FreedomPhilosophy

It's questionable to project from the other great apes, they are derived species not ancestral. Also there are monogamous primates, so which primate do you pick as your model and why? Have a look at Sex After Dusk, it makes a case against theories of more promiscuous origins.

Properly protecting male infants from circumcision would compel a lot of Muslims to avoid settling in the West. This could be done softly by offering adult children access to remedy by tort, or tougher by allowing anyone who sees a circumcised child the opportunity to seek legal redress on the child's behalf.

have a look at this http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/State_of_the_poor_paper_April17.pdf

Passion as in having a happy and enjoyable and appreciative partnership, hugs, fun and yes good sex. Does modelling that relationship trump a stale but intact biological parents relationship? Obviously any family breakdown and loss of parental contact is going to hurt a child, but the argument is that that might be better than modelling a cold relationship to them thereby modelling/normalising acceptance of an unhappy situation. Since I'm assuming some regular contact with the biological father, I'm not sure this could be called destroying a childs life. Although most step families have big issues, some do work out pretty well. Warren Farrell says they take a lot of work and I think he describes them as like a bomb waiting to go off!

Which scenario is likely to offer a better outcome for a young child... 1) In an intact family with biological parents who are still affectionate and loving, but for whom some resentments and difficulties have damaged the relationship and killed the passion. In essence mum and dad are more like good friends than lovers. 2) Mother finds a new man and builds a relationship that restores the passion, the biological father still has some regular contact and the parents remain friendly. Does modelling a passionate and fully respectful relationship with a stepfather trump biological parents who lost their flame but still stick together? I see a lot of women dump men through "dissatisfaction" so they can move onto another man. I do get that it's not healthy for a child to grow up with parents who don't fully love each other, but is that worse than a broken family/step dad scenario? All else being equal.

Taking to pieces this common issue raised by feminists...

For most of history "fathers" had little to do with raising children or running family life. It's only in recent centuries that the nuclear family even existed. Through most of the preceding centuries men largely lived separate lives from their wives and children. "The historical family, it turns out, cannot remotely be termed a “patriarchy” until modern times. It is in fact a gynarchy, composed of the grandmother, mother, aunts, unmarried daughters, female servants, midwives, neighbors called “gossips” who acted as substitute mothers, plus the children.15 Fathers in traditional families may sometimes eat and sleep within the gynarchy, but they do not determine its emotional atmosphere, nor do they in any way attempt to raise the children. To avoid experiencing their own domination and abuse during childhood by females, men throughout history have instead set up androcentric political and religious spheres for male-only group-fantasy activities, contributing to the family gynarchy only some sustenance, periodic temper tantrums and occasional sexual service. ... The gynarchy ruled supreme in early homes. In Byzantium, women had separate spheres with strict exclusion of men from the family, where “men live in light and brightness, the palaestra; women live in the gynaecaeum, enclosed, secluded.”38 This was even true of supposedly patriarchal Chinese families. The Chinese gynarchy was described by visitors as living in “women’s apartments behind the high walls of their husbands’ compounds,” dominated by women who “are reputed to terrorize the men of their households and their neighbors with their fierce tempers, searing tongues, and indomitable wills…When father and son do work together, they have nothing to say, and even at home they speak only when there is business to discuss. [Otherwise] they mutually avoid each other.”39 Likewise, in Indonesian families, “fathers are simply not present very much…the woman has more authority, influence and responsibility than her husband…”40 The examples can easily be extended around the world and into the Middle Ages" http://psychohistory.com/books/the-emotional-life-of-nations/chapter-8-the-evolution-of-childrearing/

enjoy... Why do we give robots female names? Because we don't want to consider their feelings How we gender robots is not an abstract, academic issue: the link between how we treat "fembots" and human women is real. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2016/04/why-do-we-give-robots-female-names-because-we-dont-want-consider-their

Hi, I've greatly enjoyed and been moved by a number of Stefan's call in shows where callers have share deeply and bravely about their lives and Stefan has facilitated the caller coming into clarity. With this in mind, what call-ins are your favorites? I want to recommend some shows to a friend.

Great, this seems to address my point by showing that there is a of lack of universality. Let's suppose me and some buddies go on a bear hunt, and while the bear is escaping our pursuit it happens to kill an innocent bystander. Are we guilty of manslaughter, or did the victim take their own risk by being somewhere where bears live or where bear hunts happen?

What can we say about this philosophically? Is it rational and a universal rule?

Sorry I meant universal, not uniform. Do we/should we apply this rule of responsibility for unintended consequences universally?

Some states have this law that if an armed robber enters a store to rob it and the owner fires on them but accidentally injures an innocent third party, the responsibility for this unintended injury/manslaughter or an innocent falls on the robber - in the absence of the robbery the accidental shooting would not have happened. This "feels right" but is this principle logical and is it applied uniformly?

Could you explain what you mean with this please?