Search the Community

Currently 19 years old, deciding whether or not I should set myself up for the possibility of a family later on, or whether I should set myself up for being single for the rest of my life. Thoughts? Pros and Cons for each? I'm an Omega male so getting laid isn't an option.

Hello FDR friends! I have been a FDR listener for about a year now and love this community. My life took a crazy turn a few months ago. (not in a determinist way) I had a son from a previous relationship and he lived with his mother. I am now married and have been for a few years. I am an ex-heroin IV user and used to be homeless and in and out of jails for about ten years. My sons mother was also an ex IV drug user. She had years of clean time until last November. She past away in April and the evidence points towards an overdose. My son now lives with me and my wife. (I have been sober for many years now.) Some really shady and appalling things happened to my son during the last days with his mother. A lot of it is speculation so I won't go into any details about it but I have since placed my son in CBT play therapy and I have been in therapy over the last 8 months. When I knew my son would be living with me I chose to quit my job so I could be with him all day. He is now 4 years old. I have started a Youtube channel called Teegz Adventures that "stars" my son. We film many different fun adventures that we go on and the channel is 100% kid-friendly. If any of you have little ones yourself or would like to check out his channel, I would love to have some philosophical, self aware, wonderful people in our community of friends there. As we all know how many youtube commenters are. I want my son to be surrounded by great people and I know no better place to find great people than here at FDR. If you enjoy our content, please subscribe and share our videos with your friends. I know this is a plug and a lot of people sigh at these sort of posts but it would mean the world to me and my son. Good people are hard to find so I want to take my chances here. Thanks everyone! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjA-Gv2bbV4Qr-nJ8696usQ

Listening to "FDR2182 Do You Own Your Kids?", it's clear that Stefan have the opinion that parents are morally obligated to feed their own children, but only their own. He is explicit on this, and mentions that we do not have a morally obligation towards others. Not feeding your own children, he equals to murder. As the child is in no way capable of surviving on his own. I believe that Stefan have an unfounded opinion on this, one that is not easily defend. I would be interested in hearing what you others are thinking on this, and perhaps Stefan as well? What is the cause for giving parents moral obligation towards a child? 1. Is it that the state have given a person the legal guardian status of the child? (obviously not...) 2. Is it that the child have some amount of shared DNA with you? 3. Is it that you did the act that directly caused the the pregnancy? There are plenty of follow-up questions to be answered to each of these points, for instance, do you have moral obligation towards your siblings children, or your grand children? From what I listen to in the podcast, in the example with the olympic swimmer, it appears to be the act of stating that you want the responsibility of the child, that makes you morally obligated. If that is all too it, then that's fine. Then a mother who have given birth, or have evacuated the fetus (still alive) from her womb, can declare that she have no intention or will to take care of that child. Will she need to actually get an agreement with another care-taker before her obligations are gone, or is it up to the society and anyone around to stand up and take responsibility? Stefan mentions that taking the kid home, seals the deal. This is fine as I said, I'm wondering about before and after giving birth. So my view on abortion, is that as long as it's done without killing directly, instead done using medicine or physically detaching the fetus/baby, than it's not in violation of the NAP. If anyone wants to take care of the baby, they should be allowed to do so freely. If on the other hand, the mother is morally obligated to take care of the child until agreement over parenthood is made, then abortion would in my mind be morally wrong (if nobody can take care of the child). Another question it raises, what about rape? If the baby is a result of action done by others and not the mother, does she have a morally obligation to feed that child? If so, then it's not the decision to make children that entangles the moral obligation, but simply the act of having something grow inside your body? That doesn't make much sense for me? The end question is, if it's not the actions, if it's not the DNA, then what is the cause that gives you moral obligation? How can we distinguish between which baby we have moral obligations towards, and which ones we do not?

Tyler, buddy!

Hi everyone! I will be spending a whole week with kids (niece, nephews, brother and sister) from the ages of 6-10. I really want to teach them about philosophy and play philosophy games with them. Can you please suggest me how to define it in kids words and what games can I play with them? I know the 'Bad Philosophy' one, that will be fun. Thanks!

This humoristic sketch might be helpful to those who want to share this unpopular idea that hitting children is wrong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx7s_N79nco WKUK - Season 5 - Spanking Dads

The most difficult to understand kids video ever lol.biiiiig words, mumbly lisp-ed voice, lol.but good stuff.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHe4OQ4bY4o&feature=player_embedded

In podcast #562, Stefan talks about a scenario of cutting cake among siblings as a tool to teach UPB to children. The scenario is two siblings, who want the most amount of cake. you let one kid cut the cake, but let the other kid choose which slide first. Stefan says this can be used to teach UPB, and i'm sure it can be. But i want more explanation on how because I can see it teaching the complete opposite.First, the kid is concerned with cutting the cake even because of the rules of the game. He is still acting out of self-interest, and perhaps even selfishness. The kid can certainly comprehend fairness and that his sister would end up getting very close to 50% as well. UPB wouldn't necessarily be learned through this, and the parent might have to teach it overtly. My question is how.Second, this can lead to worship of the state. Why? The parent (the state), is laying down the rules. The kid would certainly understand that this rule results in more fairness, as opposed to the kid or his sister getting more or less in greater variance. So the kid can end up learning the lesson that the state is virtuous, and necessary (for without that rule, it would result in fighting and unfair proportions - it may not, but it will be hard for kids to see other solutions.Third, it teaches that you can maximize and focus on self-interest, and still result in fairness, and that it is the responsibility of the parent (state) to set up fair rules. While as an adult, we can appreciate the more subtle lesson that we cannot rely on the goodness of people, but rather things are more stable if people rely on their self interest, but as far as kids... i think this is a sophisticated lesson. They are much more likely to learn that they can shrug off being concerned with fairness, and that maximizing their self-interest can and will result in fairness, as well as inferring that the state should set the rules.Fourth, it will teach the smarter kids to be crafty, set up barriers to entry, and deceive. If the kid cuts the cake in a very complicated manner, so that it is harder for his sister to tell which piece is bigger (relative to the cake being cut in one stroke along the diameter), then it increases the kid's odds of getting a bigger piece. It rewards and directs his efforts into being crafty in a zero-sum game, rather than craft in increasing productivity and wealth for all parties. Now, this skill may be a very useful thing as you get older ( you learn a lot of great things in poker, trading, physical fighting, etc ), and can be channeled for positive endeavors (like being resiliant in face of hardships, being clever to save a company to beat the competition in a legal, legitimate manner, etc ). but for kids??? Also, a smarter kid will use a scale to weigh out the cake's size (or mass), which again is great for cleverness, but the scenario is one of competition and zero-sum and deception and counter-deception. not great for kids imo.I'd love to your hear people's thoughts on these four points.