MMX2010

I'm thinking of the statement, "Parents always have the final say on their children's actions, because parents possess a maturity that adults lack." I don't think the word "maturity" has any philosophical value, because it has no consistently-present traits. I suspect that I'm wrong here, though. What are your thoughts?

Are you aware of the unspoken FDR rule regarding "suggesting more work"?

Stomach-turning and necessary. That commercial makes me cry.

"I tried the best I could, with the knowledge I had." is only a reasonable sentence when it's true. And we only know it's true when our emotions strongly tell us so. But our emotions will only tell us so when we've literally tried the best we could with the knowledge that we had: we'll become sad, scared, exhilarated, joyous, depressed, enraged, and a host of other emotions during our long-period of "doing the best we could, with the knowledge we had." If someone (like our parents) lies to you by saying, "We did the best we could, with the knowledge we had....", you'll instantly compare their emotional state with your emotional-experience of "doing the best you could, with the knowledge you had". And if their emotional experience is flat or muted, you'll instantly know that they're lying to you. That's why we need to experience "doing the best we can, with the knowledge we had" before we can separate the liars who use that phrase, from the truth-tellers. Hope that helps.

This reminds me that I haven't listened to The Fat Boys in ages.

Now I feel even worse because I didn't communicate my feelings efficiently. Stef's podcast FDR 1777 discusses the "I did the best I could with the knowledge I had." justification. And Stef has also, repeatedly, stated that parents say high-sounding things like, "I love you and would do anything for you." without either feeling the emotional impact of those words, or doing certain things that children need - (i.e. - giving them honest answers about how they were disciplined). Because you feel what it means to literally "do the best you can, with the knowledge you currently have", you will instantly detect when someone lies to you by saying "I'm doing the best I can with the knowledge I currently have." Because this instant detection is so useful, I'm glad that you possess it - even though you have to experience such strong guilt to acquire it. I'm sorry for communicating so poorly earlier. And I'm happy that there is someone is this world - you - who is doing the best you can with the knowledge you have.

I agree with you. But Stef's podcasts make me strongly feel that "Gay parents are just as good as straight parents." doesn't at all evaluating parenting in ways that benefit children. I think such a statement refuses to evaluate parenting in ways that benefit children.

That's just insane.

I agree with the scientific research, but dislike the way it is phrased. (Which really means I dislike the way the original research question was asked.) If LGBT individuals are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, but heterosexual parents are, generally, not very fit nor very capable, then LGBT individuals mustn't be very fit nor very capable. But if LGBT individuals are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and heterosexual parents, are, generally, quite fit and capable, then LGBT individuals must be very fit and very capable. My own sense is that a maximum of 20% of parents are fit and capable.

I accept that your argument is reasonable here. But I also think that saying, "Trait X, which evolved in hunter-gatherer environments, is highly natural." is cause for hope. Our technologically-driven society is so unnatural that any "natural" traits can probably be over-ridden.

Agree with you 100%.

I, too, thank you for sharing this.

Have you read Real Time Relationships? I ask because I accept that "the most obvious answer" you cited is, indeed, the most obvious answer. But it's not necessarily the right answer, and it contradicts what Stef has said in his podcasts and written about in Real Time Relationships. He has said, in his podcasts, that he asks for donations because of what Songbirdo said earlier, "Your sub-conscious pays attention to what you do, not what you say. If you want your sub-conscious to actualize that this thing you've been spending time on called 'Philosophy' is important, you should commit some of your resources to help it grow. You obviously think it's important because you've come this far in the podcasts expending all this time listening to them and learning the material. Since you can afford to commit some cash to it, pony up." And he has written, in Real Time Relationships, that honesty involves telling people what you feel in the moment, without trying to force them to take any form of action.

I apologize if this sounds weird, but I'm actually glad that you feel guilty. Because I think the more guilt you feel, the more emotional energy you'll associate with the phrase, "I'm doing the best I can under the current circumstances." So whenever someone tells you that they're doing the best they can under the circumstances, your emotions will instantly tell you who (if anyone) is lying. Feel free to disregard that if you don't think it's true. And if it isn't, I'm sorry I said something insensitive.

sumpm1, "And to those that think that this model could possibly TAKE SOMETHING AWAY from the meaningfulness to the individual when donating, how would a person be LIMITED by this model?" MMX, "They are limited because their decision to donate (or not) is determined by the actions of hundreds of thousands of people. As in, "If 75% of subscribers donate, then I will donate..." MMX: Using a donation model which states, "If 75% of subscribers donate, then I will donate..." automatically causes every individual's moral principles about donation to be determined by the actions of hundreds of thousands of people. And this is automatically and fundamentally limiting. ------------------------------------ MMX: Is "to increase donations" the only possible answer to the question? (Because I don't think it is.) And has Stef said that the answer to the question is "to increase donations"? (Because I don't think he has.) So, based on the above, wouldn't you be forcing a certain conclusion onto everyone else?

This podcast spawned a youtube discussion over whether Stef's appeal for money was based on ethics. As it turns out, Stef's appeal for money is not based on ethics, because he's not ethically declaring, "You should feel guilty / sad if you don't donate." He's, instead, predicting that IF you don't donate, you'll feel guilty / sad.

They are limited because their decision to donate (or not) is determined by the actions of hundreds of thousands of people. As in, "If 75% of subscribers donate, then I will donate..."

"There are fundamentally two types of people in the world: Traumatized People and those who reject traumatized people; the latter, ironically, consider themselves good people." ---Wednesday, May 7th, 2014, Call-in show.

LOL. Was about to suggest the same thing. Stef sometimes places callers to the front of the line.

Did she remind you of any women in your life?

First, thanks so much Kevin for proposing this idea and sticking with it long enough to make it work. Second, I used the service today to find the best "My parents did the best they could..." Stef-criticisms. By typing in "best", and hitting enter, I was instantly directed to FDR 1777 - the perfect podcast to PM my friend who's going through shit with her parents.

I'm glad you posted this, not just because of the "We were molested but we turned out fine!" angle, but because of the non-religious, government-based nature of the cover-up. Kids get molested because they're powerless, and adults cover up the abuse because they're powerful. Simple as that.

If that study is true, and if it catches on society-wide, then it's a huge victory for Stef's perspectives.

My counter-argument would be, "Since couples who adopt need to be rigorously screened, then adoptive parents should be vastly superior to non-adoptive parents. But I haven't seen any studies which suggest this." Disclaimer - I don't spend hours upon hours researching this, so the fact that I "haven't seen" this is not very important at all, if scientific understanding is your primary goal.

I can't give any advice here, but I can say that I'm glad you were brave enough to read that post to her. And I'm glad that you benefitted from the most honest moment of your life.