the
courage to make a decision and act on it. "

The fact that you equate getting over fear with having courage is a
judgment . The obverse of that is that someone who has a fear and
does NOT take steps to make a decision to get over it is not
courageous, or weak willed.

I'm not misrepresenting what you have written. I am giving an
interpretation of what you wrote which is perfectly logical based on
what you wrote. You've stated over and over that a person has to have
the courage to face their fears, and that some people have the will to
do it and some don't. That's judgment both on the people who do face
up to their fears and those who do not. Favorable in one case and not
in the other case.

I said that having one's actions dictated by fear has
consequences (duh--how's that for a no brainer?). I said that
I have a lot of respect for people who face their fears, and

So if you have respect for people who face their fears doesn't that
mean that you have less respect for those who don't? If not, why not?
You can't have it both ways.

that as a result I strive not to be limited by my fears. I

Some fears are more limiting than others, and more than that, some
fears are justifiable. My mom (in the last 10-20 years of her life)
would not go up a stepladder to change a lightbulb. Someone here
wrote that she didn't get on stepladders because she had a fear of
heights. With mom it was not because of a fear of heights, but
because she was living alone and was getting older and didn't want to
fall. She waited until someone younger came along who could do it. I
have no real fear of heights, but I do now have significant vertigo,
so I'm cautious about ladders. Mom and I had/have ladder issues that
were/are justified. Our friend who doesn't do stepladders is just
ahead of the curve for when she gets old g .

I find that I suppress my fears, and go ahead and do things. I
haven't realized until recently that when I am uncertain about things,
I get sick to my stomach. It's like morning sickness without the
favorable outcome. I am not sure whether that is good or not.

did not say that everyone has to face all their fears or that
anyone else had the right to tell a person to do so.
I don't care if you disagree with me, but I do care
that you don't misrepresent my position.

Rosalie B. wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Rosalie B. wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Good heavens, how many times do I have to say this!!!?
*I* am not making any judgment about who has to get over what
when. What I am saying is that fears are gotten over not
You say this and then you completely erase it by saying that someone
has to face their fears. That's a judgment.
I did not say anyone had to face their fears. Please
don't put words in my mouth. I said that the way people get
over fears is by facing them, not through tincture of time.

Yes you said " What I am saying is that fears are gotten over not
through tincture of time, but through someone having the
courage to make a decision and act on it. "

The fact that you equate getting over fear with having courage is a
judgment . The obverse of that is that someone who has a fear and
does NOT take steps to make a decision to get over it is not
courageous, or weak willed.

No, it isn't. If I said it took strength to climb
Mt. Everest, does it mean that anyone who doesn't climb
Mt. Everest is weak?

I'm not misrepresenting what you have written. I am giving an
interpretation of what you wrote which is perfectly logical based on
what you wrote.

I think the above is a classic example of a failure
of logic.

You've stated over and over that a person has to have
the courage to face their fears,

No, I didn't. I said it took courage to face fears.
That's a rather different statement, logically.

and that some people have the will to
do it and some don't. That's judgment both on the people who do face
up to their fears and those who do not.

No, it's not. That's pretty much a tautology. That's
like saying there are two kinds of people--those taller than
5' and those shorter than 5'. Some people decide to face their
fears and some don't. That's about as value-free a statement
as you can get. Now, do I think that in a perfect world,
people would not let fears dictate their actions? Sure I
do. Is there anyone here who would suggest that it's better
for people to have their actions dictated by fear? I also
think that in this perfect world people would maintain their
ideal weights, be kind to everyone, never lose their tempers,
use perfect grammar all the time, and so on. I don't know
about you, but I don't live in that perfect world, and I
don't particularly expect anyone else to either. So I
do not cast judgment on those who do not live in a perfect
world, but that doesn't mean I confuse more desirable states
with less desirable states.

Favorable in one case and not
in the other case.

That judgment is coming from you, not me.

I said that having one's actions dictated by fear has
consequences (duh--how's that for a no brainer?). I said that
I have a lot of respect for people who face their fears, and

So if you have respect for people who face their fears doesn't that
mean that you have less respect for those who don't? If not, why not?
You can't have it both ways.

Again, a failure of logic. If I say I respect
people who climb Mt. Everest, does that mean I do not respect
people who do not climb Mt. Everest?

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
. ..
No, it's not. That's pretty much a tautology. That's
like saying there are two kinds of people--those taller than
5' and those shorter than 5'. Some people decide to face their
fears and some don't. That's about as value-free a statement
as you can get. Now, do I think that in a perfect world,
people would not let fears dictate their actions? Sure I
do. Is there anyone here who would suggest that it's better
for people to have their actions dictated by fear?


I am guessing your answer to this question is no. My answer is yes. There
are times when I think fear is a good thing to have. There are people who
jump out of moving airplanes. I don't ever want to do that. I think it is
self-preservation and good to not want to go out and have myself killed.
You may say a car is not a moving airplane, but different people have their
own risk tolerances. I will not judge them for that.

I also
think that in this perfect world people would maintain their
ideal weights, be kind to everyone, never lose their tempers,
use perfect grammar all the time, and so on. I don't know
about you, but I don't live in that perfect world, and I
don't particularly expect anyone else to either. So I
do not cast judgment on those who do not live in a perfect
world, but that doesn't mean I confuse more desirable states
with less desirable states.

I think calling those not facing fears immature *IS* a judgment.

Again, a failure of logic. If I say I respect
people who climb Mt. Everest, does that mean I do not respect
people who do not climb Mt. Everest?

But you do call those who face fears mature and agreed that those who don't
are immature.

toypup wrote:


"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
. ..
No, it's not. That's pretty much a tautology. That's
like saying there are two kinds of people--those taller than
5' and those shorter than 5'. Some people decide to face their
fears and some don't. That's about as value-free a statement
as you can get. Now, do I think that in a perfect world,
people would not let fears dictate their actions? Sure I
do. Is there anyone here who would suggest that it's better
for people to have their actions dictated by fear?


I am guessing your answer to this question is no. My answer is yes.
There are times when I think fear is a good thing to have. There are
people who jump out of moving airplanes. I don't ever want to do that.
I think it is self-preservation and good to not want to go out and have
myself killed. You may say a car is not a moving airplane, but different
people have their own risk tolerances. I will not judge them for that.

Risk assessment is not fear.

I also
think that in this perfect world people would maintain their
ideal weights, be kind to everyone, never lose their tempers,
use perfect grammar all the time, and so on. I don't know
about you, but I don't live in that perfect world, and I
don't particularly expect anyone else to either. So I
do not cast judgment on those who do not live in a perfect
world, but that doesn't mean I confuse more desirable states
with less desirable states.

I think calling those not facing fears immature *IS* a judgment.

Again, a failure of logic. If I say I respect
people who climb Mt. Everest, does that mean I do not respect
people who do not climb Mt. Everest?

But you do call those who face fears mature and agreed that those who
don't are immature.

No, I said that those who let fears dictate their
decision making are making an immature or suboptimal decision.
That doesn't mean that the person is immature (are you smart
if you ace one test, or stupid if you fail one?). It's also
the case that many decisions are made for multiple reasons,
and there may be other reasons that support the same decision
(I'm afraid to jump off a 30-story building, but I think
there are lots of other good reasons not to jump off 30-story
buildings aside from being afraid of it).

Best wishes,
Ericka