I think I was just referring to your whole comment. I have to disagree; there are countless technically skilled artists who don't "break the mold" or do something new. As I read your other comments though, I see you're referring more to craftsmanship. I wouldn't say creativity requires technical skill. The combination of the two, though, is usually what creates new genres, etc. But I think "knowledge of boundaries" as you say can also come about from just being an outsider; you have a birds eye view of the imposed limitations and are therefore not bound by them simply because you aren't "in" the art form in the same way as insiders. But technical skill is definitely important. — Noble Dust

Sure, I referred to "technical" skill first in the sense Babbeus used it, which included "knowledge of the field" and not in its common meaning. I agree that technical skill (in its ordinary meaning, that I dubbed "craftmanship" to make a distinction) isn't a requirement for creativity. Cage's 4'33 doesn't require any skill at music or composing. I do think it would be highly unlikely that someone not aware of the musical tradition and music theory would come up with it, coming from the outside. In that sense I do consider knowledge of the boundaries a requirement to be creative in the majority of cases (there are exceptions because in the end creativity isn't a hard science).

Interestingly enough, in common speech you're engaged in a creative activity when you reproduce someone else's composition (playing the piano is generally seen as a creative hobby, for instance). So the level of creativity we assumed in this thread is already set apart from common speech, even without us defining it.

Well, maybe I'm reasoning too much from my musical experience. I'm not so much concerned with technique (or craftmanship) as a prerequisite for creativity but knowledge of the underlying principles. Babbeus grouped that under technical skill but I consider knowledge and craftmanship apart.

In my view, it's hard to be creative if you are unaware of the state of the art as you're bound to repeat what has gone before. That knowledge is partly history but also music theory for instance. I can extrapolate that at least to the legal profession. Originality in that field (especially when negotiating) multiplies as a result of experience.

Are you speaking from experience? — Noble Dust

What part?

Do you find Geert Wilder's alliance with Netanyahu (and opposition to Obama) regarding the Israeli settlements as refreshing as I do? Who knew there'd be a Dutch Trump. — Hanover

Refreshing? I think the unqualified support for Israel is actually getting quite stale. That's been going on for over 50 years already and only the defense industry has truly benefitted.

2) Creativity: the ability to break the conventions and find unexpected/surprising solutions — Babbeus

I think this is normally only possible when you also have knowledge of the boundaries and therefore implies a high level of technical skill as well. Aside from the random flukes of course that accidentaly are truly creative.

Talent is a dangerous word. I've seen kids give up because they assume they have to have talent and that therefore things ought to be easy. Once it takes work, they think they'll never master it and that they don't have talent. It screws with their sense of slfl worth as well.

We have a Dutch saying that I like a lot more than the English equivalent "practice makes perfect". In Dutch it's oefening baart kunst, which would literally translate as "practice births art". Art where there's an art to carpentry, mathematics or cutting a ham, e.g. mastery of a trade, whatever that might be, including the Arts.

Please don't strawman me: I never said that every untoward act committed by a Muslim and/or which occurs in a Muslim-majority country is related to Islam. — Arkady

Then why mention the fact that they are "Muslim-majority" in the first place if not to make a point about the religion? If that wasn't your point, please rewrite the paragraph I quoted in such a manner it doesn't refer to a religion any more (and still makes a point).

If I was straw-manning than you're a sloppy writer.

Well, the Dutch through their East India Company held various parts of what we call Indonesia for quite some time. It may be that they dominated Indonesia for a shorter time, however. — Ciceronianus the White

Maybe I misunderstood "primary". I understood it as the largest colonial power. There was a time we were the largest but not all the time for the period we were active in slave trading and colonisation. Our colonisation of Indonesia lasted until 1949.

The slave trading is actually something some people boast about in combination with the "VOC mentality" (seems more of an ego thing to state something like that in a boasting manner for most though, I don't think they actually mean it). — Gooseone

Boasting about it is a clear indication there is no awareness.

The Dutch were the primary European colonial power. Not many seem to be aware of it, but the Dutch were unusually contemptuous of and cruel to the people of the regions they colonized, even by European standards. The Boers were Dutch settlers. — Ciceronianus the White

The Dutch were the primary colonial power for about 50 years and before that it was the Spanish and Portuguese and after that the English (for a lot longer). The British empire was definitely larger and longer lasting in the end. The rest seems pretty accurate.

I've read that the Dutch aren't forthcoming about the history of their treatment of native peoples, and have taken legal action against those who have published accounts related to their rule in Indonesia. There have been articles in the English press about it. Those articles seem to take some pleasure in noting that the Dutch, though quick to condemn the violation of human rights by other nations, try to silence those who refer to their own conduct in that area. Perhaps the English are exaggerating. — Ciceronianus the White

I'm not aware that there was an active effort to cover up the Dutch crimes in Indonesia. But they're certainly not forthcoming about it. It wasn't until the 60's that some investigation was done but not in depth. Since the 90's there was more research. Public awareness is very low though. As is awareness of our slave trading history.

Most history books tend to depict the violence of slave revolts; where white people were victims of violence. The violence of slavery is rarely shown in Dutch culture though; the torn families, the whippings, the deaths at sea are all invisible.

No, the Dutch don't feel responsibility for the acts of their forefathers because they think in terms of guilt - but people can take responsibility also for things they are not guilty of. I can take responsibility and not perpetuate the inequality that has resulted from slavery, oppression and discrimination. We don't let orphans rot in the street either. But our fellow non-white Dutchman? Not so much.

No, it's a good example of a false equivalency, which speaks to my point. Yes, in the U.S. some rapists are given light sentences, and military has a problem with institutional procedures relating to rape (by the way, the stats on male rape in the military are likewise depressing; this problem is by no means confined to the treatment of women.) And in some Muslim-majority countries, the female victim is persecuted for being raped! There is clearly an asymmetry here, despite your rhetorical attempts to conflate them. (I will be charitable in my reading of your post to not take it as saying that I personally have oppressed women in my own country, though your wording was a bit sloppy.) — Arkady

Quite clearly, the US being a Christian majority country, rape in the military is a Christian problem.

You claimed her statement on genital mutilation being linked to Islam to be false; you did so based on the origins of this practice and purport Egypt to be the only Islamic country (in Africa!) where it's prevalent. Though we might be able to look from the outside in and observe that the tradition is not necessarily linked towards religious practice, this does not mean that from the inside the practice has gained a religious narrative in many cases. I find that a misrepresentation and a lowly way of attacking her as a caricature, especially considering the many things you could have used (and have used later) to generate a more nuanced opinion on her. — Gooseone

That's not a straw man I'm afraid. I highlighted an example. Or do you insist that every argument is conclusive and concise to the point where I'd have to take 5 days to write an essay. If your point was, Eqypt isn't the only majority muslim country in the region that practise FGM, then say so. Instead you go "straw man", when it really wasn't. That made it a stupid conversation.

The point remains that it's ridiculous to claim that genital mutilation is a Muslim problem when the practice exists irrespective of the religion held by people in the region where it came into existence for sanitary reasons. Due to lack of water, it was easier to remove these parts instead of having to clean it every day. If it were a religious thing, it would also be a Christian problem for certain African countries. But somehow then it all of a sudden isn't about religion, laying bare the double standard of the likes of Ayaan (and others).

The cultural practice of FGM was exported, among other things, when Islam was exported. It's interesting to see then that Indonesian imams are more "traditional" than their Egyptian counterparts even when the both governments have prohibited it. The fact that different imams in different regions hold different opinions, is further proof that it isn't an "Islamic" thing and that Islam isn't a monolithic cultural phenomenon.

There's more issues surrounding this, because most people do not receive and practice customs based on textual evidence but on the actions and expectation of their surroundings. Much the same that most Westerners aren't Christian any more but do believe in, for instance, the Christian work ethic. Or arbitration and impartiality as a requirement for fair judgments (also an ecclesiastical invention). So when people practice FGM, it isn't because they've done an extensive study of the Qu'ran and hadith and wonder whether it's the "islamic" thing to do. They basically do it because everybody around them does it and expects them to do it too.

Also, speaking of straw men, I said she claimed FGM was a Muslim problem and took issue with that, which is different than claiming there are links between FGM and Islam as you state it (still incorrect, but closer to the mark).

I won't blame her for being selfish and making up stories about her immigration and I have doubts to what extent she felt the need to (indeed) become somewhat of a caricature due to being met with criticism from the left. (Haven't followed her much when she was politically active). — Gooseone

I was going to act as a legal advisor to her at one point, because I felt strongly about FGM as well and thought it was great someone from her background would take up this cause. She had a habit to propose things that were legally unfeasible and I was supposed to help her formulate steps that fit in the existing legal system. Unfortunately, she turned out to be more interested in being shocking (and polarising the debate) than actually implementing effective policies. She made a conscious choice at some point to chose form over function and that's where I exited stage left.

It's the way in which criticism is generated which bugs me, all the time (both on the left and on the right) you see people set up a caricature of their opponents and attacking them on that basis. It's odd that those who tend to claim moral superiority are so often inclined to judge everyone who doesn't share their opinion while not realising that they place their own values onto those who are unable to do anything with these values. — Gooseone

But Hirsi Ali is a liar and a charlatan. How should I "generate" my criticism to please you then? You've also could've asked me "why do you think that?" but instead you accuse me of straw manning.

Here you apply moral relativism and use it to condemn ethical behaviour, I would not for instance call it fascist for governments to penalize murder. — Gooseone

Which examples did I give and do you think murder fits into those categories of examples?

There can be debate on this specific issue (and there should be!), if this was the case I would state my opinion in that I personally feel Islam, as a monolithic culture, hampers female rights overall and it's morally wrong to give everyone the full freedom to emancipate.

Monolithic culture... As I said, your preconceived notions were clear, despite your claims to the contrary. The difference between you and me is that I don't pretend to have an open mind about things that are morally clear.

We have a past which we can use to observe the violent nature of reformation and also considering choice supportive bias, I feel it's justified to condemn a religion which 'generally' puts woman in a position which makes it hard for them to bring about change from the inside.

Then you are unaware of the historical developments in this area. There was a time that Islamic women could divorce and receive part of the estate, when us Westerners treated women as a thing to be owned. The thin veneer of respectibility we shroud ourselves with to feel superior is easily lost. 2 world wars in the "enlightened world" is proof enough. Human beings are animals if we do not continually make the effort to be more than just animals and it's only too easy not to make the effort, when we perceive it not costing us anything (except our humanity).

The point being, these things are in flux and I don't think the human race has progressed morally in any way as compared to 4000 years ago.

That said, I consider every religion equally stupid.

Religious indoctrination plays a role here also, whereas it might seem like fascism to impose our morals onto others, I am of the personal opinion there are sufficient grounds for doing so.

A prohibition on FGM? Sure. A prohibition on maidenhood restoration not so much. You know we've had discussions about prohibition on wearing the nikab in NL. Because women who wear them are all oppressed by their husbands. Even if that were true, how is more oppression (this time state-sanctioned) going to help women emancipate? This is why imposing our morals, especially when they are repressive, isn't a good idea in every instance.

Conflating maidenhood restoration with male circumcision is a bad idea, maidenhood restoration, aside from the actual existence of such a thing as maidenhood is generally done "voluntarily" at an age round about the age of consent and the bulk of this wish stems from what, mostly religious believes, is expected from woman (virginity). There's lots to say about male circumcision, the main thing I'd like to say on the subject is that males are fortunate it generally doesn't hamper physical functionality.

Yes not the best comparison in that respect but the examples were given to show it isn't necessarily a good idea to have governments enforce every moral norm. I'm not even sure what moral norm is being protected by prohibiting maidenhood restorations. For more it falls squarely in the middle of physical integrity and the right to choose what to do with your body.

Also, if you'd level the amount of skepticism against Machteld and Ayaan you hold against me, we wouldn't be having this stupid conversation.

A straw man arguments requires me to misrepresent someone's argument. Where did I do this? Point it out when you first accused me of it.

It's amazing, by the way, that being Dutch you knew so little about Ayaan.

As to poor academics, standards in the Netherlands are pretty lax.

More Hirshi Ali lies:

”Imagine if a leader within the tea party movement were able to persuade its members to establish a third political party. Imagine he succeeded —overwhelmingly— and that as their leader he stood a real chance of winning the presidency. Then imagine that in anticipation of his electoral victory, the Democrats and Republicans quickly modified an existing antidiscrimination law so that he could be convicted for statements he made on the campaign trail.

All of this seems impossible in a 21st-century liberal democracy. But it is exactly what is happening in Holland to Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.” — Wall Street Journal

Antidiscrimination law was never changed and not even attempted and the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute. It was subsequently forced to do so as a consequence of a court case brought by private individuals that demanded prosecution. Court decided in their favour.

She also lied when she asked for asylum in the Netherlands and then lied about having lied.

Born Ayaan Hirsi Magam, she migrated to the Netherlands in 1992, changed her name to Hirsi Ali, and lied to Dutch authorities about her past. Contrary to the story she told the government, she arrived in the Netherlands not from war-torn Somalia, but from Kenya, where she lived in a secure environment and under the protection of the United Nations, which funded her education at a well-regarded Muslim girls’ school. Though she told immigration authorities and the Dutch public she had fled from civil war in Somalia, she left that country before its war broke out. Indeed, she did not live through a war there or anywhere else. Thanks to her fabrications, Hirsi Ali received political asylum in just five weeks.

Hirsi Ali told astonished audiences on Dutch talk shows that her supposedly devout family had forced her to marry a draconian Muslim man, that she had not been present at her own wedding, and that her family had threatened to kill her for offending their religious honor. However, Zembla told a drastically different story. Hirsi Ali’s brother, aunt and former husband each testified that she had indeed been present at her wedding. It turned out that Hirsi Ali’s mother had sent her brother to a Christian school, not exactly an indication of Islamic fanaticism.

“Yeah, I made up the whole thing,” Hirsi Ali admitted on camera to a Zembla reporter who confronted her with her lies. “I said my name was Ayaan Hirsi Ali instead of Ayaan Hirsi Magan. I also said I was born in 1967 while I was actually born in 1969.”

Hirsi Ali’s claim of honor killing threats also appears to be empty; she remained in touch with her father and aunt after she left her husband. In fact, her husband even came to visit her in the Dutch refugee center where she lived after leaving him. Even though he had paid her way to Europe on the grounds that she would join him in Canada, Hirsi Ali’s husband consented to the divorce she sought. — Max Blumenthal

Then there's her economic use of the truth, which runs through most of her work. Here's a nice example:

If you look at70 percent of the violence in the world today, Muslims are responsible

As said in an interview with Jon Stewart.

Not clear where the number comes from but the International Institute of Strategic Studies says it might be calculated independently based on the number of Muslim victims. The problem is that it unjustifiably suggests the armed conflicts are a result of the Muslim religion. The Syrian conflict, for instance, does not have at its root religion, which totally skewed the number of Muslim victims in 2015.

So yes, the woman is a charlatan.

I said "aside from the what's what concerning Hirshi Ali", you use one example to purport her words aren't to be taken on face value. You can probably find a bunch more and this just shows that one should always be critical and not blindly take things on face value.

And if I look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country there are certainly strong links between female genital mutilation, look at Indonesia and Malaysia for example. — Gooseone

It predates Islam, Chirstianity and Judaism. It's prohibited in Indonesia. It isn't a Muslim problem as it spans regions that are majority Christian as well. And Hirshi Ali's words aren't to be taken on face value for a lot of reasons but I think lying about a topic you got famous about is a pretty big one. That's not just "not blindly taking things on face value" that's reason to discard her writings to the thrash heap.

Also, both Machteld and Ayaan had an agenda and set out to find data to confirm that agenda, instead of collecting and generating data and distilling a conclusion from the data. In other words, they suck as researchers. Not to mention the mistake of setting Islam up as some sort of monolithic cultural entity. Hint: it isn't.

Yes I have, I can read. The Volkskrant is implicitly mentioning Machteld and the (opinion!) article goes on saying that it's wrong to assume in advance that woman in Islamic cultures (Islam mentioned implicitly) do not necessarily suffer from unequal rights but might very well choose their position... so we shouldn't judge cultures with unequal rights... or something. Then they use the example about how woman aren't able to get a maidenhead restoration operation in Zweden and how we should respect woman's wishes more. They mention that in the Netherlands, 48% of such operations are applied for due to sexual abuse yet it's common knowledge here many woman use that as an excuse to get it done because there is a critical policy in the Netherlands. The essence of the article is basically saying we should show solidarity and don't judge the cultures which expect females to be virgin when they get married. "Why criticise the cultures which are hampering equal rights, who are we to tell woman how to emancipate?". — Gooseone

Apparently you can't read well. The article is far more nuanced than you make it out to be and despite the word "self determination" being mentioned six times, you didn't pick up on it. The essence is that self determination for people sometimes means you can't tell them what to do even if you disagree with their choices.

I'll state it less nuanced: imposing our values on people who don't share them is fascist. So, given the example of Sweden, I can disagree with maidenhead restoration operations but I I also disagree with prohibiting it. If we're going that way, we can also prohibit circumcision of men (which, by the way, isn't a religious practice either, because it predates Judaism as well but is regularly associated with Judaism any way). Or outlaw any set out of behaviour we consider bad for people (smoking, big macs, alcohol etc. etc.). It's fascist in the sense that the "government knows best".

The NRC article starts of with saying that it's a bad thing to polarize debate by stating that Islam and feminism can't go together and ends with stating that these "racist, patriarchal, extreme right nationalist ideologies are irreconcilable with feminism". — Gooseone

Maybe you shouldn't be using Google translate because the article doesn't state this. It states it has created a schism in feminism. Summed up, it is feminism that tells non-Western women what to do on the one hand and feminism that supports non-Western people to emancipate on the other. The former, according to the writer, is irreconcilable with feminism in the latter sense. She labels the former as racist (assumes superiority of Western values), patriarchal (dictates instead of empowers women to freedom), and coincides with nationalist ideologies (because it says the same as Wilders).

Unlike you with your condescending tone, I also specifically mention that I'm not being sarcastic when I ask for information concerning right wing positions, I would gladly be more informed instead of "judging everything by my preconceived political notions".

Seeing you mainly try to set up straw man arguments so that you're better able to use an ad hominem in your discourse, I won't count on you providing such enlightening information. — Gooseone

I gave you information but you don't care about it and just accuse me of straw man arguments, which I haven't. I've accused Ayaan of lying which is quite well established and handed you the facts and accused both of bad methodologies, which is also easily established if you had actually read anything other than badly translated articles instead of some of their original works. Your convictions are clear, despite your claims to the opposite. Apologies if my lack of patience then comes across as condescending but I'll remind you that you started accusing me of straw man arguments where there were none, which is pretty much the academics equivalent of plugging your ears with your fingers and screaming "lalalala" at the top of your lungs.

Aside from what's what concerning Hirshi Ali, you put up a straw man with attacking her on her stance of female genital mutilation (which she has suffered) — Gooseone

Sigh. Genital mutilation isn't a Muslim problem, which she knew but lied about because she has issues. Whether she suffered it, is neither here nor there.

As I said I haven't read Machteld Zee's work yet but she published the thesis which earned her a doctorate as a book, anyone who wishes can read it and come to their own conclusions. — Gooseone

So you have no way of assessing the merits of those articles but just feel they're not appropriate because they don't agree with your preconceived political notions. Notions so well established you'll defend someone who you don't even know. Fantastic. Very well-examined.

I've known Hirsi Ali personally and read Machteld Zee. It's always interesting to see these people who promote agenda's for the right in an academic manner promoted to celebrity status. It happens because it's rare not because they're especially bright or novel.

That's either because universities are leftist fortresses reinforcing the leftist agenda or the right is simply wrong on many of these subjects.

Hirsi Ali used to go on about genital mutilation as a Muslim problem, whereas the only majority Muslim country where it's prevalent is Egypt (with most imams there opposed to it). Other African countries where it's prevalent are majority Christian. The practice predates Islam in any case. That's just one example where she knowingly lied. Not a woman whose words are to be taken at face value.

Besides such misstatements of facts the reasoning of both writers is not logically rigorous.

And although there's definitely things going awry with Sharia arbitration in Europe, Machteld's work is basically a conspiracy theory and mostly an attack on what she labels as the progressive elite. She has "found" interesting cases but raises a few examples to a standard and then ascribes an intentional islamisation of Europe into it that has simply no basis on facts. It's all very... poor academic work. In the end, I think they are "attacked" by other academics because those others take their work seriously and don't need these charlatans to spout nonsense under the veneer of sensibility that working for a university grants. Call it professional pride.

This isn't news either. I think it was in 2006 that I suggested making it possible to sue politicians and newspapers for stating incorrect facts. ;)

But I said "knowledge which we receive through a heuristic filter of sources that we trust" and "It's more about how to develop healthy relationships of trust and an openess to question our own beliefs".

If you really are so complacent as to teach children that it is ok to simply take someone's word for it, even though they may be qualified to the hilt to give that word, then you are doing them a huge disservice. — Barry Etheridge

:-}

No source should ever go unchecked, no teacher should ever appoint themselves the guardian of all knowledge.

Many sources do go unchecked as I just illustrated, whether you find the example quaint is neither here nor there as I could've mentioned many others. Like trusting the bread from the baker is edible because he says it is. Or do you have him go through an entire due dilligence process?

Or how about the MOT? The garage tells you it's MOT compliant and when he does the government will trust your car is compliant. So that's a level of trust with even a clear legal effect. Trust. We do it all the time. Please note also, that I've never said we should trust everyone unconditionally. I merely took issue with this extreme skepticism that approaches people as if they are islands upon themselves. We're not even capable of checking all sources. So it's a nice theoretical idea but the reality is we trust other people to do the checking. The garage has a periodic check from the government but you trust the government to do that check correctly (and often enough to avoid the garage from breaking the law). Personally, I don't have expertise in cars and neither have the time nor the inclanation to verify my garage performed the MOT correctly.

If you have a legal dispute and if you aren't a lawyer it is perfectly sensible to trust a legal advisor. You trust the school and academic system, the bar association and the legal system to be robust enough that what he says is correct. You don't spend 4 years getting a law degree to then sue.

I also didn't say teachers are the guardians of all knowledge. I said we learn by trusting teachers, which is entirely sensible as well because we have a social history and social structure that by and large ensures that what teachers tell us is correct. Schools seem to be reasonably capable of teaching children how to read, do algebra etc. etc.

Else nobody can tell when they are, as they inevitably will be (it is estimated that 90% of all current knowledge will be shown at some point in the future to be erroneous, inaccurate, or inadequate). just plain wrong.

Hence, my earlier line to be open "to question our own beliefs".

But please, continue to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. It's not as if what I'm writing is anything radical. it's all rather common sense.

Actually, I regularly challenged both teachers and parents on various things, with the support of my parents. Did I challenge everything? No. That's not at all implied by realizing that something isn't the case just because someone is claiming it is.

I find it distasteful and irresponsible that you'd teach kids that something is the case just because someone says it is. — Terrapin Station

Look, I don't think we're really saying much different from each other but it's always nice to be judged by a complete stranger. I was pointing out that your "don't believe something just because they said it" is a completely theoretical way of living your life. We don't do that because it takes too much time and in practice we don't teach our kids that. If you do, you're either a very annoying dad/mother setting your kids up to be totally dysfunctional (although they'll probably get over it around puberty) or are just saying things but have no clue about actually raising kids.

Do you trust the weatherman when he tells you it's going to rain tomorrow? Or are you going to check the barometric readings over a 250 mile radius, use it as input into an algo you've personally designed and coded on a computer which you've assembled from parts you've designed and built in machines you designed and built based on theoretical frameworks you personally verified for their physical and mathematical consistency?

Problaby not. The point being that we continually trust, implicitly and explicitly, what other people say. We trust the weatherman he says it's going to rain tomorrow. Because we trust the barometers to work (and the guy who built it said it was accurate), the algo to predict, the computer to computationally be accurate, the parts not to degrade, the theoretical framework to be predictive and the mathematics and physics underpinning it to be correct.

Granted subjects aren't inherently deep but how can you even know that since you are bound to subjectivity? — intrapersona

That's your own answer there. If we're bound by subjectivity then there is no objective measure. By definition.

What you can do is develop a persuasive definition of "deep" with some measurable aspects, like "being taught at an academic level" to come to some sort of categorisation. It will be an arbitrary category though and Beliebers will still think you're a boring douche and a snob to boot, having no clue why you're so shallow going on about the meaning of life all the time. Or ethics, God forbid!

So you'd teach to believe things just because someone says them? (At least with respect to some people?) — Terrapin Station

That's the most sensible approach. You trusted your teachers and parents to learn to read. Or did you go about challenging them "that's not really the letter D?" Even to this day, when you are uncertain of the meaning of a word you grab a dictionary.

The same with mathematics, laws and most everyday knowledge which we receive through a heuristic filter of sources that we trust (teachers, friends, family, the government, your doctor etc.). There's hardly an original thought that we possess and when we do it's because "we're standing on the shoulders of giants".

It's more about how to develop healthy relationships of trust and an openess to question our own beliefs.

The answer to this is simply to teach kids, starting in elementary school, to not simply believe someting just because someone says it. That includes teaching them to not simply believe what teachers, parents, etc. say just because they say it. — Terrapin Station

Yeah, because reinventing the wheel is such a great idea. Critical thinking doesn't entail being skeptical about everything and everyone.

Fuck the masses! Why should we bother with what people with 2mm brains say? >:O — Agustino

You'll need to live with them all the same and after you telling them to fuck them(selves) that will be harder. If you don't like how people think or about what they think, instead of dismissing them you could try engaging them in a way that will get them interested. Seems more productive to me.

All talk is small talk. Philosophers talking more so than others. Subjects aren't inherently deep but are considered as such by those participating in the conversation. If we look at society, philosophical ideas are considered less deep and of less import than Justin Bieber's latest tattoo. Claiming his tattoo is small talk is short hand for saying you disagree with society's purported priorities and attribution of values.

To which the masses will say: who are you? What do we care? Whatever!

Hence, this too is small talk.

Mental disorders should never be indulged. I have been clear and consistent in that regard. If you disagree, it is just because you are "confused." — Emptyheady

What is your idea of indulging?

I've looked up some data for the Netherlands where there's an increase of deaths compared to the regular population, mostly due to coronary diseases (slightly more suicides and AIDS). Suspected cause is increased stress due to non-acceptance of being openly transgender by their surroundings. So maybe sex change operations aren't working that well because everybody else is being a dick about it. Under that scenario, suicides should drop too if everybody was a bit more tolerant.

It's in their interest that people are sick and continue to suffer so that they keep coming for their expensive services, and pay them more and more dough. — Agustino

We have a saying in the Netherlands: "As the innkeeper is, does he trust his guests". Meaning people who expect the worst from others usually aren't very nice themselves.

You can question the efficacy of the profession but questioning their moral character says more about you than anything else.

Clearly not. GID/gender dysphoria is a terrible disorder to have, with an awful prognosis. Apparently 41 percent attempt suicide at some point. Being transgender is just the medical treatment for the disease (gender dyshporia, or Gender Identity Disorder). It's a shame this medical illness has been tacked onto LGB issues and causes/politicized. — dukkha

Not the type of "problem" the OP was referring to now was it?

Also, what percentage of attempted suicide is a consequence of the intolerance shown towards people with this disorder?

If a tree falls in a forest....

nobody cares.

Unless your house was directly beneath the tree.

Of course, there's no way of knowing that a giant didn't accidentally step on your house and then tried to cover it up by strategically placing a tree in the indentation. Since we weren't there to see it, after all. :-}

What's stupid about cutting off your arm because you think it doesn't belong to you? — Harry Hindu

Because this one is likely to kill you whereas a sex change operation won't.

Always fun to have people who aren't psychologists try to dumb it down to just plain "stupid" or a mental illness.

How about all those people who don't even classify as male or female? There are a couple of more genders out there.

Except that a penis/balls-bearing transexual male raised as a male or a transexual vagina/ovaries-bearing female raised as a female has to imagine what it is like being the opposite. They do for a while have to pretend. Having watched a tall, broad-shouldered kind-of-homely 45 year old guy transition to being a woman, (not a particularly graceful experience for the two of them) yes, imagination, pretending, and just plain stage work is required to get from one gender to the other.

Ditto for the secular Jewish woman who transitioned to ultra orthodox bearded manhood. Ditto for most of the transexuals I have know. It takes a hell of a lot of "balls" to pull these transitions off, whether it goes well or not. — Bitter Crank

I'm not sure I agree with that. There's something about their identity that is stronger than their biological build, from which a dissonance arises that leads them to want to change their appearance. That's not pretending to be something you're not. That's being different from what you look.

I've dressed up as a woman for a play and was therefore pretending to be one. At the very least these things are of a different order...

How can you say down syndrome is only a "deviation from the norm"? It is a downright disease of the human condition and it as preposterous that we accept it, it is like cancer, it should be eradicated because it serves no purpose other than wasting our resources like time, money, food and much more. — intrapersona

Do you hold it against a person he has cancer then? Is he wrong to have it?

To answer the question: nothing.

In evolutionary terms, gay animals are quite common. I suppose if they could cross dress, some of them would. If they could get an operation some of them would. Evolutionary speaking your counterfactual example is absurd. You don't all of a sudden become a transgender so an entire society won't either. It's a deviation from the norm but that doesn't make it wrong. Down syndrome is a deviation too as is my red hair. Neither are reasons to condemn gingers or mentally retarded people as doing something wrong.

Also, a transgender isn't pretending to be a woman. You don't have to pretend to be who you are either do you?

You don't need to go to Saudi, Rotherham or Molenbeek will do. — tom

Yeah, because of course Saudi Arabia is culturally the same as Molenbeek or Rotherham. There's no such thing as a monolithic Islamic culture or society, which makes these discussions meaningless. Knowing Dutch crime statistics on human trafficking of sex workers, the biggest problem is Eastern European and Russia. So this isn't something reserved for Muslims.

So, you lived in the Bible belt and haven't read the Quran. What's your point again?

Unless you're going to offer me an extensive bibliography, from people having done some actual research or having real life experience in these Muslim societies, on which you've based your assumptions and conclusions, I'm just going to assume you don't know what you're talking about.

Shame on you. I'm partial to Knockando myself.

True. Although it's notoriously difficult to differentiate between possession and distribution. If it's anything like the Netherlands that's somewhere around your 5th joint. So don't get weed for the whole week.

Anyway, the US has other problems than drugs but they are exemplified in this area. The US spends a ludicrous amount on the war on drugs without obvious effectiveness and Latinos and Blacks make up 89% of the prison population in there for drug crimes (possession and distribution), whereas that's rather evenly distributed among white folk as well.

Would it be possible for our plants to get into space?
No way unless they develop the ability to manipulate the environment to their benefit instead of just being affected by it. That doesn't mean that they don't affect their environment just that they don't do it deliberately. — Sir2u

Sure, I'm just not clear why they must be able to do this? Are we just trying to fit the bill for them being aliens that can visit earth from outer space? Where's the requirement coming from?

Yes they are intelligent to a certain level, but they would have to purposefully interact with their environment which ours don't. — Sir2u

Why must they?