What most of us do to remedy the conundrum of expanding gender identification is to associate only with those who share similar views and to think those outside our box are foolish. That's what I do.

I've noticed plenty of dumb people in pretty poor condition too. In any case, there's plenty of evidence for it: E.g. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201310/scientists-discover-why-exercise-makes-you-smarter — Baden

I'm not discounting the holistic value of physical fitness, but I would encourage our failing youth to spend more time in the library than the gym if they wish to increase their grades.

The two words that make my point best are: Stephen Hawkings.

Physical exercise—which I'm not doing enough of at the moment — Baden

I disagree, since I've noticed many really smart people that were in terrible physical condition. It's not like nerds are usually jocks.

What keeps me most mentally focused are deadlines and firm demands. It's the need to survive that keeps us working hardest. The more the exam is worth, the more I'll study for it.

Imparting sentience does not imply imparting accurate understanding. The self aware toaster need only be aware that he thinks in order to be sentient, but the creator who provided the toaster this self awareness might have made him think himself human. This means I might actually be a deceived toaster.

So long as the creator made me a happy self-deceived toaster, he's a kind and loving and most ethical creator. If he did otherwise, well, he's a dick.

And besides all that God told us to do it. In some book somewhere. — Baden

We have since learned though that there is a natural right to abort one's child, inherent in the very concept of liberty, so why shouldn't we also conclude that having children is also the same sort of right?

Can you give me some examples of very popular terms in internet debate that come along with a socialist, marxist or anarchist framing? — fdrake

The buzzwords of the left used against the right are "racist," "biggot," "paranoid," "priviledged," "anti-intellectual," to name a few. All of this is aimed at deligitimizing the right.

I think it's widely accepted by the left that Trump ought not have the right to free speech and that the press ought be immune from attack and that the contrary view is "dangerous" and "undemocratic." All additional buzzwords.

If your response is simply that the left's buzzwords are true, then your response isn't a disdain for buzzwords, but simply disdain of the right.

They see themselves as great warriors in a culture war, they are not, they are bigoted troglodytes insecure around any difference. They are opportunists preying on the disaffection and disappointments in our lives. They are the bitter creep at the seedy bar who fails to flirt then absolves their failures with misogyny, they are the factory worker who hates immigrants for the livelihood automation stole from them. — fdrake

These oversimplifiers should just be called racists so we'll know what they are. Irony is intended here.

While perhaps you can prove there are those who can effectively demonize their opponents with demeaning buzzwords, you can't prove that they are more prevalent on the right. That's just your bias speaking.

"X" is Y is true if we define "X" as Y.

Seems obvious.

Have I misunderstood the OP?

We knew that already because half of Ireland lives in the US. — Bitter Crank

Actually the website says there are 33 million Irish Americans and 6.7 million Irish in Ireland. The few left behind bitch about the US only because they missed the boat.

I'm giving it to the Neanderthals who the Indians robbed, which follows the well thought out logic of rightful land ownership resting with the distant anscestors of the first person whose foot touched the soil. It's the well established finders keepers rule for all of eternity.

Of course when the thief dies and gives the property to his kids and they to their kids and so on... you get the U.S. — Baden

And who do you think came over to do the stealing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Americans

Are we ethically bound to return all the stolen property we are in possession of? — Jake

Yes, so whatever it is that is making you ask this question, go ahead and return it to the rightful owner even though it's been a few years.

I found your avatar and would like to return it.


He's picked up a bit of sass since you kicked him out.

PS – If I were to grade myself on my ethics in this situation, I would give myself a B-) — Sam Sam

I give you no grade. You simply did as required. The most thanks you're due is the same thanks we all are deserving of when we don't steal.

That you almost faltered and that you did not instinctively return the ring offers you some data points to where you need to build your character.

The answer to Cain's question in Genesis 4:9 is yes.

Or to put it more bluntly, we need more psych majors on the moderation team in my opinion. — Posty McPostface

As might surprise you, the moderation application process does not involve the submission of resumes, although we do require an extensive criminal background check and drug testing. Mine both came back positive. I persuasively argued that a positive could not be logically construed as a negative, and I was therefore selected. Had I not been quick on my feet with that response, I'd still be a commoner.

How many are on it now? Maybe you know more than me. I'm not aware of what majors the mod team are although I believe everyone except Hanover has had at least some formal schooling. — Baden

Moving papers from an inbox to an outbox requires no formal training.

Mainly, I was interested in calling out this discrepancy between philosophizing and the practice of religion? — Posty McPostface

If as Kierkegaard said, "Faith is holding onto uncertainties with passionate conviction," then how is philosophy distinct? Is it not that the faithful simply refuse to admit the uncertainties are uncertain, yet, as the quote suggests, the faithful must recognize at some level their faith is of an uncertainty.

He sounds agoraphobic.

The corruption suggestion sounds like projection. There's no way to arrive at that suggestion from the facts provided.

To actually leave, he must figure out how to lower his tolerance for corruption, increase his desire for purity, in order to actually overcome his resistance, and step outside the box into heaven, so to speak. — Lucid

How does any of this follow from a guy refusing to leave a burning box? He's not leaving because he has an irrational desire to be in a box. I don't see how corruption and purity has anything to do with anything here.

Is it unethical of me to not pay to fix a mistake another person made? If it costs me then it's charity, and charity is a choice, not an ethical obligation. — Michael

We've not broken down every fact in our hypothetical, but my assumption was that the return of the ring would result in a de minimis expense to you. If you truly do have some real expense in returning it, I think it'd be fine to ask for reimbursement. In @Sir2u's post, he wasn't referencing reimbursement, but "reward," meaning a special something for being a good guy. I don't see where that would be warranted. I do think you are obligated to make all reasonable efforts to return the ring and cannot ethically impose additional obligations on the person who lost the ring because he owes you something for being the wonderful person you are.

But, yeah, if it costs you $2.50 in postage to mail the ring back, you can rightly ask for that money.

I hope that you did not give the seller too much info, maybe they would like it back even if it is not theirs. — Sir2u

Why are you entertaining the remote possibility that an unrelated person hid a diamond ring in someone else's train set?

If they offer you a reward, accept it. If it costs you anything above a minimal amount to return it, ask if they could refund it for you. If they get uppity about that then you will know you made a mistake going to the trouble of returning it. — Sir2u

Under what theory do we now demand payment for doing what is ethical?

And suppose they are uppity? Are they then not deserving of ethical treatment?

Personally I would probably put it away for a while and see if they come looking for it. It is just as easy for them to try and reach you or anyone else that might have bought from them to see if you found anything extra in the box. — Sir2u

This idea seems consistent with the theme of trying to find some rationalization for keeping what is not yours. It also shows some hostility towards the person, as if they're not really worthy of the ring, but the rules require it's return, so you'll do it, but you're going to be as difficult as possible.

Should we give North America back to the Indians? — Jake

What entitlement does a descendent have over an ancestor's property and what grants someone superior rights just because they stood on the property first?

I wore that ring, pawned it for cash I needed, $40 and within 60 days I had it back on my hand. I must have pawned that ring at least 5 times and got it back 6 times. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You paid $150 to modify the ring and you could only pawn it for $40 and you did this 5 times? From my math, you paid $150 for the ring and extracted $200 out of it, all of which was repaid along with the usurious rates charged by pawn brokers, meaning that ring resulted in substantial losses to you. You'd have been better off never to have come across that cursed ring. My guess is that you didn't lose the ring but Satan reclaimed it and passed it on to someone more evil than you.

I actually don't view the OP as an ethical dilemma. An ethical dilemma is where you have two possible responses to an ethical question and you can't figure out which is the most ethical. For example, I have a boat that is sinking and I have to throw one person overboard to save everyone else, who do I choose? Am I allowed to choose?, and questions like that.

The question of the OP is a character dilemma, as in, am I of ethical character high enough to do the right thing and return what isn't mine. An ethical dilemma asks the question "what is the right thing to do," not "should I do the right thing,"

pick up a $2000 refrigerator from Sears, for example, and they charge you $8.99; — tim wood

A hypothetical asking I assume someone shopped at Sears is too fanciful to wrap my head around.

How do we know the diamond wasn't part of the set, part of a scene depicting the shipment of diamonds mined by children?

If not that, but a mistake, why did the missus remove her ring other than to commit adultery with another model train enthusiast, a crime punishable by stoning?

Abusers of children, adulterers, just horrible people. Keep the ring. Don't associate with low lifes like this.

I have a friend (no, seriously, I really do) who's Japanese. She said (in her funny accent) that one thing that the Japanese admire about Americans (assuming she is a spokeswoman for the Japanese) is their optimism, which instigates risk taking and success. It's also the thing they don't respect, as it results in a certain amount of recklessness. My own thought is that the all good God who cradles the righteous (i.e. Americans) in his arms will not allow failure, so being optimistic comes easy.

I do find the political left in the US (which includes all of Europe and Canada) generally pessimistic and whiney. The right tends towards paranoia, but at least we don't whine and we get things done with our our upbeatness (do stop trying to take our stuff though).

I've since grown comfortable with the concept of emergent consciousness. I am only made of my physical self, which is undergoing constant change, meaning I'm basically a new me every day. There's no eternal self, and probably no sharp line to draw between conscious and unconscious. — HuggetZukker

I don't follow how this resolves the problem of what is consciousness or how is it that you are conscious. This seems to only answer the question of where consciousness come from. My understanding of emergent theories is that they explain how consciousness can arise in a purely physical environment.

I don't know how "rampant" pessimism is. It seems to me that if people were paying attention to what is going on, they would certainly be very pessimistic. That's 25% joke, 75% statement-of-fact. — Bitter Crank

But that is also a self-fulfilling prophecy. Good things happen when people are optimistic.

We could also start a discussion in the ethics section called "Is it ok to help someone cheat." My own answer is yes. Wait, I mean no. The answer's probably no. That might be why there's a rule prohibiting it. Maybe.

There's an even deeper question here. Rewinding the clock to rerun evolution is counterfactual, as Losos points out. It's a thought experiment. As such, is it more in the domain of philosophy than science? Is this topic a philosophical one? — Marchesk

It's speculation based upon untestable scientific hypotheses. There also is minimal effort put in this enterprise, largely because it has no practical significance so the "what if the dinosaurs lived" question hasn't gotten much funding. What it really is is science fiction. It'd make for a cool movie. I'd pay to watch it.

My assumption is that evolution would still have promoted intelligence and those that learned to kill the dinosaurs, like those that killed the bears and lions, would have eventually prevailed. Or maybe we'd all look like ET and there'd be flying bicycles.

Some early heretics, like Arian, chose the second option, and maintained that Jesus was not of the same substance as the Father. — Ciceronianus the White

Modern day heretics believe that the trinity are 3 entirely separate personages. The Mormon view: https://www.mormon.org/blog/do-mormons-believe-in-the-trinity

Am I to understand your position is that the triune God thing is just so much bullshit that arose from a poorly written but highly esteemed text?

Not being of the Christian persuasion, such a conclusion doesn't trouble me, and actually seems obvious, since triune (where 3=1) is illogical and contradictory on its face.

By which standard would we be measuring our internal ethical rules and external judgments that allow us to change our internal moral compass or decide not to? — Benkei

It's not condemnation and approval that rightly causes us to revisit our ethical rules (Premise 5), but it's introspection. Someone who revisits his ethical standards based upon the condemnation and approval is simply seeking approval, which would justify all sorts of unethical behavior. We change our internal moral compass when, through evaluation, we realize our behavior is not adhering to some higher principle. I would think we should consider the condemnation and approval of others only to the extent we evaluate the responses of others as reasonable.

I found these three sentences spread separately on a piece of A4 paper near The National Art School in Sydney:

1. “What does the hairdresser see between mirrors?”

2. “Is the dot inside the circle the dot outside the sphere?”.

3. “When the pieces stop moving, the witness goes blind.”

I've been wracking my brain, and I have some ideas about what each sentence means, but I'm really interested in what others think. — Thomas Stevenson

What I see is pretentiousness, as in three generally vague statements devoid of context, presented in an art show pretending to have significance. It's what happens when mediocre minds have nothing to say. They say nothing and stand around and pretend like they said something.

That's what I see. That's the beauty of art. We can all see different things when we look at it.

I HAVE BEEN BANNED from two philosophy forum sites about 12 years ago, but I was accepted on a couple of others. — Daorley Downy

I anticipate you'll be banned here too, largely because you ramble and have nothing intelligent to say.

WARNING about me, right away -- I'm completely honest and open about everything. — Daorley Downy

Me too.

I'm in favor of the default page being the Categories. That's how many other forums do it. I'm most in favor of creating an American option that lets the user freely decide how he wants to have the site open.

I second this suggestion — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I second this suggestion. I'm seconding your second, not thirding Sapientia's first that you firstly seconded.

In any finite discussion, someone has to have the last word. — unenlightened

So you say, but the empirical evidence has so far shown otherwise.

The Last Word

Our current software is more polished and less easily hacked.

My thought is that there are few differences in moderation and the membership isn't dramatically different. The software is the most striking change, and it might be time to reconsider it. It's just less organized than the former software. This isn't to say the site can't survive and even thrive as is, but the software offers limitations.

Politics does dominate here and I can't recall if that were the case before. As noted, current academic trends are not discussed, but maybe those with such knowledge could start such discussions and move us in that direction. Again, though, different software formatting might even help for that.

I make the software modification suggestion with no understanding of the cost, labor, or complications involved, so I don't want to appear naive in that regard or act like it's a simple and obvious thing to do, but that's what I note as the major difference. This is not to say I don't find some real advantages in this site over the last (which I do), but I'm offering constructive criticism here in order to make the web's best philosophy site better.