In some situations you have to look at the person within the body and hold off on judgement. Then the body just becomes part of the human potential, and what you think of it reflects how you see humanity in general. — frank

Absolutely, much of life is situational. In fact, merit and character should always trump body shape when judging an individual.

How I view humanity is very inconsequential, however I must say I hold it in the greatest of contempt and have little hope for it as a whole, and although it will continue getting stupider, ironically, it will survive.

however I must say I hold it in the greatest of contempt and have little hope for it as a whole, and although it will continue getting stupider, ironically, it will survive. — Merkwurdichliebe

That's a heavy load to carry.

That's a heavy load to carry. — frank

Do not worry my friend, I carry it very lightly. I have chosen much heavier metaphysical and existential loads for myself which dwarf the notion of "humanity" into absolute insignificance.

"Courageous, unconcerned, scornful, coercive—so wisdom wisheth us; she is a woman, and ever loveth only a warrior." - Nietzsche

Do not worry my friend, I carry it very lightly. I have chosen much heavier metaphysical and existential loads for myself which dwarf the notion of "humanity" into absolute insignificance. — Merkwurdichliebe

Wow! What are they?

Oh yes, it signifies that we have to change all our taboos if we even question one of them, and I am advocating that. — unenlightened

I think we ought to question all base principles, not only basic taboos, but fundamental axioms of mathematics, foundational laws of physics, and assumptions of biology as well. This gives the skeptic a useful place in our society.

The problem is that the more basic, or foundational, that a principle is, the older it tends to be. But the human world, is a living, changing, and evolving world, as are human beings. And these old principles which were established way back when humanity wasn't the same thing which it is today, really need to be revisited.

Wow! What are they? — frank

Nothing special. Somewhere in there it involves philosophy, that's probably why I like TPF. I might be able to start a new thread calling for TPF members to detail the metaphysical and existential loads they carry in life. What do you think?

But the human world, is a living, changing, and evolving world, as are human beings. And these old principles which were established way back when humanity wasn't the same thing which it is today, really need to be revisited. — Metaphysician Undercover

Humanity is the same in some aspects, and different in others. For instance, its contemptibility is the same as it has always been, however, its technology and stupidity has increased dramatically and in direct correlation.

To what extent can we attribute the progress of todays world to tradition?

For instance, its contemptibility is the same as it has always been... — Merkwurdichliebe

Why would you say that humanity's contemptibility is the same as it ever was, and then say its stupidity has increased dramatically? Do you not see this as blatant contradiction, or is stupidity not contemptible? If the stupidity you are talking about is an innocent naivety then perhaps the latter would be possible, but you position it in relation to technology.

Why would you say that humanity's contemptibility is the same as it ever was, and then say its stupidity has increased dramatically? Do you not see this as blatant contradiction, or is stupidity not contemptible? If the stupidity you are talking about is an innocent naivety then perhaps the latter would be possible, but you position it in relation to technology. — Metaphysician Undercover

First, remember that my opinion on humanity is quite inconsequential. So, I was speaking off the cuff, let's see what it means...

Stupidity can be contemptible. But i am speaking of stupidity as an enabling factor that gives humanity the greatest excuse in the world to blunder with impunity, despite it's technological ability. Is it the indicator of contemptibility? I would say it is one amongst others, like cowardice or greed.

So...without stupidity I would still find humanity contemptible, in fact, it might be more contemptible, being more clever in succeeding with its treachery (assisted by technology).

Whatever the case, it is fun to point out the dialectic of stupidity and technology.

think the point is we choose our taboos (at some level) and we can examine their individual merits. unenlightened's point about sexualization and nudity is at the very least worth thinking about. — Baden

I wasn't dismissive of it. I was trying to arrive at a reason why the nudity taboo ought be reconsidered. The basis provided by me was not that nudity necessarily leads to arousal, but that it's a social norm related to modesty. My suspicion is that it's possible to desensitize ourselves from arousal when watching others have sex as well. My question is why we ought abandon a social norm because it makes things less workable for 0.5% of the population.

Do I have the right not to shower alongside a fully physically appearing female who identifies as male? I think I do, else somewhere we've assessed his right to avoid the discomfort of showering in the women's shower higher priority than mine.

Telling me to get over it and deal with the naked person of whatever stripe is next to me sounds as reasonable as me telling him to get over it and shower somewhere else.

Do I have the right not to shower alongside a fully physically appearing female who identifies as male? — Hanover

Given sex segregated showers I think you do. But given only non-sex- segregated showers, no you do not. It's a matter of what segregations are mandated and recognised in society. For sure there were times when facilities were race segregated, but times can change, so we can debate.


Mixed facilities are not all that uncommon.

Only the disgusting ones, especially when they are naked — Merkwurdichliebe

Probably unsurprising, but I'm going to say that all bodies are not disgusting. Bodies are an abstraction from the concrete perception of another individual. In the present you see a form, and that's all you can say theoretically. Your disgust is only yours, and not a society-wide disgust. I can honestly say I don't care (EDIT: in terms of disgust -- obviously I have sexual desires) about seeing naked bodies in the least regardless of their form.

The only condition I can think of in which some bodies are disgusting is that if I desire all bodies to be attractive to me, sexual or otherwise. But that's clearly a groundless desire, given how our notions of aesthetics are different from one another.

Probably unsurprising, but I'm going to say that all bodies are not disgusting. Bodies are an abstraction from the concrete perception of another individual. In the present you see a form, and that's all you can say theoretically. Your disgust is only yours, and not a society-wide disgust. I can honestly say I don't care (EDIT: in terms of disgust -- obviously I have sexual desires) about seeing naked bodies in the least regardless of their form.

The only condition I can think of in which some bodies are disgusting is that if I desire all bodies to be attractive to me, sexual or otherwise. But that's clearly a groundless desire, given how our notions of aesthetics are different from one another. — Moliere

I don't think you've over-thought this at all. Just the right amount. :up:

Has there been a case, YET, of identical male twins both becoming women (or visa versa)?



Maybe it has?

Being “friendly” to people we have just met is a marker strategy for being a good cooperator.
— Mark S

That's a very unreliable principle. If I meet someone on the street who is unusually friendly toward me, I am very wary that the person is trying to take advantage of me in some way or another, because that is how the con works. — Metaphysician Undercover

I, and virtually everyone, would be similarly wary of unusual friendliness.

Why? Because we suspect it is preparatory to an attempt to exploit us by asking us to do them a higher cost favor.

Why would we suspect that? For two reasons. First, because friendliness initiates low-cost cooperation with the goal of mutual small psychological rewards directly from the friendliness. Second, friendliness is a marker strategy (a fallible heuristic) for being a reliable cooperator for higher-stakes exchangers.

Our innate interest in, and ability to detect, “cons” is necessary for sustainable cooperation in groups. Otherwise, exploiters and free-riders would destroy the benefits of cooperation and therefore any motivation to cooperate. Our interest in, and ability to detect, “cons” is part of a cooperation strategy.

I explained already why the Golden Rule is very clearly not a cooperation strategy. Cooperation requires a common end. The Golden Rule as commonly stated has no implications of any end. You simply misinterpret it to claim that it states that one should treat others in a particular way, with the end, or goal of getting treated that way back. And I already explained why that particular goal, which is inserted by you in your interpretation, is clearly not a part of the Golden Rule. — Metaphysician Undercover

The Golden Rule advocates initiating indirect reciprocity, the most powerful cooperation strategy known. Indirect reciprocity has no stated goal - it is a cooperation strategy, not a goal generator. The Golden Rule is inarguably part of a cooperation strategy. If you want to understand morality you must understand at least a little about game theory.

The Golden Rule is a heuristic (a usually reliable, but fallible rule of thumb) for how to achieve shared goals by sustainable cooperation. Burdening the Golden Rule with specific goals would be counter-productive. The lack of goals in no way inhibits, but rather augments, the Golden Rule's cultural usefulness and applicability as a moral reference (as part of a cooperation strategy).

I can make no sense of your claim that "the Golden Rule is very clearly not a cooperation strategy."

The Golden Rule advocates initiating indirect reciprocity, the most powerful cooperation strategy known. Indirect reciprocity has no stated goal - it is a cooperation strategy, not a goal generator. — Mark S

As I've repeated already, I believe there is no reciprocity implied by the Golden Rule, and I think that this represents a gross misinterpretation on your part.

It appears like neither of us has any will to compromise on this issue.

As I've repeated already, I believe there is no reciprocity implied by the Golden Rule, and I think that this represents a gross misinterpretation on your part. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with you that the Golden Rule advocates behavior independent of conditions or consequences such as the expectation of reciprocity.

However, following the Golden Rule INITIATES indirect reciprocity, regardless of any lack of awareness of that being the case. People acting in accordance with the Golden Rule without consideration of consequences is the main mechanism for initiating indirect reciprocity in societies, the main strategy for maintaining a well-functioning society.

People can and do act consistently with cooperation strategies (act morally) without awareness that their behavior has anything to do with cooperation (with forms of reciprocity).