I would say the Internet in general has declined. I blame education.

The analogies used, lack enough similarity to draw a better understanding.

Truly, the best analogies, are the universes of computer games. They have their own laws of physics, times lines, land masses etc.

The developers are quite literally the AIs gods. All the problems we have of understanding why God can not reveal himself to us, are made clear by this analogy. A creator is all powerful and omnipotent, yet unable to show their face to the AI.

I put a lot of thought into this analogy, and go into great depth here.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10019/gods-existence-and-amorality-analogy

I posted, hoping to face up to challenging scrutiny. I was dissapointed in the lack of challenge but at the same time my belief is reaffirmed.

This question has multiple parts. The first part is Q1, should I save my child or let them die. The second part is Q2, should I save or let 3 girls die. The final part is connecting the two, Q3 do I sacrifice my child to save others. Q4 do I sacrifice the 3 girls to save my son.

I would answer these,
Q1 save my child
Q2 save the 3 girls
Q3 I don't sacrifice my child
Q4 I don't sacrifice the girls.

What matters is how we prioritise these questions. I've layed them out in order of importance, according to me, personally.

Most people would save their own son, I think. The relationship between a parent and child, is built heavily on trust and respect. Also, its our duty to protect our children from harm.

The difference with Abe, is that he is doing his son a favor. Hes sending his son to God sooner. His Son doesn't have to risk going to hell by fault of his own sin, he gets a free pass.

No Man's Sky, is a great analogy for these kind of questions. Literally an entire universe of 18 quintiliion planets.

If the AI were to ask this question, why is there something rather than nothing, they would come to the same conclusions as previously posted here. They lack the capability to observe outside their universe, where the truth lies. They were created.

We also lack the capability to observe our universe, from the outside. Perhaps we are all just 1s and 0s on an HDD.

If it's true, something can not come from nothing, then the simplest and most logical answer, is that we were created.

Whoever has enough power to over throw the land owner, has rights to the land.

Whether its in agreement with purchasing power, or with brute force. The owner is the one who can defend it.

I think the issue at hand, is a moral question of, will the current owner be oppressed by the requisition of the land. Even governments can force people to give up their land for power lines or gas lines etc.

Or, if your Russia, you just take what you want, when you want.

So in other words. A woman, is a giraffe. I don't follow.

Pre feminism and trans trend, we didn't need fluid language that means literally anything. A knife was a knife and a fork was a fork, both unique and easy to define. Having definitive meaning, helps me to cut my food, lest I ask for a knife, and get a fork instead.

Have Fallon Fox fight Conor McGregor and the beatdown will be even more one-sided. — Michael

While the chromosome biology is under reconsideration, a part of biology that isn't controversial, is the fact that hormone therapy has little to no affect on bone density. I can state, without being a bigot, that males have a denser bone structure than females. If you've watched any of Fox's fights, it's clear, in the way that Fox walks through punches without caring.

I'm no fan of Conor. But he used to have the record for fastest KO. Fox would be out cold in less than 30 seconds. I enjoy watching Khabib maul Conor for 25 min as if he were a beginner. But I struggle watching Fox beat down woman, knowing Fox has an unfair advantage. There's a difference.

Id be all for a separate, open devision. Anyone can enter. But it would just be run by the current male champion, so what's the point.

And it's fairer for transgender men to compete against cisgender men than for cisgender women to compete against transgender men. — Michael

I don't think cis woman's broken skulls agree with your research.

You're referring to this? Because I'm referring to actual transgender women, and in particular those who have undergone sufficient hormone therapy. — Michael

According to the trans movement, hormone therapy has nothing to do with it. They believe in gender fluidity. Someone can change their identity from day to day. And if you don't agree, then you are a bigot. That's what Zuby was referring too.

Either biology has relevance, or it does not. If you agree with the trans movement, then you agree with Zuby. Are you willing to argue that Zuby wasn't a real woman when he broke that record? That's dangerous territory.

But alas, this is the political discussion I was trying to avoid...

Do you have examples?[of woman's records being shattered by trans] I've found two: Mary Gregory in powerlifting (after just a year of hormone therapy) and Veronica Ivy in track cycling. — Michael

A woman's skull was shattered. A trans named Falcon Fox entered MMA as a woman, without telling the organisation about being born a male. They were in the same weight class, but it still looks like Jake The Muss smashing his girlfriend. It's not pretty. As a fan of combat sports, I like a good bloody war, like Robbie Lawler vs Rory Mcdonald. But the trans Falcon Fox vs cis female was the most disturbing fight I've ever seen. Fractured orbitals are quite common but men don't usually break other mens skulls. Nor do woman break other woman's skulls.

New Zealand weight lifting champion Laural Hubbard has won multiple events. Not sure if Laural has had surgery, though I'm told that doesn't matter. Then there's the rapper Zuby, who smashed the woman's deadlifting record, while he briefly identified as a woman. The truth is, not many organisations are willing to allow trans competing in woman's events. And for good reason. Just compare the top 100 male athletes in any organisation. They'd all beat the woman's record.

I'm not a fan of casting your own view as a-political and thoroughly rational. At best it demonstrates a lack of self-awareness — Echarmion

We used to be able to turn to factual scientific research. Apparently, science is still trying to figure out the trans equation. I have my reservations, until the science is clear. When it comes to sport however, I'm concerned for the safety of woman who compete against trans, as well as the fairness.

The politics are not my concern, I care not for the trouble with getting involved. I have an issue with woman missing out on championships, careers, scholarships and being role models. All these are compromised in any sport that allows trans to compete against cis. As a father of 4 daughters, this is rather an important topic. At least one of my girls has potential and interest in martial arts, and the idea that she'd be competing against someone who could break her skull, is absolutely disturbing.

If you're arguing that, say, trans women shouldn't be in the women's division in elite sport because "trans women aren't real women", that's transphobia. — fdrake

This is the problem with the politically charged trans movement. Science should be the reliable authority, but it's taken a back seat. Richard Dawkins has been cancelled, and he didn't even say anything trans phobic. He merely stated that we should discuss the relevance of biology when considering what makes a real woman. Now he's been stripped of his humanist award from over 20 years ago. The scientists are silenced, if they disagree with the trans truths.

Now, Caitlyn is being cancelled. I'd wager, that both Dawkins and Caitlyn are immune to cancel culture at this point. But 99 percent of other scientists are not immune. Their reputation and lively hood relies on them playing along.

This is why I wonder, who has authority on the subject. Because it seems that, Biologists and trans woman have none.

Authority is a strong word I guess. At the very least, I mean, someone worth listening too.

But I used the term purposely, to consider and compare, who does have authority on the issue.

Science or scientists have nothing to do with fairness in sports. Thus have no authority, in comparison to Caitlyn. Although, we have enough trans examples to make scientific statements like, trans athletes dominate female sports. We have Biologists, but we don't have sportologists.

Politicians have nothing to do with fairness in sports either. We have sports commissions, run by people who are experienced in most elite sports. Luckily most of them like to segregate by sex.

Then there's Sarah Silverman, who went on a big rant about Caitlyns statement. She's leading the cancel culture front, and criticises Caitlyn, saying things like, trans woman are real woman and Caitlyn should know that. Sarah, an actor and comedian who knows absolutely nothing about elite athletes or trans peoples oppression.

Between Richard Dawkins, Sarah Silverman and Caitlyn Jenner, I ask, who has authority when discussing trans sports. For me it's a no brainer. But it's interesting to see peoples ignorance when considering this question... As if Sarah is the authority here.

Can trans activists think of a higher authority. Or is their agenda fuelled solely on feelings.

Sure I enjoy peace and safety but I wouldn't really call such things "good" in any objective sense any more than I would label murder "bad". — Darkneos

Less than 200 years ago, my elders believed it was honorable to eat another man's heart. Maori warriors would fight and kill their opponents, and eat his heart to honor his death, and absorb his strength.

My Grandfather was in his early 20s when he got my Grandmother pregnant at 11 years old. I remember my Great Aunts talking about it as if it was normal back then, as long as they were married.

It seems obvious that morals are a social construct. Actions are morally measured by how they make you and your peers feel, and also the neighborhood.

It's all trial and error, which is complicated if your too short sighted to look back in history.

Possibility,

9 times out of 10, my Queens authority does over ride mine. There's plenty of decisions we don't agree on. There's two aspects to exercising authority in a relationship. 1 is the level of importance of the topic and 2 is the relationship building, or how it affects the relationship.

If it's a mundane topic that we disagree on, then I usually don't care and just go with what my Queen decides to do. But important life changing subjects, the person with the most responsibility needs to have authority.

Who has most responsibility might change in different house holds. But in mine, sometimes my wife will break down and think with emotion, not really looking for a solution. She personally forfeits responsibility and only desires to vent, which is fine, but in some cases I need to take responsibility. This is when I step up, consider the situation, and take action that perues a resolution.

The other aspect, relationship building is also very important. If we disagree, we discuss and if I see it being at least somewhat effective then I usually agree to disagree, but then help her to do things her way. This allows her to have a high degree of authority, which also leads to a stronger relationship.

I don't demand she bow to me, but she happily forfeits her panic for my competence. She likes that sje can rely on me to do anything that she can not.

Teaching a child that some authority simply cannot be questioned is perhaps a dangerous thing. — Possibility

This is why it's portant to have a flexible authority, like a Queen. One who is willing to reason in any given situation. Ie you can question the law and seek to change it.

The importance of understanding that there is an ultimate authority is very necessary, and I believe its dangerous to teach them otherwise. Ie if you break the law, you will be punished.

This is why I noted in the OP that I think of my wife as a Queen. She has the 'authority' of a Queen. But in any institution, there is always a top authority. President and vice president, team captain etc. If you try to introduce two leaders with equal authority, these institutes fall apart.

That makes me the King, in terms of authority. Team captain, President, what ever you want to call it. In a nuclear family, there has to be an established and consistent authority.

When my eldest eached 16, she is an adult, her own person, and I think of her as an adult from another family who is staying with us. She has the authority to reason, and be herself.

There also has to be an authority that can be argued with, to allow a child develop reasoning skills and grow mentally. This is usually the mother's role, because woman usually think more with feelings. If the Queen doesn't want to argue, she's free to exercise her authority at any time. And if it fails, that when she turns to the ultimate authority for support.

At least, that's how I've come to understand the working in my household over the last 3 years. Before that, it was chaos trying to raise 7 children with wishy washy parenting tactics. Trying to be fair and equal etc, never worked out.

I understand your point females in prison, or others points about gays or reverse roles etc. These I have no experience in whatsoever, and it's hard to put a definition to masculinity when you start introducing these types of relationships. Masculinity becomes undefinable. I'm trying to fidure out of masculinity and authority are synonymous in a nuclear family.

That's not what evolution is nor how it works. There are no strong or weak genes, there is only what works at the time. — Darkneos

That's a feelings based argument. Evolution relies on natural selection, which does decide if your genes are strong enough to keep for the next iteration. We have altered our environment in a way that has disrupted our 'natural' selection.

I want to know WHY people choose to go on — Darkneos

From an atheist point of view, there's only selfish reasons, most are posted above. But the reason we are here in the first place, is because evolution wants us to spread our seeds, in the hopes that the weak will die off, and the strong will condition themselves for things like covid, eye sight issues and other diseases.

But we are now too smart for evolution. We have exceeded our need to live. In fact, with all our medical aid, we have destroyed evolution. Now we are all spreading faulty genes and choosing to make ourselves weaker over all.

At least, that's an objective position I could argue if I were an atheist... glad I'm not an atheist.

It's easy. Turn all matter and space, into an infinity large solid stone. Then there is no where to lift it, meaning, its infinitely large, and can not be lifted.

Ie, not even the creator can lift it, because there is no where to lift it too, or from.

You could encode it using procedural generation.

Nothing does exist. You are 99% nothing. Everything you've ever seen or touched is mostly nothing also. The atoms that make up all matter are mostly empty space, at any given moment.

There is no need, or reason for the Big Bang. To find the answer to the OP, you need to know, how did a ball of atoms manifest in an empty void.

Pretty sure I know a rock or two that you can't lift...

Unless you create a universe similar to ours on your PC. You will be omnipotent in that universe. Have all the exact same abilities that God has etc.

All you have to do, is encode all the laws of physics, then manifest a ball of atoms, and watch it blow up into a universe in about the time it takes to say, let there be light. Then skip forward a few billion years and watch the AI try to comprehend your existence, what you look like, and how could you be omnipotent.

My argument, is that I have a duty, to exercise my inherited freedom. The less I exercise my rights and freedoms, the less I have.

Id wear a helmet on the road. I wouldn't wear one on a hilly, grassy farm. I could argue that it restricts the vision that I need for the more hazardous terrain, or livestock. But my argument is simply that, I have the right to do what I want on my own land.

My biggest gripe, is that politics dictate safety requirements. An Australian sued a company for his sun burn. Now its mandatory for most companies in Australia/New Zealand to wear fire retardant full cover overalls... In the blistering hot sun!! Before working in civil works, I'd been sun burnt a total of 3 times in my life. When working I civil works, I was sun burnt every year, because Im not stupid enough to wear fire retardant overalls when playing at the park on the holidays.

There's a whole list of detrimental PPE uses. Glasses when waterblasting in enclosed areas causes them to fog up, but too bad because they a few mandatory. Gloves in the forestry make it difficult to feel what your doing when reaching behind a tree.. Every job I've had, has some rediculous PPE requirement. But it's OK, because I signed up for the job, I will comply. In my own time, it's upto me. Freedom, means making up your own mind.

I wouldn't say its a difficult read. It does explain a lot about police officers thinking. I would have answered, no comment, but it has in brackets (in a situation when you must answer).

The final idea is a pessimistic over assumption, that you are automatically someone who does not have a duty to tell the truth, if you do not answer. If an officer askse questions, I tell him I'm busy... because I'm usually busy, and don't have time to play mind/word games. The article suggests that I'm potentially a liar, because I refuse to directly answer any questions, I show the lack of duty.

All in all, its an interesting stress test of ideas. But the principles are only valid in either an Utopia where every has a perfect moral code application, or it's other use is in law, which pretends to be perfect.

As it pertains to the topic, if you were to say, wearing this safety gear will save your life, then you are lying. Or if you say, it will reduce the risk of accident, or it will reduce injury, then you are also lying. Yet when safety gear is advocated as a necessity, the previous assumption are portrayed as true. The only truth is that, safety gear has a potential to reduce risk/injury as is proven by statistics. Wearing a helmet won't save you in a head to head with a truck.

No.

I think about what is a man, quite a lot these days. For me, a man is measured by his deeds, not his thoughts.

I have a work mate who shakes everyone hand, looks them in the eye and says hello. Every morning at work, to everyone. He's the hardest worker, well experienced and always laser focused. Everyone know him as a well respected individual. It turns out he's skitzofrenic, and hears voices nearly every 5 minutes. He shakes people's hands so he can prove the voices wrong. He also works hard so he can avoid giving them attention. At his worst, they told him to smash his partners face to peices, but he takes medication and knows to live a busy lifestyle, taking the kids out to the park or fishing etc.

Knowing his dark secrets, I still believe he is a very respectable person. Just as respectable as someone who doesn't hear voices, but still works hard. The thoughts are not important, what matters is a person's actions.

"The people who pay the bills"


I don't ask anyone to pay my bills. Nor do I want them too. This highlights another freedom removed, in an anti-capatilast fashion. I'm lucky to have a Grandfather who fought in WW2 so that I could have my freedom. Ie the freedom to ride with my hair out. (like he used too)

In Thailand, motorcyclist carry 3 or 4 passengers, each without a helmet too. Do you advocate, someone needs to take their freedoms, pay their bills so they have to get a scooter each and wear helmets?

Youth is relative. Your much younger(maybe) than any 99 year olds.

Many UFC fighters don't know when to quit. They carry on much longer than they should. The latest example being the Legendary Anderson Silva. In his youth he was literally untouchable. But in his old age, he kept getting knocked out. In the end the UFC had to cut him from the roster, and now he is trying to sign up with other agents.

Khabib Nurmagomedov just retired in his prime, undefeated. UFC lightweight champion, the toughest devision. He conquered it and made it look easy. He could carry on fighting, but instead he wants to start a sheep farm.

These two fighters are good examples for the two types of people, when it comes to aging. Some people want to be younger than they are. And other people are happy with their lives and look forward to the next chapter.

I was super excited when I got my first grey hair. It was in my beard, so I stopped trimming it. I told everyone that now I am wise. I look forward to growing old.

Looking back, I do feel physically limited, compared to my hay day. But I am much more experienced and knowledgeable. And now I have about 10 greys, I'm 10 times wiser. I prefer to be thankful for the youth I had, and thankful for every day that comes next.

I don't think the question you ask, is related all that closely to youth. Wanting to be fit and healthy is perfectly normal. But if you are unhappy when you reach your limits, then yes I think that is unreasonable.

Love, is giving.

I lay my life down for my Queen. I give her as much of my attention as I can, and do my best to make her feel loved.

Perfect love is giving without expecting anything in return. But as a mere mortal incapable of perfection, I do expect a thing or two in return. I am payed in full, and some more, because luckily my Queen loves me.

Money is an issue. Especially is the safety gear adds upto $300+.

Safety awareness and skill are far superior as a tool for risk reduction. After 8 years in the forestry(New Zealand highest safety risk/mortality industry) its clear that safety gear is limited at protecting someone from harm.

Preferably, you want someone who is always alert, has skill and/or experience. With all these attributes, you don't need any safety gear. When someone dies, it's usually because they were lacking in one of these areas, and the safety gear they were wearing was absolutely useless.

Wearing a seat belt doesn't automatically make you immune to death by motor accident. I imagine the same attributes needed to reduce mortality in the forestry, would also reduce mortality on the roads.

Most safety gear only mitigates damage from an accident. Hi-vi's doesn't work very well, otherwise they'd make you wear it to cross the road. If I get into a motorbike accident that's intense enough to kill me, it would most likely kill me if I was wearing safety gear.

So then the question I ask, is who gets to define the amount of mitigation required for safety gear. Ie when riding a motorcycle, should I wear a helmet, gloves, goggles, fire retardent overalls, bullet proof vest and a titanium exoskeltal protection suit. Just the helmet? Just the helmet and gloves? I think the rider should get to decide.

Who do you think should decide what the rider should wear, on their own land. Once know this question then we can figure out what the level of mitigation should be, or perhaps you could answer both.

Personal safety is not an issue when you are fully responsible.

With road safety, the difference is, a crew of paramedics and police officers are responsible for removing your corpse. They are also responsible for reporting bad news to your family.

Because others have responsibility for your actions, they should also have an authority on them... Wow that's really hard for me to right, as I'm big on safety awareness.

Personally, I think that as long as I am aware enough in a angerous situation, then I shouldn't have to wear gloves/goggles etc. But usually it's the employer who is responsible if I do hurt myself. So then it nakes sense that they should have authority on my minimum safety requirements.

In saying all that, I'm free to ride a motorbike with no helmet, gloves or glasses, on my own peice of land.

I'm guessing the OP is under 80.

There's an easy way to stress test this idea. Remove all the ifs, buts and maybes, and let's ask the question,

Should we kill everyone on their 80th birthday. 'They've 'had a good run'.

In my invincible youth living a reckless life, I wanted to die by 30... And then I hit 30 and realised that's not what I want. I imagine the same is true for 80. My grandma in her mid 70s keeps saying she's ready to go, and at the same time expresses her fear of covid. She's obviously not ready to go.

So my first issue with this argument, is that it's hypocritical for anyone under 79, to argue for the euthanasia of 80 year olds. This is a decision that people over 80 should make.

Secondly, old people have value in society. They posses the wisdom of having lived life. They also paved the way for us, by building the society we live in. They deserve respect, at the very least, enough respect to have earned their lives.

On a side note, why don't we just quarentine the old people, and people who are afraid. The afraid can make a living looking after the old people... In a bubble somewhere. They won't need money, they can't shop, so just send them all our leftovers. It sounds cruel, but it's a better lifestyle for them than letting the economy collapse.

When you hit 80, you have the choice of risking death, or living in the basement with Biden. I'd take the risk, personally.

Creationists don't need to ask this question. Faith is built on knowing the answer.

If you ask, how does gravity work, we can use science to find the answer. But if you ask, why does gravity work, then you find yourself in the same predicament. The same is true for any question at the core of science.

What's for lunch.

rather if there is something that is not rationally this or that. If there weren't so, scientific discovery...

Something can not come from nothing (except all the matter in our universe)
- Science

Science is limited as a tool of rational explanation, when it comes to the beginning of everything, and the beginning of life. Mostly because we can not recreate them for definitive proof. Depending on which version of the Big Bang you have faith in, determines what questions need to be asked.

I was taught Einstiens version and the question I asked was, what happened one second before the Big Bang. Today, I prefer Sir Roger Penrose cyclic era explanation, as opposed to the forever expanding version. (or shrinking as you travel back in time)

Which ever version you have faith in, there is always a core question with an unrational answer. So I find it ironic you would find my analogy unrational, and then mention scientific discovery in the same sentence :p
Particularly when early modern day scientists like Isaac Newton used science as a way to admire God's Creation.

If we consider that every computer game is its own universe, then we have a statistical refferance of which we can use to calculate the probability of a creator. Each game has its own laws of gravity, physics and moral codes etc. They also 100% have a creator. The probability that a game will create itself is 0%

So then, what is the chance that our universe will create itself. Science lacks the ability to provide a rational answer.

With this topic, your ethical principles are personified by your spending. I get grass fed lamb and mutton cheaper than prison raised. (don't think that's even a thing here in NZ). Ill mostly buy free range eggs/chicken but can't always afford it. I believe its unethical to support prison farming industries, but I guess I'm only half concerned.

IMO owning a dog, is contrary to animal rights.

I'm saying that, and I own a pug lol.. Well wifey does. And she's been neutered (spaed?)... the dog, I mean.

We control when she's fed, what she eats, when she walks, which dogs she interacts with. We even control when she can and can not bark.

Owning a dog is really despicable when you think about it. Getting it neutered isn't a big deal if your going to control every other aspect of its life.

I wouldn't say its the right thing to do. But it's something you should do if you want to control a dogs life.

The last philosophy forum I was in is also dominated by lefties. In fact, I was the last Conservative. I'm beginning to think that a Philo forum full of lefties is like saying Churches are full of righties.

Am I right to assume, it's a 'progressive' endeavour, to seek knowledge that explains the world we live in. Because Christians already know why and how the world exists?

I was more central as an agnostic 3 years ago. I sought a philosophical explanation for our creation/existence, and found science to be the least convincing. Now I guess I'd be considered a righty.

Ideas are not thought up or magically conjured in our neurological network of grey matter. Ideas are discovered. They always existed in accordance with the laws of the universe.

The concept of ideas can be compared to the concept of inventions.

Most new inventions are just a combination of primary inventions. A wheel being a primary invention, as well as fire in a combustion engine. A motor vehicle is a much newer invention, but is just a complex combination.

I would say most primary ideas have already been thought of. But there is still many ways to combine them and discover something new.