There is no medication for sociopathy unfortunately, says the forum paranoid schizophrenic.

Yeah, but everything can be a goat, not a donkey.

Chrysippus died from seeing a donkey eating figs. Not a goat...

Hmm, I guess there's nothing wrong with a Sunday Semper Fi from son to mother.

It is all in good faith.

Sorry S, but I rarely get your jokes. You must have a unique sense of humor or I'm just joke-deaf.

By what standard? And what "what"? Nor is this trivial in a discussion of parenting. — tim wood

The best interest, yes... Hmm, that's a bit hard to define.

How would you go about addressing this issue?

Yes? — tim wood

Yes, I agree with everything said. No complaints or disagreement.

But, to act in the best interest of someone requires one to know what is best. So, is there some epistemic closure that can be achieved here or not?

Well, my conception of what constitutes a fiduciary duty wrt. to parenting is that one always acts in the best interest of the child.

Lawyers would flip out with such a definition; but, I think that nails down the gist of the issue.

And if you're feeling courageous here's a better one:

https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3087&context=faculty_scholarship

Is this better?

https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/fiduciary-duty-what-it-and-what-does-it-impose-upon-you

Care to put arm and legs on this? What fiduciary responsibility does a parent have towards his or her child? — tim wood

I think this covers it:

Overview
When someone has a fiduciary duty to someone else, the person with the duty must act in a way that will benefit someone else, usually financially.

The person who has a fiduciary duty is called the fiduciary, and the person to whom the duty is owed is called the principal or the beneficiary. If the fiduciary breaches the fiduciary duties, he or she would need to account for the ill-gotten profit. The beneficiaries are typically entitled to damages.

Corporations and Fiduciary Duties
Directors of corporations, in fulfilling their managerial responsibilities, are charged with certain fiduciary duties. The primary duties are the duty of care and the duty of loyalty.

Duty of Care
The duty of care requires that directors inform themselves “prior to making a business decision, of all material information reasonably available to them.” Smith v. Van Gorkem, 488 A.2d 858 (1985).

Whether the directors were informed of all material information depends on the quality of the information, the advice available, and whether the directors had “sufficient opportunity to acquire knowledge concerning the problem before action.” Moran v. Household Intern., Inc., 490 A.2d 1059 (1985).

Moreover, a director may not simply accept the information presented. Rather, the director must assess the information with a “critical eye,” so as to protect the interests of the corporations and its stockholders. Smith v. Van Gorkem, 488 A.2d 858 (1985).

Duty of Loyalty
The duty of loyalty means that all directors and officers of a corporation working in their capacities as corporate fiduciaries must act without personal economic conflict. As the Delaware Supreme Court explained in Guth v. Loft, 5 A.2d 503, 510 (Del. 1939), “Corporate officers and directors are not permitted to use their position of trust and confidence to further their private interest."

Duty of Good Faith
Under the duty of good faith, a corporation's directors and officers must advance interests of the corporation ans fulfill their duties without violating the law. In re The Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litig., 906 A.2d 27 (Del. 2006).

Duty of Confidentiality
Under the duty of confidentiality, a corporation's directors and officers must keep corporate information confidential and not disclose it for their own benefit. Guth v. Loft, Inc., 5 A.2d 503 (Del. 1939).

Duty of Prudence
Under the duty of prudence, a trustee must administer a trust with a degree of care, skill, and caution that a prudent trustee would exercise. Amgen Inc. v. Harris, 577 U.S. __ (2016).

Duty of Disclosure
This duty requires directors to act with “complete candor.” In certain circumstances, this requires the directors to disclose to the stockholders “all of the facts and circumstances” relevant to the directors’ decision. Amgen Inc. v. Harris, 577 U.S. __ (2016).

Charities and Fiduciary Duty
Some courts have not required officers of a charity to abide by the same rules as corporate officers. For example, an officer may be allowed to deal in a manner financially advantageous to himself or herself, so long as the charity is not subject to any expense. This does not mean, however, that an officer of a charity is permitted to divert earning capacity of his charity to himself. Boston Athletic Assoc. v. Int’l Marathons, Inc., 392 Mass. 356 (1984); Samuel & Jessie Kenney Presbyterian Home v. State, 174 Wash. 19 (1933).

Fiduciary or Confidential Relations
Certain relationships impose fiduciary duties. For example, attorneys have a fiduciary duty to their client, a principal to his agent, a guardian to his ward, a priest to his parishioner, and a doctor to his patient. Fiduciary duty is imposed whenever confidence is reposed on one side in a contractual relationship, so as to allow that side to exert influence and dominance over the other.

Further Reading
For more on the fiduciary duty, see this Florida State University Law Review article, this Florida Bar Association article, and this UCLA Law Review article. — Cornell Law Definition.

:blush:

Shesh, I'm sorry if this thread came off as trolling or clickbait. Isn't it the role of the "philosopher" (which I at least try to be), to ensure that the reader or audience isn't all comfortable and jolly?

It stopped raining so all the mud is dry and there's nowhere to wallow. Sad. Now I have to wallow in my piss. Ehh.

Yeah that was badly worded. Should have read,

Instead of comparing the two, can something be learned from females that makes them less representative of the prison ratio of females to males.

Or something like that.

I already stated that the superiority inferiority division is irrelevant in this thread, where others thought I was trying to make such a division.

All true. No denying that.

Well they aren't perfect if that's what you're trying to say.

I don't know who brought up this notion of male/female superiority or inferiority. It's just dumb.

Might have been me actually...

That's fine.

Still the facts are that males are incarcerated disproportionately with respect to females, rendering any projected male typical hierarchy of superiority or inferiority completely and utterly irrelevant to the point in question.

I'm sorry, I don't see your point here.

Not trolling.

Explain it. I don't understand your point.

I'm not trolling.

Whatever floats yer boat.

That's fine.

I'm sure you can rightly draw some implications from that, but "males are socially inferior" isn't one of them. — S

I don't think I said that males are absolutely inferior than females. But, yes, they can be inferior in some regards.

The very question is offensive. Males are much more than male criminals, so they shouldn't be judged by that measure. — S

I'm wondering how to delineate between the fact that males are more representative of prison populations and the fact that women don't.

Can one not draw some implications from this state of affairs?

Where is the empirical evidence for the claim that patriotism or nationalism has increased under the current administration? Without it, this thread becomes just another anti-Trump rant. — Hanover

Surely, you must be kidding if you think that there is no correlation between the Trump anti-immigrant anti-European (not paying their due to NATO) and anti-establishment rhetoric and the present state of the union?

I understand the importance of values; but, how do you delineate when someone becomes dogmatic in their enshrinement and else?

I'm particularly averse towards nationalism. It's sort of the thing that arises when values are valued for their own sake, without rational inquiry about their application or validness.

Well, if you're implying there is some inherent inclination to avoid "promiscuous" criminal activity I think there are environmental factors that are influential but not necessarily biological. But I don't think this makes women superior. — Anaxagoras

Let's drop the superior/inferior thingy for a moment. If women are less likely to engage in dangerous behavior, then doesn't that make them better rather than men at being in government positions?

I don't disagree with the wisdom @Bittler Crank has bestowed us; but, how do you argue with the fact that women are more reluctant than men to engage in promiscuous activity?

Now, if you had said that, I might have cause to stop and think. But instead... — Banno

So, I say that neurotic men congregate towards the attainment of a perfect body? What's wrong with that? Perhaps too much generalizing?

Superior in what sense? Impulse control? Less inclined to use drugs? — Anaxagoras

Yes, all of that.

And yet you still won’t answer my question. — Possibility

Yet, we do grow happily together.

How can it be otherwise?

Ah. It's a game of "last post wins"? — Banno

Whatever floats your boat.

↪Wall — Banno

Or are you just playing sillybuggers. — Banno

dunno you tell me.

Making threads like this, which just poke the hives nest, warn first then revoke the privilege to make threads or ban. — Judaka

I don't get your drift, though, OK.

Them. — Banno

Who bay that be?

Yep. Unless bodybuilding is taken on as a way of stretching towards some notion of bodily perfection that is imposed by others. — Banno

Who's "others"?

You should be stopped from doing this, that's what I think and I hope some mod agrees. — Judaka

Sopped from what?