If you are not already a supporter checkout everything you are missing out on in the Preview Article.
UpB question: I may be mistaken on the tenets, but if the basis of UPB seems to be offenses against someone's wishes/boundaries (rape being not UPB because it is not possible for it to be consensual, thus always guaranteed to be against someone's wishes/guaranteed to be breaking their boundaries...), then why can something only be immoral if it's part of a category that has to be against someone's wishes?
What if someone does something intentionally sadistic, such as knowing someone's trigger and pushing against it, but that thing is not physical but, let's say, sonic (making a certain noise known to be distressing)? Or lies about someone, to be more general? Just because something can be, in your assessments, not a case of immorality in the Category, why does that mean that the whole category is now off the table to not be UPB?
Emotions have opposites: happy/sad, mad/calm, laughter/serious...
What is the opposite of temptation?
What are some great ways to teach children about evil and how to recognise it? How do you make it age appropriate?
What are your thoughts on the difference between an assertive tone vs a raised voice/yelling. The way my wife speaks to the children sounds sometimes like yelling, but to her it sounds confident and assertive. For example, my son was fooling around going down the stairs while I had my other son in my hands and she saw and spoke harshly to him saying "stop, turn around, go downstairs safely", and he cried. I think he just got scared and was in an already stressful situation going down stairs, but I also thought it sounded very close to yelling.
I have wondered how much my early childhood trauma of being yelled at a lot plays into my current interpretation of her voice, but even then the difference seems to me somewhat subtle. How can I objectively identify these two cases?
How do we stop ourselves becoming corrupt in this now corrupt world? This world and society reminds me of Batman: the dark knight rises.
As a person in my early 20s there was a time before the Internet and tech. Since your daughter is 14, did she have a pre internet and tech life? And how do you think parents should navigate this?
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Get access to the audiobook for my new book 'Peaceful Parenting,' StefBOT-AI, private livestreams, premium call in shows, and the 22 Part History of Philosophers series!
See you soon!
All donors get the Peaceful Parenting book / audiobook / AI access to share with any and all parents you know who need help!
THANK YOU SO MUCH!
This clip comes from "MY MOTHER MADE ME FAT!! Twitter/X Space", get the full show at https://fdrpodcasts.com/6147
Understanding true forgiveness is key ✝️ It requires repentance. Let's not fall for the lie that forgiveness can be granted without repentance. The post being read: https://x.com/MarkWDouglas/status/1970348389339382256
Watch and share more shorts at https://fdrurl.com/tiktok
This clip comes from "MY MOTHER MADE ME FAT!! Twitter/X Space", get the full show at https://fdrpodcasts.com/6147
We need to teach children reason and negotiation, not violence. Our future depends on it! 💡🔫
Watch and share more shorts at https://fdrurl.com/tiktok
In "The Art of the Argument," philosopher and host of Freedomain Stefan Molyneux delivers a no-nonsense guide to mastering persuasive talk. Beyond winning debates, it's about sharp logic, emotional smarts, and ethical persuasion to elevate your communication game.
Molyneux breaks down building airtight arguments, exposing fallacies, and handling heated exchanges with wit and depth. Key insights include:
Argument basics: What works, what flops.
Socratic method: Questions that uncover truth.
Emotions in play: Harness them without losing ground.
Ethics: When to fight, when to fold—with integrity.
For debaters or anyone sharpening their voice, this book arms you with tools for real, transformative conversations. Rethink how you argue and persuade.
SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux
The concept of Universal Consequentialism 😱
A year ago, I presented a different view of consequentialism in this community, which is to devide the concept into rational and irrational consequentialism.
Here's a different approach to explain what consequentialism actually is, based on an example Stefan is providing in his book "Peaceful Parenting", chapter 11, page 153, timestamp 38:19 in the audio book. Quote:
"Since you are all very clever readers, you will be replying to me in your mind something along the lines of this: 'Ah, you say, Mr. Philosopher, that no one can accurately predict the future, but you also state that hitting children has negative outcomes!'
That is certainly true – both that I make that claim, and that hitting children does have generally negative outcomes.
However, we do not judge the morality of hitting children based upon positive or negative outcomes.
For instance, we know that state control of the economy leads to massive inefficiencies – but we don't judge the morality of state control of ...
If you are not already a supporter checkout everything you are missing out on in the Preview Article.