weeb Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 From Youtube comments below that video. Guy says he's the first caller. Lucas Mourao 5hours ago I am the 1st caller... My point was (and still is I just had to let it go), he set to himself and to his daughter a very impossible standard according to his OWN standards... and the proof of that is in the intro of this video " How Much Would You Pay Me Not to Masturbate?" he doesnt say 16 year old in general, quite the contrary, he says they are not biologically prepared to make that decision, yet HE thinks that the way he is raising his child will make her overcome her biological limits and far surpass all other human beings...Just listen to the intro on that video and connect the dots, you will see what im talking about... I think he is preparing the bed for major disappointment, and that his daughter will pick on those expectations and will try to reach them even if they are impossible... Just saying... Lucas Mourao +1FireSnakeYeah, here is the thing, I don't know if he does that on purpose, but I dont think he does, I think he has lots of knowlege AND vested interest in his daughter and his parenting skills, I think he wants her to be the shining beacon of how awesome parenting can create an awesome being... There is nothing wrong with wanting that, but I guess he fell on a trap set by himself, once what he knew conflicted with what he wanted to believe his brain glitched and bypassed the facts (he explained this fenomena in another video BTW). I feel a bit sad about this, actually... Because I too would like to see the outcome of his experiments as a father to be awesome, I just hope he doesn't let it leak to her and make her want to live up to his standards, not because of her own virtue, but so he won't be disappointed by something that he has put so much effort and energy into, herself. Lucas Mourao +Holo CeneI dont think you see the point in what I said... I couldnt care less for sex with 16yo, Im married, shes about my age and I really dont give a fuck about this subject... the point was his contradiction... go and listen to his video "How Much Would You Pay Me Not to Masturbate?"The philosophical point there is that he sets biological reasons to why 16yo cant make that call and right after that, with complete disregard for what he just said he says his daughter will be able to make that judgment because of the way he is raising her... even if she is 10 years away from what he said to be the point of maturity for her brain... If you can't get the point of my call, if you think its about sex... seriously I don't know what excuse you give to yourself when talking about philosophy, because you havent got past logic yet... Lucas Mourao +Holo Cene Simple, because I was among the ppl commenting on the original video...And yes I hate inconsistency... He says all the time, look for consistency, well he failed to deliver that and as I value his opinions I went there to check it up...BTW you should watch the video "How much would you pay me not to masturbate?" the 1st I dont know 5 minutes or so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 very good point. it appears stefan is making an exception for his daughter. i watched the said section that this took part in and stefan does say that it is "impossible" for a 16 year old to make that decision, at that age. in the paul walker video itself he again says that a 16 year old cannot "objectively" make that decision, and that it is "not fair".another thing i find interesting with stefan's argument is that by saying that his daughter will not make the decision to date an older man he is also denying her inherent free choice. for instance, stefan says that his future-16 year old daughter will not make such a decision (to date 33 year old) because he has been parenting her for 16 years. so he basically is saying that you can parent out the choices of another person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 another thing i find interesting with stefan's argument is that by saying that his daughter will not make the decision to date an older man he is also denying her inherent free choice. for instance, stefan says that his future-16 year old daughter will not make such a decision (to date 33 year old) because he has been parenting her for 16 years. so he basically is saying that you can parent out the choices of another person. Pretty lame appeal to emotion. You whip your kid, you take away their choice to be peaceful. You negotiate with them, you take away their choice to be sociopaths. There's nothing you can do in front of a blank slate that mimics that will not take choices out of the equation. So how about focusing on people that violate morality while doing this rather than those who are upholding it by doing this? $10 says you don't answer the question directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Pretty lame appeal to emotion. You whip your kid, you take away their choice to be peaceful. You negotiate with them, you take away their choice to be sociopaths. There's nothing you can do in front of a blank slate that mimics that will not take choices out of the equation. So how about focusing on people that violate morality while doing this rather than those who are upholding it by doing this? $10 says you don't answer the question directly. "There's nothing you can do in front of a blank slate that mimics that will not take choices out of the equation."this then implies that a person's choice is dependent upon influences, rather than being totally free."So how about focusing on people that violate morality while doing this rather than those who are upholding it by doing this?"talk about "appealing to emotion". i am merely pointing out what i find to be a contradiction in logic. if you disagree with my claim then provide a counter-argument to it, just saying "don't focus on that, focus on this!" is an attempt to divert the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lians Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 You keep using the word contradiction. I don't think it means what you think it means. For Stef to contradict himself or make arbitrary exceptions, philosophically raised and abused children have to be put in the same category relative to the proposition. That's like putting people with no arms and NBA players in the same category relative to the ability to play basketball. The delineation here is empirical. Read up on child development and you'll see why my analogy is quite apt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 "don't focus on that, focus on this!" is an attempt to divert the discussion. There was no discussion. You made the claim of sinister action and I pointed out that it is an unavoidable side effect and then asked why if it is unavoidable, would you focus on somebody who is instilling reason and negotiation than the 80-90% that instill aggression and coercion. Which you did not answer. $10 gets you off my ignore list since all I ever see you do is engage in sophistry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
june Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 There was no discussion. You made the claim of sinister action and I pointed out that it is an unavoidable side effect and then asked why if it is unavoidable, would you focus on somebody who is instilling reason and negotiation than the 80-90% that instill aggression and coercion. Which you did not answer. $10 gets you off my ignore list since all I ever see you do is engage in sophistry. again you are just diverting the topic and basically saying "why are you thinking about that thing when i think this thing is more important?". stop trying to grapple the topic into your corner, please.so i repeat, if you want to actually address the claim being made, you are still open to do so. the proposition is quite simple: is stefan making an argument against free will when he says he knows for certain what choice his daughter will make 10 years into the future, because of his influence as a parent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts