aleles

Hey everyone, if you have Russian speaking friends, please send them this. We made a Russian version of the Bomb in the brain part 1. The video The article with the interactive ACE score test http://dobroum.com/ace Thanks! Alex

Kevin, thanks a lot! Your replies always go far and beyond, I really appreciate the list. Stef's youtube channel has a listener conversations playlist https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMNj_r5bccUzrNVRe1hFTXSBxOcMoWFn5and also the Best Rants playlist. Would be interesting to have the most inspiring listener conversations list. I remember listening to podcasts a while ago where people right during the call connected with their emotions and true-self, applied universal principles to their family members, connected with their anger, cried etc. I can't find them now, should have made notes as I was listening.

Hey everyone! What're your favorite listener conversation videos about relationship with parents? If you can't do it yourself, what would you send as an intro video of Stef showing how you can connect with people and analyze parental relationships with moral clarity? Thanks! Alex

Thanks Kaki! Mike suggested the following The Primordial Violence by Murray Straus - that's like the bible for anti-spanking/child abuse/violence research

Thank you, Pepin. I went through the list of links for it, but many of them are broken by now. Here're two studies we found 1) https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/fs000204.pdf They say that "rates of abuse among juvenile and adult inmates range from a low of 9 percent to a high of 75 to 80 percent." However, there is a strange conclusion: "Previous research would suggest that violent offenders should be expected to report higher rates of childhood physical abuse. However, contrary to expectations, violent and nonviolent offenders reported similar rates of childhood physical abuse, even of very serious forms." 2) http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=837 With their definitions they say 14% of all men in prison in the USA were abused as children. 36% of all women in prison were abused as children.

Do you guys know the study that Stef mentions saying that almost all violent criminals were abused as children? A few articles I found quote these numbers 14% of all men in prison in the USA were abused as children. 36% of all women in prison were abused as children. Thanks!

Thanks everyone! I agree, the explicit contract on the ticket states the proper use of it. No matter what we think about it, if we purchase it, we agree to its terms.

Thanks Den for the question and everyone for the feedback. It made me think about a similar scenario with reselling of a ski lift ticket. I posted it separately here https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43371-reselling-ski-lift-ticket-theft/

Hey everyone, I saw an interesting topic about the moral aspect of sneaking into a second movie with just one ticket https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42843-moral-sneaking-into-a-second-movie-with-just-one-ticket/ It made me think about a scenario with reselling ski lift tickets. For example, if you purchase a 4 hour lift ticket from someone who skied for 2 hours and then you ski for the remaining 2 hours, is this theft? What if they give you this ticket for free? The ticket says it's not transferable. There are some places that managed to make it illegal to resell tickets. We could say that there is an explicit contract that prohibits transferring a ticket. However, if, for example, Apple says that iphone reselling is prohibited and people can only buy a new iphone, would this be much different? Thanks, Alex

Kaki, please check your PM and skype, I need your email. I emailed everyone who wanted to join the group call, please let me know if you didn't get the email. Kevin, thanks for clarification, the conditional nature of preference is very important here. Here's how I summarized the answer to my question. Preferable is a correct term here. The dictionary meaning of “preferable” is “better” or “best”. However, “better” and “best” are comparative terms and they require a condition, criteria or a goal that often can be implied. For example, a vehicle cannot be better or best in abstract, it can only be better in regards to price, quality, gas mileage etc or better to accommodate a big family, to compete in a drag race, transport furniture etc. Similarly “to not murder” is a universalizable action (no notion of “should”). When we add “preferable” to it we must specify a condition or goal, which I think is “if you want to be virtuous”, then “to not murder” becomes required. “If you want to be virtuous, you should not murder.” For example, if we change our goal to be evil, then “to not murder” is not preferable anymore to achieve evil, quite the opposite. This leads to a more complete definition. UPB is behavior or actions that all people can prefer at all times and all places, and that all people should do if they want to be virtuous. Can we shorten it to UPB is behavior or actions that all people should do at all times and all places if they want to be virtuous? Since "should" means that people should be able to do those actions and in particular be able to prefer them.

Hey everyone, we want to get on a UPB group call this Saturday at 10am CST. I posted it on Gold+ forum, but everyone on this thread is welcome too. PM me. Sorry for shifting the topic, maybe I need to create another thread for the proof of conceptual existence of UPB. I feel we are talking about something else here. I'm concerned with the proof of conceptual existence of UPB. I'm using the definition for UPB from this video starting at 7:06 "UPB is actions that all people can prefer under all circumstances". So it seems to me that if we show one such universalizable action it will prove conceptual existence of UPB. That's good news, do you know when Stef wants to revise UPB? We are not translating the full book yet, but rather creating a summary similar to this article http://www.economicsjunkie.com/universally-preferable-behaviour-a-rational-proof-of-secular-ethics/, but there are some uncertainties there. If you know a good summary we can use, that'd be great. Kevin replied in another thread. That makes sense. In the book, section "THE DISCIPLINE OF THEORETICAL ETHICS", it says "preferential behaviour can only be binding if the goal is desired." and "The “ought” is conditional upon the preference.". We can say that the use of the scientific method is UPB (without the notion of should) and we should follow it (it's required) if we want to obtain knowledge about reality. When we say "to not murder" is UPB, what would be the condition that will make it required? Also in the "THE COMA TEST" and "AESTHETICALLY POSITIVE" sections it says that positive UPB and APAs should be performed all the time. We can "not murder" and "respect property rights" at every single moment. However, when we say "to be on time" is APA and "to eat" is UPB, do we actual mean "to be on time when you meet someone" and "to eat when you are hungry"? Otherwise, I don't think it's possible to be on time or to eat at every single moment, right?

I can see that, I need to change "kill" to "murder". I wanted to know if it is sufficient to show one universalizable action to prove conceptual existence of UPB. Can we say, all people can prefer not to murder and therefore UPB exists?

Patrick, preference "not to be murdered" is not our own action vs preference "not to murder", so we probably can't call it an action that we can prefer. What do you think?

Thanks everyone and thanks Kaki for the quote from the book! I messaged Mike and he said that this question will be answered by the UPB God himself in a future video! This topic raised another question. If we want to prove conceptual existence of UPB, then why do we need this argument "Arguing against UPB requires engaging in a debate..." that also looks so confusing to people? If we define UPB as actions that can be universally preferred, then all we need is to show one action that can be preferred by all people under all circumstances. For example, all people can prefer to not kill, therefore universalizable actions exist.

That's how I understand it. Do you think people understand this difference? Because dictionaries define both preferable and preferred as "more desirable or suitable", "having greater value or desirability: being preferred" etc.