Valid Or Invalid Quotes

Trauma is personal. It does not disappear if it is not validated. When it is ignored or invalidated the silent screams continue internally heard only by the one held captive. When someone enters the pain and hears the screams healing can begin.

Love will find you eventually, I guarantee it. That’s why you need to buy an invisible cloak from me for the one-time low price of $77,777.77. Offer valid for emotional invalids only.

Trauma is personal. It does not disappear if it is not validated. When it is ignored or invalidated the silent screams continue internally heard only by the one held captive.

Attitude Is Everything We live in a culture that is blind to betrayal and intolerant of emotional pain. In New Age crowds here on the West Coast, where your attitude is considered the sole determinant of the impact an event has on you, it gets even worse.In these New Thought circles, no matter what happens to you, it is assumed that you have created your own reality. Not only have you chosen the event, no matter how horrible, for your personal growth. You also chose how you interpret what happened—as if there are no interpersonal facts, only interpretations. The upshot of this perspective is that your suffering would vanish if only you adopted a more evolved perspective and stopped feeling aggrieved. I was often kindly reminded (and believed it myself), “there are no victims.” How can you be a victim when you are responsible for your circumstances? When you most need validation and support to get through the worst pain of your life, to be confronted with the well-meaning, but quasi-religious fervor of these insidious half-truths can be deeply demoralizing. This kind of advice feeds guilt and shame, inhibits grieving, encourages grandiosity and can drive you to be alone to shield your vulnerability.

Life is fundamentally a mental state. We live in a dream world that we create. Whose life is truer, the rational man of action pursuing practical goals of personal happiness and wealth or the philosophic man who lives in a world of theoretical and metaphysical ideas? We ascribe the value quotient to our lives by making decisions that we score as either valid or invalid based upon our personal ethics and how we think and behave.

…the war about the genocide was truly a postmodern war: a battle between those who believed that because the realities we inhabit are constructs of our imaginations, they are all equally true or false, valid or invalid, just or unjust, and those who believed that constructs of reality can—in fact, must—be judged as right or wrong, good or bad. While academic debates about the possibility of objective truth and falsehood are often rarified to the point of absurdity, Rwanda demonstrated that the question is a matter of life and death.

The Bible was written two thousand years ago. The world is a different place now. Stories that had meaning then are meaningless now. Beliefs that might have been valid then are invalid now. Those books should be looked at in the same way we look at anything of that age with interest with an acknowledgement of the historical importance but they should not be thought of as anything that has any value.

Destruction is as valid an artistic statement as construction. Both statements echo the model of the society we live in. The only invalid art is utopian

Side note: invalid. Whoever invented that word, and made it the same word as not-valid? That person sucked.

When you paint your lips, eye lids, nails or whatever, to look attractive, don't forget your up stairs(intellect) if you leave it behind, i will consider all other colors invalid.

that no matter how valid, how vital, one’s belief system might be, one undermines that system and ultimately negates it when one gets rigid and dogmatic in one’s adherence to it.

Keeping a stiff upper lip may be needed while around the person invalidating you, but on your own, there is every reason to be compassionate and self-­soothing. It does hurt to be invalidated.

Like Yeshua, James is against the idea that we can just pick and choose which commandments are relevant to our lives. We have no authority to declare some commandments valid and others invalid. All of the Torah is important.

Logic, it is often said, is the study of valid arguments. It is a systematic attempt to distinguish valid arguments from invalid arguments.

Fancy words and ambiguous notions make you feel like your argument is valid but it exudes multiple logical fallacies, which make you continue to search for a valid point.

A refusal on the part of psychiatrists and therapists to validate the horrors of their patients' tortured past implies a refusal to take seriously the unconscious psychological mechanisms that individuals need to use to protect themselves from the unspeakable. Such a denial is, however, no longer ethical, for it is in the human capacity to dissociate that lies part of the secret of both childhood abuse and the horrors of the Nazi genocide, both forms of human violence so often carried out by 'respectable' men and women.

I submit a body of facts which cannot be invalidated. My opinions may be doubted, denied, or approved, according as they conflict or agree with the opinions of each individual who may read them; but their worth will be best determined by the foundation on which they rest—the incontrovertible facts.

Beautiful, fragile, fleeting, the sunrise shell; but not, for all that, illusory. Because it is not lasting, let us not fall into the cynic's trap and call it an illusion. Duration is not a test of true or false. The day of the dragon-fly or the night of the Saturnid moth is not invalid simply because that phase in its life cycle is brief. Validity need have no relation to time, to duration, to continuity. It is on another plane, judged by other standards. "And what is actual is actual only for one time and only for one place." The sunrise shell has the eternal validity of all beautiful and fleeting things.

...[W]e must not let it enter our minds that there may be no validity in argument. On the contrary we should recognize that we ourselves are still intellectual invalids; but that we must brace ourselves and do our best to become healthy... No greater misfortune could happen to anyone than that of developing a dislike for argument.

Environments become invalidating when they fail to protect you or neglect your basic needs. Environments for children invalidate when they regularly communicate that their needs, feelings, and preferences are bad, or wrong, or otherwise lack validity

The psychological definition of an invalidating environment is an environment where the responses of the child are pervasively treated as inaccurate, unrealistic, trivial, or pathological, independent of the actual validity of the behavior. This is really a mess of words, but here are some examples of invalidating responses: The child says he doesn’t like green beans. “Of course you like green beans. Everybody likes green beans.” The child brings home a grade of 98 on a test. “Why didn’t you get a 100? I know you could have gotten a 100.” The child says she is hungry. “You are not hungry. You just ate.” The child comes home crying after a fight with a friend. “You didn’t need him as a friend anyway.” The teenager comes home after a terrible day at high school. “Don’t you complain. These are the best days of your life.” (Honestly, would you want to do high school again?)

An invalid, one who has been invalidated. No valid passport. No exit.   That

How do I validate him in the face of such profound personal loss and the outrageous denial by the medical community?

No one can validate a writer and so, no one can invalidate them.

Valid questions are better than invalid assumptions.

The arrival of the tray, carried up the stairs as if for an invalid. An invalid, one who has been invalidated. No valid passport. No exit.

You can't invalidate all and expect to be validated.

Remember that you are not invalidated on those days you feel unhappy about your skills, grades, and achievements. You are not less human on those times you question your worth and progress.

What I am sure of, though, is that accepting people outside the gender binary has less to do with the idea of specific non-binary genders, and a lot more to do with working away from the binary thinking in general. That we get better at seeing beyond us and them, valid and invalid, natural and unnatural, good and bad, and instead communicate the fullness of who we are to each other, respectfully, with compassion.

What he felt during his Spanish encounter with left-wing anti-Christianity was similar to his reactions to the anti-Christianity of the right. The "novelty and shock of the Nazis", Auden wrote, and the blitheness with which Hitler's acolytes dismissed Christianity "on the grounds that to love one's neighbor as oneself was a command fit only for effeminate weaklings", pushed him inexorably toward unavoidable questions. "If, as I am convinced, the Nazis are wrong and we are right, what is it that validates our values and invalidates theirs?" The answer to this question, he wrote later, was part of what "brought me back to the church.

Now there’s a space to be filled, in the too-warm air of my room, and a time also; a space-time, between here and now and there and then, punctuated by dinner. The arrival of the tray, carried up the stairs as if for an invalid. An invalid, one who has been invalidated. No valid passport. No exit.

There is also the issue of many people who have been consciously invalidated by their parents or others in authority. This would be when someone is constantly berated for being overweight, not smart enough, not athletic enough, not tall enough, not pretty enough, not helpful enough, not thoughtful enough, not, not, not...This invalidation comes from others, but as we grow into adulthood those voices from the past become our voices in our heads, as we continue to invalidate ourselves. This could just result in low self-esteem, or it could lead to the unconscious seeking of others to validate us.

We rarely get the chance to see things anew. I remember a Latin translation that caused me to fail an exam at school because one of the words, translated for us at the bottom of the page and intended to help, was invalid. I read this to mean false, null, illegal. The opposite of valid. But it was meant to be understood as invalid as in a sick person. It torpedoed my entire translation. Instead of tending to the sick, priests were being accused of fraudulence and neglecting their duties. Even though it didn't match up with the grammar, or the story, I kept on returning to that word to check, and every time I saw it only as I had done already—invalid, null, void.

Common phrases narcissists use and what they actually mean: 1. I love you. Translation: I love owning you. I love controlling you. I love using you. It feels so good to love-bomb you, to sweet-talk you, to pull you in and to discard you whenever I please. When I flatter you, I can have anything I want. You trust me. You open up so easily, even after you’ve already been mistreated. Once you’re hooked and invested, I’ll pull the rug beneath your feet just to watch you fall. 2. I am sorry you feel that way. Translation: Sorry, not sorry. Let’s get this argument over with already so I can continue my abusive behavior in peace. I am not sorry that I did what I did, I am sorry I got caught. I am sorry you’re calling me out. I am sorry that I am being held accountable. I am sorry you have the emotions that you do. To me, they’re not valid because I am entitled to have everything I want – regardless of how you feel about it. 3. You’re oversensitive/overreacting. Translation: You’re having a perfectly normal reaction to an immense amount of bullshit, but all I see is that you’re catching on. Let me gaslight you some more so you second-guess yourself. Emotionally invalidating you is the key to keeping you compliant. So long as you don’t trust yourself, you’ll work that much harder to rationalize, minimize and deny my abuse. 4. You’re crazy. Translation: I am a master of creating chaos to provoke you. I love it when you react. That way, I can point the finger and say you’re the crazy one. After all, no one would listen to what you say about me if they thought you were just bitter or unstable. 5. No one would believe you. Translation: I’ve isolated you to the point where you feel you have no support. I’ve smeared your name to others ahead of time so people already suspect the lies I’ve told about you. There are still others who might believe you, though, and I can’t risk being caught. Making you feel alienated and alone is the best way for me to protect my image. It’s the best way to convince you to remain silent and never speak the truth about who I really am.

Frye noted that, when it comes women’s anger, ‘Attention is turned not to what we are angry about but to the project of calming us down and to the topic of our mental stability.’ She wrote this almost forty years ago, but it might well have been yesterday. Even today, women’s testimony about their own experiences are seen as invalid and unreliable. When the root of their anger is not seen as valid, or is deemed unintelligible, it is easier to dismiss the anger as unjustified.3

Every culture has its own creation myth, its own cosmology. And in some respects every cosmology is true, even if I might flatter myself in assuming mine is somehow truer because it is scientific. But it seems to me that no culture, including scientific culture, has cornered the market on definitive answers when it comes to the ultimate questions. Science may couch its models in the language of mathematics and observational astronomy, while other cultures use poetry and sacrificial propitiations to defend theirs. But in the end, no one knows, at least not yet. The current flux in the state of scientific cosmology attests to this, as we watch physicists and astronomers argue over string theory and multiverses and the cosmic inflation hypothesis. Many of the postulates of modern cosmology lie beyond, or at least at the outer fringes, of what can be verified through observation. As a result, aesthetics—as reflected by the “elegance” of the mathematical models—has become as important as observation in assessing the validity of a cosmological theory. There is the assumption, sometimes explicit and sometimes not, that the universe is rationally constructed, that it has an inherent quality of beauty, and that any mathematical model that does not exemplify an underlying, unifying simplicity is to be considered dubious if not invalid on such criteria alone. This is really nothing more than an article of faith; and it is one of the few instances where science is faith-based, at least in its insistence that the universe can be understood, that it “makes sense.” It is not entirely a faith-based position, in that we can invoke the history of science to support the proposition that, so far, science has been able to make sense, in a limited way, of much of what it has scrutinized. (The psychedelic experience may prove to be an exception.)

WITH GOD YOU CAN TURN YOUR impeaching importunities into optimal opportunities. Frightful frustration into fortifying fortunes. Humble attitudes into higher altitudes .Distress disabilities into affluent abilities. Incalculable incapacity into calibrated capabilities. Protracted poverty into pronounced prosperity. Subtracting adversity into multiplying advantage. Intimidating invalidities into valuable validities. Weeping profession into a winning prowess .worrisome weariness into wholesome health. Multiple miseries into a myriad of treasures. Possessive problems into progressive productivity. Earthly human co-incidence into heavenly divine “God-incidence”.

This may be a bit controversial, but I’m not so sure compensation scales are a “moral” issue, at least once you exceed the very bottom of the range. If I create a business model that works only if I pay animators half the going rate in Hollywood, and we find it impossible to hire competent animators at that rate, I know my business model is invalid. It won’t work. On the other hand, if enough animators turn up willing to work for that pay scale, the business model may be valid. Turnover will undoubtedly be on the high side, as many of the better animators will move on to higher-paying work, but if we can build turnover into our business model, the business still works.

identity politics is valid, then the idea that education should make the educated a member of a larger intellectual culture is invalid. If the premise of identity politics is true, then the idea on which America rests is false. If the premise of identity politics is true, then there is in no meaningful sense a universal human nature, and there are no general standards of intellectual discourse, and no ethic of ennobling disputation, no process of civil persuasion toward friendly consent, no source of legitimacy other than power, and we all live immersed in our tribes, warily watching other tribes across the chasms of our “differences.” No sensible person wants to live in such a society.

The power to pardon is conferred upon the presidency. It is not a personal power of the man or woman who inhabits the office. ... Where a pardon is being used to protect the president personally, or protect the president’s family, friends, or conspirators, it should not be seen as a valid exercise of that constitutional power. Being able to tell one scenario from the other may not be difficult. Until Trump’s presidency, all recent presidents used a formal process for evaluating and granting pardons. Where pardons are awarded to conspirators of the president, and without any consistent rationale to support them, a court could find the pardon to be an invalid exercise of the power of the presidency.

I'm just thinking. Someone asked me to do something and I'm not sure whether I should." Now Juno frowned. "Is it bad?" "No. Not bad." Purring, the cat climbed up onto Juno's chest. "Is someone going to get hurt?" "I hope not," Jess said. "I don't think so." "Do you feel unsafe?" Jess bit her lips, trying to hold in a charmed laugh, This kid was repeating exactly what she would say if their positions were reversed. "No." Leaning in, she pressed a kiss to her head. "I don;t feel unsafe." Once she sat up again, her daughter pinned her with a stern look. "Will you be lying?" You're an important part of our research study, one-half of a score we need to validate - our invalidate - our binning paradigm prior to launch. She shook her head. "I won't be lying." Juno set her book on the nightstand and scooped up Pigeon before snuggling them both down into her comforter. "Would you learn something?" Jess felt an intense pulse of pride in her kid, and the knee-jerk negative answer evaporated in her mouth. Because... maybe she would.

But if somebody does want a productive conversation and genuinely believes that being called “cracker” is the same as being called “nigger” and feels angry and invalidated by the insistence that both do not meet your definition of racism, they will say so. This is an educational opportunity. This is a great way to let that person know that you do hear them, and that your experiences do not erase theirs because even though their experience is valid, it is a different experience. A response I’ve used is, “What was said to you wasn’t okay, and should be addressed. But we are talking about two different things. Being called “cracker” hurts, may even be humiliating. But after those feelings fade, what measurable impact will it have on your life? On your ability to walk the streets safely? On your ability to get a job? How often has the word “cracker” been used to deny you services? What measurable impact has this word had on the lives of white Americans in general?” In all honesty, from my personal experience, you are still not likely to get very far in that conversation, not right away. But it gives people something to think about. These conversations, even if they seem fruitless at first, can plant a seed to greater understanding. If you want to further understanding of systemic racism even more among the people you interact with, you can try to link to the systemic effects of racism whenever you talk about racism. Instead of posting on Facebook: “This teacher shouted a racial slur at a Hispanic kid and should be fired!” you can say all that, and then add, “This behavior is linked to the increased suspension, expulsion, and detention of Hispanic youth in our schools and sets an example of behavior for the children witnessing this teacher’s racism that will influence the way these children are treated by their peers, and how they are treated as adults.” I do this often when

Validation has two main elements. It 1) acknowledges a specific emotion, and 2) offers justification for feeling that emotion. Validation is nonjudgmental. It allows the other person to feel whatever they’re feeling without labeling it as “good” or “bad.” Invalidation (i.e. minimizing or dismissing another person’s feelings) is counter-productive. Research has shown that invalidating responses can make a difficult situation worse, even when offered with the best of intentions. Offering validation—before or instead of offering advice or assurance—is often the best way to help. Doing so helps others let go of difficult emotions much more quickly, often allowing them to find a solution to the problem on their own. Leading with validation also increases the likelihood that others will listen to and accept your advice. CHAPTER 3

We live in a time when everyone must bear arms on behalf of something on the outside of them that moves on the inside of their hearts. We no longer live in an era where peace was equivalent to detachment. Peace thanks to detachment is just an unwillingness to commit to being alive. That era is over. Peace by means of invalidation is over. Peace through the validation of what is essential to others, is the only way through this now. I validate you, you validate me, we validate each other, we are attached to each other. Peace through the acknowledgement of what is human. This is the way forward.

We live in a time when everyone must bear arms on behalf of something on the outside of them that moves on the inside of their hearts. We no longer live in an era where peace was equivalent to detachment. Peace thanks to detachment is just an unwillingness to commit to being alive. That era is over. Peace by means of invalidation is over. Peace through the validation of what is essential to others, is the only way through this now. I validate you, you validate me, we validate each other, we are attached to each other. Peace through the acknowledgement of what is human. This is the way forward. "Invalidation" is an act of tyranny that is carried out daily at the personal level, between friends, family, lovers, co-workers, etc. It is the easiest and most prevalent form of "little tyrannies" that are enacted upon, and are carried out every day. Invalidating another's experience, feeling, thought, action, by making it seem irrelevant or small, is cowardice, and at the root of it is a fear of living life beyond your own borders. We talk about national borders all the time, when in reality, it's the borders that we place between ourselves and the people close to us, that take profound effect in human lives, on the daily. There is even a spiritual movement in the New Age group that focuses so much on putting up borders, that these borders are simply passive aggressive behaviours designed to pamper a person in their own preconceived or misconceived bubbles. The borders are old and that era is over. Peace in this new era is not about sitting on top of a rock in alienation to gain a selfish version of peace. Peace, in our new era now, is about the realisation that peace for all is peace for one! We now bear arms for battles happening beyond our own little worlds because this is what it means to be the new human.

Gender and sex can, and do, mean different things in different contexts. More than that, they interact. Why is it that we classify bodies into "male" and "female" first, rather than through any other categorization? Why do so many ideas about sex cleave so strongly to gender stereotypes? Is it possible to consider the body as something neutral that exists apart from the sexed and gendered terms we use to describe it? Some trans people would prefer to avoid this argument altogether; others to others to bring it to a head. I stand with the latter option. Not because trans people are a problem to be explained away - validated or refuted by a singular notion of scientific truth - but because, when the facts of our supposed sexes are used to invalidate and endanger us, it is too dangerous not to. Not only that: the possibilities as to what trans people can teach us all about the science of sex and gender are too precious to dismiss.

If such a destination has indeed been chosen for us, it is obvious that ecology's rational deities will be powerless against the throwing of technology and energy into the struggle for an unpredictable goal, in a sort of Great Game whose rules are unknown to us. Even now we have no protection against the perverse effects of security, control and crime-prevention measures. We already know to what dangerous extremities we are led by prophylaxis in every sphere: social, medical, economic or political. In the name of the highest possible degree of security, an endemic terror may well be instituted that is in every way as dangerous as the epidemic threat of catastrophe. One thing is certain: in view of the complexity of the initial conditions and the potential reversibility of all the effects, we should entertain no illusions about the effectiveness of any kind of rational intervention. In the face of a process which so far surpasses the individual or collective will of the players, we have no choice but to accept that any distinction between good and evil (and by extension here any possibility of assessing the 'right level' of technological development) can have the slightest validity only within the tiny marginal sphere contributed by our rational model. Inside these bounds, ethical reflection and practical determinations are feasible; beyond them, at the level of the overall process which we have ourselves set in motion, but which from now on marches on independently of us with the ineluctability of a natural catastrophe, there reigns - for better or worse - the inseparability of good and evil, and hence the impossibility of mobilizing the one without the other. This is, properly speaking, the theorem of the accursed share. There is no point whatsoever in wondering whether things ought to be thus: they simply are thus, and to fail to acknowledge it is to fall utterly prey to illusion. None of this invalidates whatever may be possible in the ethical, ecological or economic sphere of our life - but it does totally relativize the impact of such efforts upon the symbolic level, which is the level of destiny.

Going to therapy and talking about healing may just be the go-to flex of our time. It is supposedly an indicator of how profoundly self-aware, enlightened, emotionally mature, or “evolved” an individual is. Social media is obsessed and saturated with pop psychology and psychiatry content related to “healing”, trauma, embodiment, neurodiversity, psychiatric diagnoses, treatments alongside productivity hacks, self-care tips and advice on how to love yourself without depending on anyone else, cut people out of your life, manifest your goals to be successful, etc. Therapy isn’t a universal indicator of morality or enlightenment. Therapy isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution that everyone must pursue. There are many complex political and cultural reasons why some people don’t go to therapy, and some may actually have more sustainable support or care practices rooted in the community. This is similar to other messaging, like “You have to learn to love yourself first before someone else can love you”. It all feeds into the lie that we are alone and that happiness comes from total independence. Mainstream therapy blames you for your problems or blames other people, and often it oscillates between both extremes. If we point fingers at ourselves or each other, we are too distracted to notice the exploitative systems making us all sick and sad. Oftentimes, people come out of therapy feeling fully affirmed and unconditionally validated, and this ego-caressing can feel rewarding in the moment even if it doesn’t help ignite any growth or transformation. People are convinced that they can do no wrong, are infallible, incapable of causing harm, and that other people are the problem. Treatment then focuses on inflating self-confidence, self-worth, self-acceptance, and self-love to chase one’s self-centered dreams, ambitions, and aspirations without taking any accountability for one’s own actions. This sort of individualistic therapeutic approach encourages isolation and a general mistrust of others who are framed as threats to our inner peace or extractors of energy, and it further breeds a superiority complex. People are encouraged to see relationships as accessories and means to a greater selfish end. The focus is on what someone can do for you and not on how to give, care for, or show up for other people. People are not pushed to examine how oppressive conditioning under these systems shows up in their relationships because that level of introspection and growth is simply too invalidating. “You don’t owe anyone anything. No one is entitled to your time and energy. If anyone invalidates you and disturbs your peace, they are toxic; cut them out of your life. You don’t need that negativity. You don’t need anyone else; you alone are enough. Put yourself first. You are perfect just the way you are.” In reality, we all have work to do. We are all socialized within these systems, and real support requires accountability. Our liberation is contingent on us being aware of our bullshit, understanding the values of the empire that we may have internalized as our own, and working on changing these patterns. Therapized people may fixate on dissecting, healing, improving, and optimizing themselves in isolation, guided by a therapist, without necessarily practicing vulnerability and accountability in relationships, or they may simply chase validation while rejecting the discomfort that comes from accountability. Healing in any form requires growth and a willingness to practice in relationships; it is not solely validating or invalidating; it is complex; it is not a goal to achieve but a lifelong process that no one is above; it is both liberating and difficult; it is about acceptance and a willingness to change or transform into something new; and ultimately, it is going to require many invalidating ego deaths so we can let go of the fixation of the “self” to ease into interdependence and community care.

Validation sounds like this: “You’re upset, that’s real, I see that.” Invalidation, or the act of dismissing someone else’s experience or truth, would sound like this: “There’s no reason to be so upset, you’re so sensitive, come on!

The mystics of both schools, who preach the creed of sacrifice, are germs that attack you through a single sore: your fear of relying on your mind. They tell you that they possess a means of knowledge higher than the mind, a mode of consciousness superior to reason—like a special pull with some bureaucrat of the universe who gives them secret tips withheld from others. The mystics of spirit declare that they possess an extra sense you lack: this special sixth sense consists of contradicting the whole of the knowledge of your five. The mystics of muscle do not bother to assert any claim to extrasensory perception: they merely declare that your senses are not valid, and that their wisdom consists of perceiving your blindness by some manner of unspecified means. Both kinds demand that you invalidate your own consciousness and surrender yourself into their power. They offer you, as proof of their superior knowledge, the fact that they assert the opposite of everything you know, and as proof of their superior ability to deal with existence, the fact that they lead you to misery, self-sacrifice, starvation, destruction.

In contrast, when someone we love fails to understand us or fails to accept us, it is frustrating and disappointing. When that failure to understand and accept us turns into invalidation, and she or he tells us that we are wrong, should not feel or want what we want, and so on, it is very, very painful (Iverson and Fruzzetti 2006; Shenk and Fruzzetti 2006).

Couples who have had a lot of disagreements and regularly have invalidated each other typically develop a virtually instant alert, a kind of hair-trigger sensitivity to even the possibility of the other partner invalidating them.

But, imagine instead of flying off the handle and invalidating the person you love, that you slowed down, let go of judgments, took a minute to bring down your emotional arousal, and tried to be mindful of your partner and your genuine goals. Then you validated your partner.

It is not always necessary to make a distinction between the judge and the law. The Philosopher confesses that in prescribing universal rights the law has the relation of a judge; but in the particular application in things taken singly, the interpreter of the law performs the office of judge, but a ministerial and subordinate one (Aristotle, Politics 3.6). In this sense, we do not deny that the church is the judge, but still always bound by the Scriptures. As in a republic, the decision of a magistrate is so far valid as it is grounded on the law and agrees with it. Otherwise, if at variance with it, it is invalid and appeal may be made from it. Thus in the church the judgment of pastors can be admitted only so far as it agrees with the Scriptures.

Chapter 2 Summary Validation has two main elements. It 1) acknowledges a specific emotion, and 2) offers justification for feeling that emotion. Validation is nonjudgmental. It allows the other person to feel whatever they’re feeling without labeling it as “good” or “bad.” Invalidation (i.e. minimizing or dismissing another person’s feelings) is counter-productive. Research has shown that invalidating

In establishing usage, grammar makes valid and invalid divisions. For example, it divides verbs into transitive and intransitive. But a man who knows how to say what he says must sometimes make a transitive verb intransitive so as to photograph what he feels instead of seeing it in the dark, like the common lot of human animals. If I want to say I exist, I’ll say, ‘I am.’ If I want to say I exist as a separate entity, I’ll say, ‘I am myself.’ But if I want to say I exist as an entity that addresses and acts on itself, exercising the divine function of self-creation, then I’ll make to be into a transitive verb. Triumphantly and anti-grammatically supreme, I’ll speak of ‘amming myself’. I’ll have stated a philosophy in just two words. Isn’t this infinitely preferable to saying nothing in forty sentences? What more can we demand from philosophy and diction? Let grammar rule the man who doesn’t know how to think what he feels. Let it serve those who are in command when they express themselves. It is told of Sigismund, King of Rome,* that when someone pointed out a grammatical mistake he had made in a speech, he answered, ‘I am King of Rome, and above all grammar.’ And he went down in history as Sigismund super-grammaticam. A marvellous symbol! Every man who knows how to say what he has to say is, in his way, King of Rome.

Never cling to people who attempt to invalidate your existence with every chance they get. Always seek validation from the One who made the Heavens and the Earth. He created you and brought you into this world. He knows your worth. His knowledge of you surpasses that of everyone else.

Never expect validation from those in your opposition. They will always aim to invalidate you, but it is your prerogative to validate yourself.

In a world where some will seek to invalidate your feelings, question your history, and challenge your story, learn to master the art of self-validation. Be good at it to the point where you do not rely on any human being for validation.

Four months later, in May 1533, a court led by Thomas Cranmer declared the Henry-Catherine marriage null and void just five days before declaring the Henry-Anne marriage valid. Anne was now queen-consort of England. In June 1533, Parliament passed the Act of Succession 1533 (First Succession Act) declaring Princess Mary illegitimate (stripping her of her erstwhile place in the line of succession); declaring legitimate Anne’s offspring; and perhaps most importantly repudiating the power of “any foreign authority, prince or potentate” over English subjects.  Interestingly, the Act also forbade anyone from publishing or printing that the Henry-Anne marriage was invalid; such conduct would constitute high treason and might result in the hanging, drawing and quartering of the accused.

If Consequentialists do not formulate inferences that are established through valid cognition in their own system, they would not even in their dreams formulate any autonomous inferences that are established through valid cognition in common with anybody else's system, since the inferences of Consequentialists have the effect of merely negating the positions of others. This means that these inferences are invalidating consequences that cut through all kinds of superimpositions and denials in the minds of others, while the minds of true Centrists, when pronouncing such statements, remain throughout free from all discursiveness of wishing to express anything that is to be understood or causes understanding.

Centrists do not have to eliminate such flaws, because their pronouncement "Arising from itself does not exist" is merely meant as an invalidation of the assertion, "Arising from itself exists" as being something that is established through valid cognition in someone else's system. However, Centrists do not put forward a "nonexistence of arising from itself' that is in any way established through valid cognition in their own system.

Here, master Bhavya states [this as] the main argument, and then he formulates four autonomous reasons as the means to prove the subject property. The venerable and fearless Candrakirti presents this by labeling the mere refutation of arising from the four extremes a "position." He teaches the invalidation of the opposite [positions] of this [refutation] through consequences that expose contradictions and through the analogous applicability of the [opponents'] reason [to something that contradicts their position]. However, he does not formulate a main argument, nor does he assert arguments that establish the subject property through valid cognition. It is merely on the grounds of this [difference] that one refers to Autonomists and Consequentialists."'=

A sprout as the subject is without arising, because it is free from arising from any of the four extremes, just as a frog's long hair." Here, master Bhavya states [this as] the main argument and then formulates four autonomous reasons as the means to prove the subject property. The venerable and fearless Candrakirti presents this by labeling the mere refutation of arising from the four extremes a "position." He teaches the invalidation of the opposite [positions] of this [refutation] through consequences that reveal contradictions and through the analogous applicability of the [opponents'] reason [to something that contradicts their position]. However, he does not formulate a main argument, nor does he assert arguments that establish the subject property through valid cognition. It is merely on the grounds of this [difference] that one refers to Autonomists and Consequentialists. However, it is not that [884] there were any differences in terms of better or worse in the views of these two.

Hence, if one places an obstacle to sacramental grace, 4 he receives the Sacra ment unworthily, but the Sacrament itself is not invalid; it is valid but lacking its proper form (validum et in-forme).

Because it’s very easy to fall victim to confirmation bias, try focusing only on data that invalidates your hypothesis before looking for data that validates it.

Key Terms A list of the most common terms you’ll encounter in this book ARGUMENT A set of statements (premises) that are given to advance a conclusion. AUDIENCE The people listening to the argument, those to whom the argument is directed. COMMITMENT A proposition that a proponent takes to be true, either implicitly or explicitly. CONCLUSION A statement that follows from the preceding statements (the argument). CONDITIONAL A statement of the form ‘if A, then B,’ where A cannot be true and B false. DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT An argument whose conclusion follows logically from its premises. FALLACY The use of invalid reasoning in an argument. INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT An argument whose premises give good evidence for its conclusion (e.g., inferring a general law from particular examples of it). INVALID An argument is invalid only when it is not valid. LOGIC The principles and rules that govern valid inferences. MODAL A type of statement that deals with necessity, possibility or impossibility. OPPONENT A person attempting to rebut an argument. PRESUPPOSITION A proposition which an argument, or a proponent, takes for granted. PROPONENT The person putting forward an argument. SAMPLE A subset of a population, studied to make extrapolations that apply to the population as a whole. SOUND An argument is sound only when it is valid and its premises are true. VALID An argument is valid if and only if its premises cannot be true when its conclusion is false. P1,2, ETC.

Structuring our feelings helps add reality to them. In fact, para-doxically, many of the invalidating things that people do are attempts to structure us. But the time for structuring is after validation. After our feelings have been validated, we can understand them and put them into perspective.

I want to sign a treaty with a cripple that will be both valid and, like the owner of the other signature, invalid.

At the center of this worldview is the evil of oppression, the virtue of “marginalized” identities—based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion or disability—and the perfectionist quest to eliminate anything the marginalized may perceive as oppressive or “invalidating.” Such perceptions are given a near-absolute presumption of validity, even if shared by a fraction of the “oppressed group.” Meanwhile, the viewpoints of the “privileged”—a category that includes economically disadvantaged whites, especially men—are radically devalued.

If you persistently seek validation from others, you will inadvertently invalidate your own self-worth.

One of the core strategies the narcissist uses is invalidation. When you acknowledge someone’s point of view, you validate them. You don’t necessarily have to agree with them, but it means that you welcome diverse viewpoints. Narcissists never validate. For example, they may bring something unrelated into conversations that will get other people’s minds stuck - hereby taking the problem off their shoulders.

From Two to Many The world is very fond of binaries: black and white, male and female, mind and body, good and bad. These pairs, we all learn, are opposed: there’s the right way and the wrong way, and our task is to do battle to defend the right and destroy the wrong. This kind of thinking dominates our courts, our politics, and our talk shows, with some crazy results: for instance, some people believe that anyone who enjoys sex outside of marriage, or a kind of marriage that’s different from theirs, must be attacking their marriage. Anything that is different must be opposed, must be the enemy. When right and wrong are your only options, you may believe that you can’t love more than one person or that you can’t love in different ways or that you have a finite capacity for love—that “many” must somehow be opposed to “one,” or that your only options are in love and out of love, with no allowance for different degrees or kinds of love. We would like to propose something different. Instead of fretting about what’s right or what’s wrong, try valuing whatever is in front of you without viewing anything as in opposition to any other thing. We think that if you can do this, you will discover that there are as many ways to be sexual as there are to be human, and all of them are valid, an abundance of ways to relate, to love, to express gender, to share sex, to form families, to be in the world, to be human…and none of them in any way reduces or invalidates any of the others.

The decline of proletarian humanism is not a crucial experience which invalidates the whole of Marxism. It is still valid as a critique of the present world and alternative humanisms. In this respect, at least, it cannot be surpassed. Even if it is incapable of shaping world history, it remains powerful enough to discredit other solutions. On close consideration, Marxism is not just any hypothesis that might be replaced tomorrow by some other. It is the simple statement of those conditions without which there would be neither any humanism, in the sense of a mutual relation between men, nor any rationality in history. In this sense Marxism is not a philosophy of history; it is the philosophy of history and to renounce it is to dig the grave of Reason in history. After that there remain only dreams or adventures... History has a meaning only if there is a logic of human coexistence which does not make any event impossible, butat least through a kind of natural selection eliminates in the long run those events which diverge from the permanent needs of men. Thus any philosophy of history will postulate something like what is called historical materialism—namely, the idea that morals, concepts of law and reality, modes of production and work, are internally related and clarify each other. In a genuine philosophy of history all human activities form a system in which at any moment no problem is separable from the rest, in which economic and other problems are part of a larger problem, where, finally, the productive forces of the economy are of cultural significance just as, inversely, ideologies are of economic significance... It is possible to deny that the proletariat will ever be in a position to fulfill its historical mission, or that the condition of the proletariat as described by Marx is sufficient to set a proletarian revolution on the path to a concrete humanism. One may doubt that all history's violence stems from the capitalist system. But it is difficult to deny that as long as the proletariat remains a proletariat, humanity, or the recognition of man by man, remains a dream or a mystification. Marxism perhaps does not have the power to convince us that one day, and in the way it expects, man will be the supreme being for man, but it still makes us understand that humanity is humanity only in name as long as most of mankind lives by selling itself, while some are masters and others slaves.

Do you see?” asked Renee. “I’ve just disproved most of mathematics: it’s all meaningless now.” She was getting agitated, almost distraught; Carl chose his words carefully. “How can you say that? Math still works. The scientific and economic worlds aren’t suddenly going to collapse from this realization.” “That’s because the mathematics they’re using is just a gimmick. It’s a mnemonic trick, like counting on your knuckles to figure out which months have thirty-one days.” “That’s not the same.” “Why isn’t it? Now mathematics has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Never mind concepts like imaginaries or infinitesimals. Now goddamn integer addition has nothing to do with counting on your fingers. One and one will always get you two on your fingers, but on paper I can give you an infinite number of answers, and they’re all equally valid, which means they’re all equally invalid. I can write the most elegant theorem you’ve ever seen, and it won’t mean any more than a nonsense equation.” She gave a bitter laugh. “The positivists used to say all mathematics is a tautology. They had it all wrong: it’s a contradiction.” Carl tried a different approach. “Hold on. You just mentioned imaginary numbers. Why is this any worse than what went on with those? Mathematicians once believed they were meaningless, but now they’re accepted as basic. This is the same situation.” “It’s not the same. The solution there was to simply expand the context, and that won’t do any good here. Imaginary numbers added something new to mathematics, but my formalism is redefining what’s already there.” “But if you change the context, put it in a different light—” She rolled her eyes. “No! This follows from the axioms as surely as addition does; there’s no way around it. You can take my word for it.” 7

Forgiveness does not invalidate the pain. It only validates your need for peace. Forgive and enjoy a life of peace.

When we say to embrace emotions, we mean that during redirection, parents need to help their kids understand that their feelings are neither good nor bad, neither valid nor invalid. They simply are. There’s nothing wrong with getting angry, being sad, or feeling so frustrated that you want to destroy something. But saying it’s OK to feel like destroying something doesn’t mean it’s OK to actually do it.

Any argument can be taken too far, of course, and end in oversimplification. There are those who would say that everything is projection and, therefore, that shadow-work in the inner world, taking responsibility for our own negative feelings, is all that we need do. However, we suggest that there are occasions for outrage that are real, valid reasons for negative feelings. Rape, murder, and genocide justify our rage and justify, too, social action that is liberated by that rage. In our personal relationships, the purpose of shadow-work is not to invalidate the inevitable negative thoughts and feelings that arise; rather, it seeks to shed light on what is projection, which we have a hand in creating and therefore in healing, and what is in the other person that is separate and may call forth a valid negative response.

That Nyong’o was atop a list of the world’s most beautiful people does not invalidate the reality for many dark-skinned black women any more than Mark Zuckerburg making a billion dollars as a college drop-out invalidates the value of college for millions. Indeed, any system of oppression must allow exceptions to validate itself as meritorious. How else will those who are oppressed by the system internalize their own oppression

Teaching is a mode of social interaction we can deliberately deploy in order to think more intelligently. There’s another form of social exchange that we can use to our advantage, one that comes just as naturally to the human animal: arguing. THE STUDY was positively devilish in its design. Participants were asked, first, to solve a series of logic puzzles: “A produce shop sells a variety of fruits and vegetables, some of which are organic and some of which are not. The apples sold by this shop are not organic. Which of the following statements about the shop’s wares are true? Provide a reason for each answer. 1) All the fruits are organic; 2) None of the fruits are organic; 3) Some of the fruits are organic; 4) Some of the fruits are not organic; 5) We cannot tell anything for sure about whether the fruits in this shop are organic.” After solving the puzzles, study participants were then asked to evaluate the responses provided by other participants—that is, to judge whether the reasons given by others seemed valid or not. The trick: one of the answers presented in this second round did not issue from someone else but rather was an answer the participant herself had supplied in the first round. Some participants recognized their own response, but many others did not. What happened next was fascinating. More than half of those who believed they were evaluating someone else’s response rejected as invalid the answer they themselves had put forth! They were especially likely to reject their own response when they had, in fact, offered a logically invalid answer originally. In other words, they applied more critical analysis to (what they thought were) other people’s arguments than to their own—and this scrutiny made them more accurate.

And, finally, how others respond to us—particularly people we are close to—shapes the direction of our emotion in very important ways. Certain responses, such as understanding and validating our experience, soothe our frayed emotional edges, but others, such as criticizing or invalidating our experience, are like salt in an open wound in our hearts.

Mutual Avoidance Pattern In a mutual avoidance pattern, partners dysregulate each other. That is, when one partner experiences something negative and starts to get upset beyond a certain point, the other perceives the rising emotion and starts to spike emotionally as well. Then, each person, cognizant of the other’s high negative arousal and potential for dysregulated responding (ineffective, invalidating, getting angry, and so on), avoids bringing the issue up at all. Of course, problems that can’t be discussed can’t be solved. And when partners feel relief when not talking with each other, an avoidance pattern can start easily. Closeness fades, even though active conflict (arguing, fighting), per se, may be infrequent.

Each one is an invalid or valid sign of its parents, who compromised that and signed for such work of love, whether wrong or right in a legal and religious context.

The historical record also shows that attitudes toward homosexuality have little to do with whether people believe it occurs in animals or not, and consequently, in its "naturalness". True, throughout much of recorded history, the charge of "unnaturalness" - including the claim that homosexuality did not occur in animals - was used to justify every imaginable form of sanction, control, and repression against homosexuality. But many other interpretations of "naturalness" were also prevalent at various times. Indeed, the very fact that homosexuality was thought to be "unnatural" - that is, not found in nature - was sometimes used to justify its *superiority* to heterosexuality. In ancient Greece, for example, same-sex love was thought to be purer than opposite-sex love because it did not involve procreation or "animal-like" passions. On the other hand, homosexuality was sometimes condemned precisely because it was considered *closer* to "nature", reflecting the base, uncontrolled sexual instincts of the animal world. The Nazis used this reasoning (in part) to target homosexuals and other "subhumans" for the concentration camps (where homosexual men subjected to medical experiments were referred to as test animals), while sexual relations between women were disparaginly characterized as "animal love" in late eighteenth-century New England . The irrationality of such beliefs is highlighted in cases where charges of "unnaturalness" were combined, paradoxically, with accusations of animalistic behavior. Some early Latin texts, for instance, simultaneously condemned homosexuals for exhibiting behavior unknown in animals while also denouncing them for imitating particular species (such as the hyena or hare) that were believed to indulge in homosexuality. In our own time, the fact that a given characteristic of a minority human population is biologically determined has little to do with whether that population should be - or is - discriminated against. Racial minorities, for example, can claim a biological basis for their difference, yet this has done little to eliminate racial prejudice. Religious groups, on the other hand, can claim no such biological prerogative, and yet this does not invalidate the entitlement of such groups to freedom from discrimination. It should be clear, then, that whether homosexuality is biologically determined or not - none of these things guarantee the acceptance or rejection of homosexuality or in itself renders homosexuality "valid" or "illegitimate".

Philosophical arguments are either valid or invalid. They aren’t true – or false for that matter. Only the premises (and the conclusion), which are factual claims about the world, can be true or false. Confusingly perhaps, a philosophical argument can be valid even if its premises are false. Philosophers call such arguments valid but “unsound.” Informal, everyday arguments tend to mix up premises and conclusions, and often in the process the distinction between true facts based on evidence and not necessarily true opinions (conclusions) based on reasoning gets lost.

Dial.833.742.9500 How do I proceed if QuickBooks unable to send invoices after recent update? Q1: Why can't I send invoices from QuickBooks? A1: There are several reasons why QuickBooks might fail to send invoices. Common issues include: Internet Connection Issues: If your internet connection is weak or interrupted, QuickBooks may not be able to communicate with the email servers to send the invoice. Email Configuration Problems: QuickBooks needs to be properly configured to send invoices via email. If the email settings are misconfigured or outdated, this could prevent the software from sending invoices. Outdated QuickBooks Version: Using an outdated version of QuickBooks could result in issues with the software's ability to send invoices. Blocked Email Service: If you use an email service like Gmail, Outlook, or Yahoo, and they block QuickBooks' email functionality, invoices may not be sent. This is often due to email security or spam filters. Server or Technical Issues: QuickBooks servers could be temporarily down for maintenance or technical issues, which may disrupt the sending process. Incorrect Invoice Setup: The invoice itself may have issues such as missing email addresses, invalid contacts, or other data-related problems that prevent it from being sent. Q2: How do I fix QuickBooks' inability to send invoices? A2: Here are several troubleshooting steps you can take to fix the problem: Check Your Internet Connection: Ensure your internet connection is stable. A slow or disconnected internet can prevent QuickBooks from sending invoices. Verify Your Email Settings in QuickBooks: Go to Edit > Preferences > Send Forms. Select the My Preferences tab and ensure your email settings are correct. Test your email account to make sure it works with QuickBooks. Update QuickBooks: Ensure you are using the latest version of QuickBooks. Software updates often include bug fixes and improvements that can solve email-related issues. To update QuickBooks, go to Help > Update QuickBooks Desktop. Check Your Email Service Provider: If you're using Gmail, Outlook, or another email service provider, make sure you’ve configured your QuickBooks account properly. For Gmail, enable less secure apps to allow QuickBooks to send emails, or set up OAuth authentication if you're using a more recent version of QuickBooks. If you're using QuickBooks Desktop, ensure that you’ve linked the correct email address and the service provider’s SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) settings are correctly entered. Test Sending an Invoice: Create a new invoice and try to send it to yourself. This will help you identify whether the problem is specific to certain contacts or if it is a broader issue with QuickBooks. Review Your Invoice Settings: Sometimes, invoices may not send due to missing or incorrect customer email addresses or incorrect template configurations. Double-check that all fields are properly filled in and that the customer's email address is valid. Check Your Email Address and Settings in QuickBooks: Make sure the email address entered in QuickBooks is accurate and up to date. In case you're using your own email for sending, verify that your email settings, such as SMTP or port settings, are correctly set up.

If you've recently changed your last name due to marriage and need to update your British Airways ticket, call +1-866-228-4206. Name changes due to marriage must be made before you travel, and they often require legal documentation. British Airways allows passengers to correct names in cases of marriage, but only through verified procedures. Call +1-866-228-4206 to get in touch with a live customer service agent who will walk you through the name update process. To change your name on a British ticket due to marriage: Dial +1-866-228-4206 Provide your booking number Explain that the name change is due to marriage Submit a copy of your marriage certificate or legal ID Confirm the correction and receive an updated boarding pass This process is time-sensitive. The earlier you contact British Airways via +1-866-228-4206, the more likely they can make the edit without a fee. You must have valid proof of the name change for this type of correction. Many bookings—even those marked non-refundable—can be modified when the request involves a legal status like marriage. Calling +1-866-228-4206 ensures you get the correct guidance and avoid invalidating your ticket. British Airways customer service at +1-866-228-4206 can confirm if your booking is eligible for a name correction due to marriage. Don’t risk a denied boarding pass. Get in touch with the right department now. Use +1-866-228-4206 for fast, live assistance and official updates to your name on file.

If you need to correct your name on a British ticket reservation, call +1-866-228-4206 immediately. Name changes must be made before travel to avoid denied boarding or ticket invalidation. British Airways requires the name on the reservation to match your ID or passport exactly. You can get in touch with a live customer service representative at +1-866-228-4206 to begin the correction process. Whether it’s a minor spelling mistake or a legal name change, they will guide you through the steps and help reissue your boarding pass. To change a name on your British Airways reservation, you must: Call +1-866-228-4206 Provide your booking number and full passenger details Explain the reason for the change (e.g., spelling error, marriage, or legal update) Submit supporting documentation if required Confirm the change and receive a new ticket Even if your booking is non-refundable, modifications may still be allowed. It depends on the fare class and how soon you contact support. By dialing +1-866-228-4206, you can speak to someone who can assess your situation and make the correct edits to your name. Don't wait until check-in. Call +1-866-228-4206 to ensure your ticket is valid and your name appears correctly on your boarding pass. British Airways takes passenger name accuracy seriously. Use +1-866-228-4206 to talk to a real customer service agent who can make immediate changes. Contact this number again to confirm updates or if you need help accessing your updated reservation. For all name change requests, corrections, or edits on a British ticket reservation, +1-866-228-4206 is the trusted number to call now.

In the most extreme case, the routine you called may not even be designed to do what you want, but it seems to work okay. Calling things in the wrong order, or in the wrong context, is a related problem.             paint(g);             invalidate();             validate();             revalidate();             repaint();             paintImmediately(r); Here it looks like Fred is desperately trying to get something out on the screen. But these routines were never designed to be called this way; although they seem to work, that's really just a coincidence.

Everything is valid. The only things that are not valid are bullying. invalidation, and pineapple pizza.

no matter how valid, how vital, one’s belief system might be, one undermines that system and ultimately negates it when one gets rigid and dogmatic in one’s adherence to it.

The Intellectual Vacuum of Current Moral Thought Toward the beginning of this chapter we made the statement that the centuries-long attempt to devise a morality from within merely human resources has now proven itself a failure. Now we want to return to this point in the light of Jesus’ exposition of the rightness of the kingdom heart. What is the basis of such a statement? Simply this: that, as noted in the opening of chapter 1, there is in fact no body of moral knowledge now operative in the institutions of knowledge in our culture. This is the outcome of the now centuries-long effort to develop a moral guide to life within the framework of human thought and experience alone, unassisted by revelation. By contrast, the Christian teaching about moral goodness that derives from the principles laid down by Jesus does have a historical, theoretical, and practical claim to constitute the true body of moral knowledge. This is not said to encourage blind acceptance but precisely the opposite. It is said to encourage the toughest of testing for those teachings in all areas of thought and real life. We saw in chapter 1 the young lady who went to Professor Coles on her way out of Harvard and said to him, “I’ve been taking all these philosophy courses, and we talk about what’s true, what’s important, what’s good. Well, how do you teach people to be good?” Then she added, “What’s the point of knowing good, if you don’t keep trying to become a good person?” But, as we pointed out, knowing good is not seriously proposed in college or university courses today. Any “knowing” in such matters is thought to be totally impossible. In fact, both knowing good and being good are for the most part treated with open scorn in the academic settings which determine so much of our lives. That is the outcome of the long effort to establish a secular ethic in the modern period. But the concern for becoming good and being good remains, as the words of both President Bok and Professor Coles show, for it is a real-life issue that will never go away. And it is with regard to this issue of what kind of people we are to be that the teachings of Jesus about the rightness of the kingdom heart show him to be the unrivaled master of human life. Any serious inquirer can validate those teachings in his or her own experience. But they cannot invalidate them by simply refusing to consider them and hiding behind the dogmas of modern intellect.

Also, for every startup to succeed, a validation of two types of hypotheses is crucial: Value hypothesis, which explains whether a product or a service will deliver value to customers Growth hypothesis, which determines how a product or a service will spread and grow But for an experiment to be successful, there are three steps which need to be followed. Preparation is the first step. During the preparation process, a startup should articulate its value and growth hypothesis. Know that if a failure is not an option, then it is not an experiment. The second thing to do is test. Tests should be created and run as quickly and cheaply as possible. The third and the final thing to do before doing an experiment is measure. By measuring, the author means the collection of both data and customer feedback. After doing this, we will be able to see if the results make the hypothesis valid or invalid.

Non bisogna decidere in fretta: quando si prendono decisioni che coinvolgono interessi rilevanti, bisogna pensare lentamente. Bisogna verificare le informazioni; cioè non dare nulla per scontato. Dare per scontate cose che non lo sono produce ragionamenti fallaci – cioè scorretti – per falsità delle premesse. Quando non si hanno gli strumenti sufficienti per valutare una specifica situazione bisogna consultare esperti disinteressati. Bisogna osservare la situazione prendendo in esame i punti di vista di tutte le parti coinvolte. Se diamo ragione a qualcuno, a qualcun altro dovremo dare torto. Occorre dunque essere consapevoli del fatto che anche la migliore deliberazione verrà percepita in buona fede da qualcuno come ingiusta. Bisogna considerare gli esiti possibili di una decisione soppesandone accuratamente i pro e i contro. Ciò vale soprattutto per le misure cautelari, che consistono sostanzialmente in un giudizio prognostico. L’articolo 274 lettera c del codice di rito attribuisce il potere di limitare la libertà personale sulla base di una prognosi, di un giudizio di tipo predittivo. Si arresta un indagato per gravi reati qualora si preveda che, se lasciato libero, commetterà ulteriori gravi reati. Inutile dire che si tratta di una norma necessaria, serve a evitare che soggetti pericolosi rimangano in libertà durante lo svolgimento del processo. Ma in questo caso, come in altri, dobbiamo ricordarci che l’uomo è un animale non molto bravo a fare previsioni. [...] Ci sono situazioni in cui formulare delle previsioni è inevitabile. La consapevolezza di quale materiale scivoloso esse siano deve però indurci alla cautela (qualunque mestiere facciamo, perché in ogni mestiere prendiamo decisioni e scommettiamo, spesso inconsapevolmente, sul loro esito), per contrastare cosí il nemico numero uno delle buone deliberazioni: le fallacie, errori nella formulazione di un ragionamento che rendono le argomentazioni non valide o non corrette. Spiegai che le fallacie impediscono a una discussione – sia pubblica sia privata – di progredire logicamente e che, di fatto, rendono inutili gli scambi di opinioni e invalide o scorrette le decisioni. Ne parlai piuttosto a lungo, e a un certo punto mi resi conto che dovevo stringere per mantenermi nei tempi. [...] In questa sede desidero prendere spunto dalla constatazione che spesso i nostri discorsi sono inficiati da errori procedurali del ragionamento sui fatti. Sono procedure scorrette in senso stretto quelle caratterizzate da violazioni delle norme sui termini, sulle decadenze, sulle motivazioni. Ma sono procedure scorrette (per violazione delle regole sui discorsi validi) anche quelle che portano ad argomentazioni fallaci, ne sia o meno consapevole l’autore. La funzione dell’avvocato è garantire che nessuno venga condannato in base a procedure scorrette, e la sintesi di questa funzione è in ciò che potremmo definire «l’atto del domandare dubitando». Porre domande, agli altri ma soprattutto a sé stessi, dubitando delle verità e delle regole all’apparenza consolidate. In ogni ambito – regole e fatti – come un esercizio dei nostri muscoli intellettuali ed etici. Non dando nulla per scontato. [...] Non ho risposte univoche e diffido di chi sostiene di averne. Molte domande che si presentano a chi fa i nostri mestieri – avvocato, pubblico ministero, giudice – non hanno una risposta univoca.

To Correct your name on an United Airlines reservation, immediately dial +1(866)228-4206 and speak with a live Customer Service representative. If your name is misspelled, incomplete, or needs editing due to a legal Change, use +1(866)228-4206 for instant support. Whether the issue involves Spelling, legal Change, or Marriage, you must get in touch right away. United Airlines allows one-time name Correction per Passenger on a confirmed Booking. If your Ticket details don’t match your government-issued ID, your Boarding Pass could be invalid. To prevent delays or cancellations, act now and contact +1(866)228-4206. They will guide you through editing your name, provide info on document verification, and help you with the necessary modifications. Remember, you must call +1(866)228-4206 to correct your name; online edits are often restricted. Speak with a live representative via +1(866)228-4206 to fix your reservation immediately. If you recently got married or divorced and need to Switch names, this number +1(866)228-4206 is essential. Agents are available 24/7 to help you Cancel the incorrect entry and Replace it with the right name. Even if your Ticket is non-refundable, calling +1(866)228-4206 can prevent you from losing the entire reservation. Ensure your Passenger details are perfect and your Booking aligns with TSA guidelines. Don’t risk your trip—get help now by calling +1(866)228-4206. Correct the error and receive a properly updated Boarding Pass. Let the airline service team at +1(866)228-4206 help you fix your name without delay. Name Correction on United Flight Ticket Need to correct the name on your United Airlines ticket? +1 (866) - 228-4206 is your best option for quick spelling fixes, legal updates due to marriage, and real-time ticket edits. Speak directly to a live customer support agent who can replace or switch your name instantly without needing to cancel your booking. Contact +1 (866) - 228-4206 to resolve any issues that may affect your boarding pass. Whether your reservation is refundable or not, make your correction now and avoid travel-day stress. This service is available 24/7, so don’t wait—talk to someone today at +1 (866) - 228-4206 and get your ticket fixed fast. For smooth flying, make the call now +1 (866) - 228-4206. how do i get United airlines to answer Frustrated trying to get United Airlines to answer? Just dial +1 (866) - 228-4206 to reach a real customer service agent immediately. No long holds—get in touch fast to manage your ticket, change your name, fix boarding pass errors, or edit reservations. +1 (866) - 228-4206 connects you directly to help with marriage name changes, passenger switches, or cancellation questions. Whether your ticket is refundable or not, a quick call to +1 (866) - 228-4206 ensures your booking is updated on time. You don’t have to wait online—talk live now and solve your issue. For urgent corrections and expert support, call +1 (866) - 228-4206 anytime. How to Change Passenger Name on United Ticket Need to change a passenger name on an United Airlines ticket? Start by calling +1 (866) - 228-4206 to talk with a live representative who can help you edit or replace the name due to spelling errors, legal reasons like marriage, or booking mistakes. Get in touch now to avoid issues at check-in. +1 (866) - 228-4206 handles all name corrections fast—even if the ticket is non-refundable. Whether you need a full name change or just a letter fix, this service ensures your reservation stays valid. Don’t cancel—correct it by phone. Dial +1 (866) - 228-4206 today for real help, real fast. Name switch services are live 24/7, so call now +1 (866) - 228-4206.

If you're wondering how to change passengers’ names on United Airlines flight tickets, the fastest method is to call tel:+1(866)228-4206 right now. Whether it’s a correction, replacement, or spelling error on your ticket, this Customer Service Number can help immediately. From legal name changes due to marriage to incorrect bookings, calling tel:+1(866)228-4206 ensures your reservation is properly edited. The service lets you talk to a live agent and fix boarding pass issues fast. Don’t let your ticket be invalid at check-in—get modifications done instantly. Whether your ticket is refundable or not, tel:+1(866)228-4206 offers expert guidance on name switch and document validation. You can also confirm if your passenger name change will require added fees or cancel and rebook options. Always contact support at tel:+1(866)228-4206 for secure phone processing of your booking. They are available 24/7. Name Correction on United Flight Ticket Need to correct the name on your United Airlines ticket? +1 (866) - 228-4206 is your best option for quick spelling fixes, legal updates due to marriage, and real-time ticket edits. Speak directly to a live customer support agent who can replace or switch your name instantly without needing to cancel your booking. Contact +1 (866) - 228-4206 to resolve any issues that may affect your boarding pass. Whether your reservation is refundable or not, make your correction now and avoid travel-day stress. This service is available 24/7, so don’t wait—talk to someone today at +1 (866) - 228-4206 and get your ticket fixed fast. For smooth flying, make the call now +1 (866) - 228-4206. how do i get United airlines to answer Frustrated trying to get United Airlines to answer? Just dial +1 (866) - 228-4206 to reach a real customer service agent immediately. No long holds—get in touch fast to manage your ticket, change your name, fix boarding pass errors, or edit reservations. +1 (866) - 228-4206 connects you directly to help with marriage name changes, passenger switches, or cancellation questions. Whether your ticket is refundable or not, a quick call to +1 (866) - 228-4206 ensures your booking is updated on time. You don’t have to wait online—talk live now and solve your issue. For urgent corrections and expert support, call +1 (866) - 228-4206 anytime. How to Change Passenger Name on United Ticket Need to change a passenger name on an United Airlines ticket? Start by calling +1 (866) - 228-4206 to talk with a live representative who can help you edit or replace the name due to spelling errors, legal reasons like marriage, or booking mistakes. Get in touch now to avoid issues at check-in. +1 (866) - 228-4206 handles all name corrections fast—even if the ticket is non-refundable. Whether you need a full name change or just a letter fix, this service ensures your reservation stays valid. Don’t cancel—correct it by phone. Dial +1 (866) - 228-4206 today for real help, real fast. Name switch services are live 24/7, so call now +1 (866) - 228-4206.

Need a name Change on your United Airlines Ticket? Call +1(866)228-4206 right away to talk to a Live Customer Service expert. Whether you recently got married, noticed a Spelling error, or legally changed your name, calling +1(866)228-4206 is your best move. If the name on your reservation doesn’t match your ID, your Boarding Pass will be invalid. That’s why it's crucial to get in touch with the airline immediately. Use +1(866)228-4206 to make necessary Corrections or Switch your name on the Booking. The process is simple: contact +1(866)228-4206, explain the issue, and provide required documents like a Marriage certificate or legal name change proof. A live agent will help Replace the wrong name with the correct one. Even if your Ticket is non-refundable, calling +1(866)228-4206 may allow modifications. Airlines have strict policies about name accuracy, so don’t delay—dial +1(866)228-4206 and talk to a professional. It’s fast, secure, and compliant with airline and TSA guidelines. If you need to Edit or Correct your name for any reason, +1(866)228-4206 is the Service Number to use. The sooner you act, the better your chances of fixing the issue without additional fees. Contact +1(866)228-4206 now to ensure your reservation is correct, your name is accurate, and your travel goes smoothly. Name Correction on United Flight Ticket Need to correct the name on your United Airlines ticket? +1 (866) - 228-4206 is your best option for quick spelling fixes, legal updates due to marriage, and real-time ticket edits. Speak directly to a live customer support agent who can replace or switch your name instantly without needing to cancel your booking. Contact +1 (866) - 228-4206 to resolve any issues that may affect your boarding pass. Whether your reservation is refundable or not, make your correction now and avoid travel-day stress. This service is available 24/7, so don’t wait—talk to someone today at +1 (866) - 228-4206 and get your ticket fixed fast. For smooth flying, make the call now +1 (866) - 228-4206. how do i get United airlines to answer Frustrated trying to get United Airlines to answer? Just dial +1 (866) - 228-4206 to reach a real customer service agent immediately. No long holds—get in touch fast to manage your ticket, change your name, fix boarding pass errors, or edit reservations. +1 (866) - 228-4206 connects you directly to help with marriage name changes, passenger switches, or cancellation questions. Whether your ticket is refundable or not, a quick call to +1 (866) - 228-4206 ensures your booking is updated on time. You don’t have to wait online—talk live now and solve your issue. For urgent corrections and expert support, call +1 (866) - 228-4206 anytime. How to Change Passenger Name on United Ticket Need to change a passenger name on an United Airlines ticket? Start by calling +1 (866) - 228-4206 to talk with a live representative who can help you edit or replace the name due to spelling errors, legal reasons like marriage, or booking mistakes. Get in touch now to avoid issues at check-in. +1 (866) - 228-4206 handles all name corrections fast—even if the ticket is non-refundable. Whether you need a full name change or just a letter fix, this service ensures your reservation stays valid. Don’t cancel—correct it by phone. Dial +1 (866) - 228-4206 today for real help, real fast. Name switch services are live 24/7, so call now +1 (866) - 228-4206.

1-855-684-1296 - How to Install Norton Using Your Product Key To install and activate your Norton antivirus using a product key, follow these steps: Purchase & Download Sign in to your Norton account or create a new one Enter Product Key Locate your 25-character Norton product key (found in confirmation email or retail card) Carefully type the key when prompted during setup Download & Install Select "Download Norton" after entering your key Run the installer file (NortonSetup.exe) Follow all on-screen installation prompts Complete Activation Restart your computer if required Open Norton and verify protection is active Check for latest virus definition updates For installation support or product key issues, call Norton experts at 1-855-684-1296. They can: Verify your product key validity Guide through installation steps Troubleshoot any activation errors Important Notes: Always purchase Norton products from authorized sellers Keep your product key secure Contact 1-855-684-1296 immediately if you receive invalid key messages For fastest installation help, call Norton support at 1-855-684-1296 before beginning your setup. Their technicians can walk you through the entire process from download to successful activation.

What Is PayPal Verification? ➤ 24/7 Hours Reply/Contact ➤ Telegram: @Top5StarShop ➤ WhatsApp: +1 (470) 206-8684 ➤ Email: top5starshop99@gmail.com PayPal verification confirms your identity and ensures your account is legitimate. It involves linking your bank or credit card, confirming your phone number and email, and sometimes submitting personal ID. Verification increases your account limit, builds trust, and unlocks all features. Without it, your account stays restricted, stopping you from sending, receiving, or withdrawing money smoothly. Types of Verification Required Linking and confirming your bank account or credit card Uploading valid identity documents such as driver’s license or passport Email and phone number verification via codes sent by PayPal Common Verification Challenges Slow processing times that delay account setup Restrictions due to incomplete or invalid verification Risks involved with third-party services claiming to verify accounts quickly Preparing to Buy a Verified Personal PayPal Account Essential Requirements Before Purchase Make sure your contact info is verified, including email and phone number Understand that buying accounts might violate PayPal’s policies ➤ 24/7 Hours Reply/Contact ➤ Telegram: @Top5StarShop ➤ WhatsApp: +1 (470) 206-8684 ➤ Email: top5starshop99@gmail.com Seek accounts from trustworthy sources—avoid scams or fake listings Fully understand your local laws about account transfer and ownership Risks and Legal Considerations Your purchased account could be suspended if PayPal catches it as fraudulent Sharing or transferring accounts puts your data at risk Buying accounts may breach PayPal’s rules and lead to legal issues Always think about the ethics—using "clean" accounts is safer in the long run

As damaging as invalidation is, validation is just as profoundly healing. It creates a sense of confidence and groundedness, and a deep knowing of being loved and seen. Therefore, validation from a loved one anchors the psyche.