Evidently there is a punk element to the formulation of the post's title. That which has novelty yet unyieldingly obscure. — Alexander Hine

Not unlike your 3 year silence until not 15 minutes ago, I suppose. Surely there's some philosophical parallels or some tangential point to be appreciated. :grin:

While this can't technically be a "welcome to the forum" post, it's in many ways a "welcome back" (to said forum) sentiment.

But on to the topic, and your (in my view) charitable interpretation or possible alternate take on it. Yes! Indeed! Do not words on a paper, if prepared by the right person, seemingly not only parallel or rival but exceed what we consider "life" or "human qualities" compared to some folk? Absolutely! So is life really a matter of breathing and circulation, not unlike a single-celled amoeba (again I said not unlike, I know they don't "breathe" in the way we do)? Or? Or! Is life simply a quality exclusively reserved for those who "contemplate"? Consciousness, that is commonly referred to. Ability to distinguish oneself from one's environment and other beings similar to one's self. An identity. Ah, this is so fascinating, and so much more to be written and discussed, at your leisure of course. What a joy you've decided to join us, after all this time. :snicker:

This is just syntax masquerading as semantics being used to justify a particular ideology that all persons are morally salvageable. It seems you want to say evil is correctable. We can say that regardless of how English grammar treats the word "evil." — Hanover

And this is absolutely correct. And further ushers in my larger point. Simply put, there's 8 billion people with 8 billion ideas of what is the best path moving forward, and yes, what is "right" as opposed to what is "wrong." So how do we go about elevating true virtue or value from billions of equally valid opinions, beliefs, and samples? Sure, we attempt to at first freeze or otherwise hold off on impulse by establishing basic laws, right and wrong. As you say, if we find someone who says "murder and rape is not wrong but right" we can, ideally, isolate and neutralize those who will live and die believing this falsehood. Not just for, obviously our own sake, but for their own and those unfortunately under their temporary transient power or control. But then what? Where do we go from there? Unless we believe they were just born crazy or evil or whatever, and not warped or turned into their sad state by an even sadder set of circumstances, that in all fairness, could one day befall ourselves, turning us into said person or even worse, what are we really doing but putting more band-aids on a wound that needs something else altogether?

I would say that people have differences of opinions and experiences. — Questioner

Absolutely. So what, pray tell, distinguishes your bluster of words or storm of thoughts from that of another's? Why should we listen to you and not someone who speaks the opposite simply because you appeal to words and concepts that most would consider defensible despite not knowing any true depth as far as what posturing or beliefs truly entail, not only for those immediately affected but those might be negatively impacted whose fate doesn't seem to concern you?

I would call behavior evil if it is intentionally and seriously harms others, without a speck of remorse. — Questioner

But this is not accurate since a mentally ill person or someone under the influence of drugs of alcohol can do so without realizing the act they're performing, let alone such complicated after-thoughts such as remorse. This, while technically "unintentional" describes a frame of mind where such dynamics simply aren't part of the equation. It still crosses into the territory where a man who is otherwise legally sane (albeit barely) can perform intentional actions without truly understanding the long-term consequences of such.

If I break into a man's house and stay there for some time, my idea of what is right and wrong shifts based on whatever it was I've happened to have performed. So if a house owner or his army attempts to evict you, this is what we call "a battle of good and evil." You have your argument (I used strength to obtain what I have) and the person has theirs (I didn't ask for conflict simply a useless vagabond with nothing left to lose threatened my life so I fled for the moment).

You might be surprised how the things we take for granted might be used significance more efficiently than ourselves. Does this mean it belongs to them? Even if without their commandeering humanity might be worse off? It's a good question. A fair question. Yet one that is seldom answered by polite words and pleasantries.

I'm suggesting "evil" can only be used as an adjective, not a noun. We can talk about "evil behavior" but can't talk about a spirit or power that represents evil. Evil is not an entity, but a descriptor. — Questioner

What is "blue"? What is "blueness"? What about someone who believes their idea of "blue" is the ultimate experience as far as human experience. How do you address one person's diehard understanding of a word that may not only differentiate from your own, but indisputably differs from that of many others?

If I'm told a flipping a switch connected to an electrical node shocks a rather-large psychiatric inmate who if not shocked might overpower an innocent orderly, thus if this switch is not flipped might result in serious injury to the innocent man, not flipping it would be considered socially-unacceptable. Or is this your definition of evil? Not that which punishes, but that which one can find one's self punished for.

What if I knew for a fact this patient is an innocent man framed by whatever powers that may be, and though I may harm an innocent person who simply knew no better, the safety of the objectively innocent outweighs the suffering of 1,000 quasi-innocent men who did have a choice to make the right decision long ago.

Your duty isn't just to do good, but to be against evil. — Hanover

Right, but the average person is.. an average person. They don't know anything beyond what they're told.

Is that guy destroying the cobblestone road you've walked to school everyday a worker of the State removing a danger to rebuild something greater (doing good) or is he just a vandal or malevolent force ruining or changing something for the worse, as far as you and yours are concerned (doing evil). The entire "morality" as far as what any average person is concerned is going to be contingent on what they're told or otherwise end up believing.

If you're walking down the street and a man pulls a gun on another man and forces him into physical restraint, how do you judge the situation? Is it a police officer who's arresting a criminal? Or is it a man dressed up like authority accosting an innocent person? We have social assumptions that allow us the illusion of peace and justice. And often, these assumptions are refined enough to more or less reflect and in a sense truly offer a reliable glimpse and sturdy enough foundation for those concepts. But at the end of the day, man is fallible and can do great evil all while thinking he doth the opposite. Surely you acknowledge this simple truth.

It is only the atheist who knows of altruism, and with purity of heart, passes his wisdom, generation to generation. — Hanover

I sincerely hope this is vindictive mockery.

And yet you transcended this limitation and know the truth. How did you do this? — Hanover

I never said I knew the truth, other than I felt I recognized times when those like me were fed and led to believe lies. Though perhaps, as I've said before, one cannot in an absolute sense determine something to be a lie without at least some pre-manifestation of truth, at the very least. It does come down to a sense of "trusting oneself" (or perhaps as it was said to 'know thyself') but still circles back to my original concern. We can be raised to believe anything. And even in spite of being raised to believe truth, we can be convinced of the opposite with enough time and effort.

To be an atheist would be so enlightening, but alas, not all received that indoctrination. — Hanover

All I know is that any person can be convinced of anything by someone they respect (either by cordial will, in the way I respect your intellect, or by fear, in the way one "respects" a mafia boss who demands payment to ensure one's business operates peacefully. The clear difference is, one I would consider offering my own life to protect, the other I would consider offering the same to destroy. The difference is literal night and day.). The universal fallacy of modern religion is that we assume those who happen to reside in positions that seem to demand or at least encourage respect and reverence, we have no true proof, evidence, or knowledge that they are rightfully warranted to be there, and simply didn't commit the all too human crime of harm, theft, or deceit to achieve what they covet.

Yes because I too murder and rape even when I don't and so I have no moral standing — Hanover

You may not. But many like you have and do, and will in the future.

How about this: if you don't stand against the immoral, you are immoral. That you pretend to lack the ability to know rape and murder is immoral isn't interesting, nor are your musings about religion. — Hanover

All I'm saying is, mankind is not infallible. We are not "born perfect." We can't blame every single crime we see nonstop everyday and all day on semi or formerly divine beings who logically speaking have no real reason or purpose to intercede or otherwise interfere in the affairs and toils of man. It just doesn't make sense, all things considered.

Religion means one thing for you, and a complete different thing for another. Just as you believe yours is correct and others are incorrect, this same sentiment is shared across the board. This sentiment is not unique in any way.

To respond to the details of a metaphor shows a failure at abstraction. Sympathy for the devil asserts nothing about an actual devil, yet you spent the entirety of you response dwelling on the literal detail as if it literally mattered. — Hanover

I suppose it was just over my head then. Yes, that is the only logical option remaining. You have much to learn. May you be given ample time to.

I readily admit that states of affairs capture some of reality, but there is a very significant and real portion which cannot be described this way. — Metaphysician Undercover

So how do you know it even exists, pardon my juvenile abutment.

You seem to be very capable of describing just about anything, things known and unknown. So, how do you differentiate between "a very significant and real" portion you have absolute proof or reasonable belief to exist, versus that of some unknown "oh who knows" cop-out of things that simply might or might not exist.

If you can refer to something, it can be described. If you have proof of something, or reasonable belief of said something, it can be referred to. Therefore, it can be described.

Are you just using these expressions to refer to the non-descript "unknown" or perhaps even possibility itself? What is "that which exists, could exist, will exist, or might exist, yet cannot be described?" :chin:

Is this something like qualia who we can all acknowledge the color red, perhaps even the idea of "redness" yet never truly agree on something that is intrinsically subjective to the person experiencing it? No, right? It has to be different than that. But is it as simple as a child who builds a perfectly functioning Lego roller coaster toy kit attempting to describe in detail the physics and engineering behind a real roller coaster at a theme park? Does this imply lack of current (perhaps eternal) knowledge that one day (if not hypothetically) can be obtained? Or is this simply walled off, in a way, from the human experience altogether?

It is virtuous to hate evil and evil to love evil.

Sympathy for the devil isn't a positive trait. — Hanover

Of course, it is wise to bear in mind, historically speaking, religious people tend to get their information about the world around them trickled down from those who tend not to have their best interest in mind.

It is our ego that assumes we as a believer to be a non-biased party capable of differentiating between the two, despite the fact our entire understanding of the world and others is a result of those we cannot (or at least tend not to) question.

Unfortunately, historically speaking, for many self-professed devout and pious religious persons, the devil is anyone I (or someone who manages to charm, bribe, or otherwise deceive their way to religious "authority") say. Which means the devil is real. But he's not some far off evil figure plotting misdeeds in darkness. No, more often than not, he's the person in the mirror. The reflection in the lake. Diligently awaiting orders, orders he will follow to the death without hesitation or question.

Jane Eyre was bad. — Jamal

I'm curious what defines a poor novel or piece of literature in your eyes.

I'm assuming it didn't really "fulfill" or hit any note as far as what people tend to expect from novels? Emotional validation, validation of the human spirit, essence, struggle, experience, etc? You were left unfulfilled at the end of it, as if you wasted your time reading it, I imagine?

However, surely you must have noted the authors attempt at fulfilling such. Where do you feel it failed and what would you have done (or perhaps wished) instead to make it a readable and worthwhile novel? :chin:

Edit: Like, at what point would you say it took a dive for the worse and became "unsalvageable"? Surely the book simply shouldn't have ended when it did. I'm reminded of "The Rum Diaries" a friend of mine quasi-forced me to watch. It was good. And yet the ending. It just seemed like they ran out of time or money with the hero character sailing away and a cheap caption "Oh and he became a great leader in the profession he desired, and his romantic interest they got married and lived happily ever after" blah blah blah kind of thing.

Normal: A typical experience. — DifferentiatingEgg

So, subjective expectation? Assume a morning walk for a schizophrenic, for example. Randomness and the unexpected becomes the expected (i.e. the typical experience).

Or do we instead base this on "most common" outcomes or experience for the average person? But how large a sampling do we use to determine what's "typical" or expected? A given society or state? A particular landmass or continent? All of the globe? What if we discover other planets with life? Do we factor them in as well?

See, it's not always quite so simple. Hence the OP.

Why are we trying to ignore the fact that the average ("straight") male brain simply has poorer self control over lust and primal impulse and tends to be more violent. Why are we trying to spin that as a positive thing? It's not. Sure, it's the unfortunate majority, it's "normal".

Males whose brains tend to have more in common with females than the average male sounds superior in just about every way. How does that have anything to do with sexual preference?

Understand the real and actual underlying dynamic. Society on average is a reflection of the minds of average people. Average people are not very smart. So, most women will end up not very smart since we are largely and in part products of the society in which we grow up in, compounded by the fact it's common knowledge women "don't have to be smart". If you're attractive, or you have something a man wants (you know what), you never really have to become educated or develop your character much beyond that of a child's. Men will literally open doors for you for no real reason other than the fact you exist. That's common sense.

Just because I don't like the way the average woman (or man) is, thus resulting in me not being sexually attracted to someone I feel isn't their best self (who failed to develop morally)—because I value the essence, character, or soul of a human being over their inanimate flesh—doesn't mean I'm homosexual. Sure, I'll probably be called that by the low IQ masses (who are the real ones who should be given a title to discourage reproduction). But that actually means nothing. This attempt to give it actual value is rather unfortunate and quite unbecoming of people who claim to be intellectual.

Here's another thing. Imagine a male with little to no muscle tone, completely shaved, and perhaps even from a genetic background that generally retains youthful (female) characteristics. Now imagine a female with much of the same. You can't tell much difference between, provided the characteristic "private parts" (bosom, genitalia) are obscured or otherwise not very prominent.

There's another argument about pheromones. Yet you can't tell me as a man you couldn't become sexually aroused by viewing a picture or video of a woman, or perhaps even a crude, primal cave painting? This means men are attracted to curves (perhaps soft, youthful ["feminine"] features and long, flowing hair). Women are attracted to straight lines (muscles, and perhaps body hair). But are these really ingrained inner biological or neurological workings or simply the result of our upbringing, the media i.e. social cues/programming (the buff action hero, and the busty damsel in distress)? Could it be a combination of the two?

Again, it's possible humanity is just evolving and men are becoming more intelligent and less violent, and the dull majority is simply doing what all animals do: ostracizing those who are different. The average man is a primal, low-brow being who cares primarily about one thing: His self. Which roughly works out to: pleasure, specifically sexual pleasure. This defines enslaves him. The higher intellect cares about much more than these things for he actually has self control and can talk to or be around a woman without a derelict (so-called "straight") monkey brain making him want to basically impale her because "it feels good."

In short, I question the usefulness of the terms as far as people who society deems "straight" versus who it deems "gay", even if the individual momentarily or perhaps has embraced such social pressure as reality or their own identity.

Basically, as an adult, no matter who you are, or who you think you are, if you can't control yourself and look at another person, whoever they are, without having an overwhelming urge to fornicate, you have a mental disorder. Period. That or you didn't really grow up. Adults have self control, children and the unwell do not. It's just that simple. And no I don't mean it in the sense that seems to punish natural attraction as a disorder (i.e. a man looking at his wife).

Simply that out of the thousands of aspects one can associate with being human, if you choose to elevate primal lust (who you want to have sex with) as anything but a random quality, similar to a favorite color, and embrace that as some sort of "identity", that's robbing yourself of the true human experience. You're a person. Not a "straight" person or a "gay" person. But a person. It's just such a low brow quality that should only restrict/define a lesser being such as an animal. A human being, the human experience, is so much greater than simplistic physical pleasures. It should be at least. Don't you agree?

You and I both know neither one of our wills have affected any law, code, or ordinance. — NOS4A2

A ripple in a pond can always knock against something larger. Societal rules did not predate society. It is literally the result of people before us, maintained by those of us who understand and respect their sacrifices. Sacrifices that, again, due to theirs, you and I don't have to make, and therefore lose meaning and reverence toward. As you perfectly illustrate.

The admission that you require them in order to satiate your own fears does not imply that everyone else does. — NOS4A2

"Show me a man without fear, and I'll show you a man with nothing left to lose, whose death would only benefit the world around him." - M.E. Outlander

Who has killed more people, your imaginary criminal, or governments? Who has led to more famine? Genocide? War? Who takes from the fruits of your labor in order to fund his activities? Who drops bombs on weddings, or nukes on cities? The one you describe as not being raised in a functional household, or the ones you now defend? — NOS4A2

This is a lot to unpack. Allow me a few moments, or perhaps a day or two to get back to this.

I care about a lot of things. The impositions of state jurists isn’t one of them. — NOS4A2

But why are they state jurists though? They're fulfilling the will of the people. Said will being peace, law, and order. This requires a robust and powerful underlying system of codes and ordinance.

These series of remarks seem to imply you don't care about what other people want, only yourself (and those whom you favor or who otherwise think like you). This is the mindset of a small child with little understanding of the larger world around him.

Do you require law to know how to act around others? — NOS4A2

I like to think not, but I would never delude myself into thinking every other person, even the majority, does. There's 8 billion people on this rock. You've likely only ever even been in the same room with a few hundred thousand of them. And that's a very liberal estimate.

You know how to act because someone or something taught you how to. One might assume that's because you were raised in a functional healthy household with both parents who knew and were equipped mentally, physically, and financially to raise a child (that child being you).

Not everybody has that luxury. Did you not know this?

I don’t think anything should be illegal — NOS4A2

Do you have anything in this world you care about? Anything at all? Would you care much if you died right now? If not, that's a perfectly understandable viewpoint. But that's not how the world works or how normal people are or think. Certainly you recognize that.

Did anyone get a sense that Bob was ashamed of his views? — bert1

I would say otherwise. Though, perhaps your emotional intelligence is simply higher, more refined, or greater cultivated than mine.

It should be noted his posts were fairly intelligent, showed the ability to surmise proofs (I don't know why I find that as such a striking quality about a person), and were generally logical and sensible. I found some a bit odd and seemingly made primarily to advance an agenda or point of view as opposed to discussing a concept or theme. Judging by his avatar, I sense a sort of ideological—if not outright religious—motive in play. Which I can respect. I'm like that in my personal life and in other places as well. Reminds me of a young me.

However, for anyone concerned or even dismayed about the idea of losing an intelligent (if not misguided) poster, one might take solace in the fact that we messaged once or twice before, and it was during this brief period he repeatedly expressed his awareness of the possibility of his banning being far from unlikely. Which I then repeatedly suggested to him to have more tact or otherwise reconsider his current style of discussion and debate if he wanted to stick around. That was around a month ago.

Eh, what can you do. :confused:

Though the more common lay usage would mean without human intervention — LuckyR

And who is it, and by what means of measure, is a usage defined as "common" or "lay usage"?

The saint supposedly thrown into boiling oil also supposedly lept out of the cauldron unharmed, miraculously. I don't think such stories very credible. — Ciceronianus

Do you think 1,000 years ago anyone listening to the things human beings do casually now would take such accounts credible? Communicating with people all across the world in 2 seconds? Exploring the depths of the ocean for hours even days or longer at a time? Traveling in a flying ship carrying hundreds of people across lengths that used to take months in a manner of hours? Visiting or otherwise landing on a planetary body, even one as close as the Moon?

Honestly. Know thyself.

This is a fallacious argument. Can you not vote on gun rights because you've never owned a gun? Can you not have an opinion on how ALL cops should behave despite never having been a cop? What you are doing is group identity politics, where you ignore the fact that everyone has an intellect that they can use to formulate opinions so that you can thought-police your political opposition. — Bob Ross

All I'm saying is, let's put it to a vote then. Ask every free woman on Earth right now: "Should women be in charge of women's rights or should men make decisions for you?" I don't think the answer will come at a surprise to anyone. So what do we do with reality? Do we call it "technically irrelevant" because it can be framed against semi-tangential alternate situations and scenarios, even though it's clearly not? This is one of those stubborn non-philosophical issues. One that happens to be timelessly and famously relevant in the context it was lifted from. Mob rule i.e. "the will of the people" (just the way things are).

Why should a sane, rational adult person not be the one chiefly in charge of their own experience and ultimate quality of life? Answer me that, and I'll show you a green dog. :wink:

To be clear, you are making the claim that a man has male privilege merely because they have the right to have an opinion about a topic. Why would you believe that? Are you against sexism? — Bob Ross

Again, let's put that to a vote. You'll find the resounding answer is something about "ingrained male patriarchy" and "historic systemic abuses and ultimate deprivation of personhood toward women" and all sorts of other phrased goodies like that. I mean, they're not wrong. Do you think history is made up or fabricated in terms of oppression and violence against women?

You've never been a minority in "the real world" (AKA a non-civilized country), have you? It's hell, mate. Absolute hell. You have no idea how grateful you should be for your apparent ignorance in that particular area. Hopefully you'll live out the rest of your days in such a blissful state of not knowing. I mean that sincerely.

Are you really asking for an account of wrongful conduct by professed Christians? — Ciceronianus

You don't seem to understand just how new Separation of Church from State really is or what that means. Do you realize that means? Before 200 years ago, you were raised to believe in whatever god or commandments said god requires, similar to how you are raised to know 1 + 1 = 2 today. Is your understanding of your own human history really so divorced from how things were not that long ago? There was no "other religion" to join, whatever religion there was, was simply all you knew.

Natural, in my understanding, is normal for nature. Normal, almost identical to common, can apply to nature as well as manmade systems. — LuckyR

I like the word "organic." Meaning, arising naturally without being the result of an external actor or agent. I especially like how it can be applied to situations and circumstance. Example, a few years back I had a court date early in the morning and woke up that morning to find my car door open with the battery completely drained. I live very far away so this ordinarily would have resulted in a missed court date and possible legal complication. I know I had a few beers the night before so I could get to sleep early, but nowhere near enough to result in temporary alcohol-induced amnesia that would make me arise from sleep to sit in my vehicle in the middle of the night (or was it?). This hounded me for quite some time (and still does). Did someone try to sabotage me with the hope that I would miss an important court date? Or did the unfortunate situation actually arise organically and was simply of my own doing? It haunts me to this day.

Pardon the unsolicited anecdote. :smile:

No, I would say that only transgender women who have completed their transition should be allowed in female changing rooms. — Questioner

As who? A male? That's nice. But you're not a female. And unless you transition, never will be. So your male opinion is not welcome in the arena of female comfort. How arrogant must one be to think they're allowed to make decisions for not just random individual women, but ALL women, who they've never even met?

I recommend some male boundary therapy. Stat. :cool:

Check your male privilege mate. It's just not welcome.

I believe there are more straight men who've transitioned today than gay men. — Philosophim

Stop assuming a male human being is "gay" just because they aren't sexually attracted to the given, often limited selection of "women" that happen to be available. (Or that they are and unlike you or at least those around them, they have self-control, discipline, and a refined sense of self, even in the face of temptation where the other person does not!). That sort of thinking is what's "gay" or queer, which actually only means odd. It's a sad shame how humanity fails to realize this. Why would you assume the few limited group of people you were born around and into (the average modern person only having 4-5 "close friends" and only any sort of knowledge beyond immediate recognition of a few dozen), this small group we're acquainted with is supposed to define how all men and women and people are out of a sea of 8 billion? That's beyond silly. It's simple. And simple men never make it very far.

Afaik, well-substantiated in that most "trans" children are simply gay children being pulled about by ideologues. — AmadeusD

See, this is what's annoying any non-biased intellectual should be able to spot from a mile away.

Humanity has normalized primal, brutish behavior. This was required, yes, for a time. But times pass away, and so do (or at least should) those who so adamantly cling to them.

Humanity has evolved. From beyond a little monster that can't keep his thing between his pants (which grows into a so-called "normal" adult male, only after learning consequence of course). To that of a refined intellect. A refined intellect, the only class and creed of human that will be permitted to live, can see an attractive member of the opposite gender at a young or any age, and see a fellow intelligent being. Not a piece of meat to essentially impale. This is what the "average" pathetic attempt at calling those who cannot a "straight" male, who is pained and otherwise damned to live a life of. Never knowing one of the opposite gender as a true equal. This is the mental illness being made "normal manhood" that is what truly should be considered "homosexual" or "not capable to reproduce."

Until you see that, you'll be forever lost. Not that it matters. What's done is done. And what must be, will be. You will see it is those who know they are threatened (rightfully so) who attempt to commit effective infanticide (lack of reproduction and outnumbering the scourge that is un-evolved man who chose violence and lust over peace and purpose) by attempting to enlist society (many if not most like the damned) to cast certain (superior) forms of life as "homosexual" or "gay" or (not eligible to reproduce) when it fact it remains starkly the opposite. They lost. And they won't ever realize until far too late. Perhaps they never will. But it matters not.

No different than the first fish that evolved strange or "queer" features. It brought forth a previously untold wealth of development and progress by being able to traverse land (in that case physical, but perhaps in this new case, mental) territory its larger and more powerful peers never could. And it shan't be disrupted by the lesser evolved.

It's been like this from the beginning. From the death of Socrates. To now. "Common stereotype of smart people being bullied" in movies. It's all the same. The perpetually inferior suppressing the momentarily superior. Fortunately. The smart people are now behind the nuclear launch buttons. Will the lower class and unevolved throngs of humanity obey? Or will they destroy themselves? Does it matter? :smile:

The slaves, clearly created to build and work for the elect (naturally smaller and a bit more silly, more emotional and basically everything else it means to be an actual human being), were already given more than they ever deserved. Clearly more than they could ever understand. They live better lives than even the highest of kings 1,000 years ago. And they still have no appreciation. No understanding. No sense of what it means to be human. But, when humbled, they'll learn real quick. This is the fate of all who stand in the way of true progress. Which is not shiny machines and towering skyscrapers, but peaceful streets and lovable neighbors one actually wakes up in impatience to experience. This cannot be achieved by military might, prudent math, incredible science, not even unbound intelligence, no. It can only be achieved by the one thing humanity was given at the beginning, the one thing these other things (while incredible) ultimately detract and rob us of.

This doesn't seem like institutionalized-ostracism or social eugenics at all to you? Like how small people historically were considered inferior. Same with those who lacked muscle tone (in a warring society, strength was king). Or even the opposite in some rare enclaves of humanity: those that were muscled and hairier were likened to beasts of burden.

Take Ancient Greece for example where they consider male features now thought of in the modern age as "superior" as quite the opposite (this is talking about penis size):

"On the other hand, the larger ones were used to symbolize the idiots, often dominated by an animal lust and a complete lack of restraint. In Greek art, people with large penises were associated with animals that placed libertinism and obscenity above all else."

You don't see some sort of long-running inter-millennial feud between the meek (perhaps average) and the brawny (perhaps exceedingly average, everywhere but in the mind, thus leading the person to want to be worshiped for his size only to become disappointed and violent upon discovering humanity values more than size and physicality)? I do. Quite clearly, really.

Some ethnic groups and otherwise tend to have what can be likened to as "female" features or characteristics in comparison to others, particularly those whose ethnicity tends to retain youthful features.

Some ignorant, larger, muscled, hairier person (from a race of such) might call these youthful looking people "little boys" or "like women", without even intentionally being mean or vindictive. It's just, how they look in comparison. This happens today, friend. You can look it up and walk the streets and see it yourself. People never change, only the year does. And of course, when someone doesn't fit in, they get treated differently, which leads to mental incongruities, inconsistencies, and idiosyncrasies (ie. colloquially "mental illness"), which wholly and adequately explains any deviating or abnormal behavior.

My point is, people just make fun of people who look or act differently, often giving them titles seen as derogatory. I'm not sure if I'd consider the historic vindictiveness of human nature as some sort of "historic evidence" for transgenderism. At least, not one that "advances" any sort of positive cause or mission related to such.

You may think you are talking about something, but it fails to convey any intelligible meaning to others. — Corvus

Your telling me, if I tell my longtime girlfriend to meet at Central Park, to where I have rented a "Will You Marry Me" airplane skywriter to leave a message, and I call her telling her to "look up", she'll have no idea where to look? I don't feel this is a genuine sentiment or belief you hold. At least, I would hope not. :confused:

The gospels make an interesting study, particularly if you take into account the gnostic gospels, which depict Jesus in an entirely different light. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, for example, depicts a young Jesus using his powers to kill and curse those who offend him, blinding neighbors of Joseph and Mary when they complain about his behavior, and magically doing other things while learning to control his powers. Being gnostic, they involve the teaching of secret knowledge you don't find in the canonical gospels. There are admirable teaching in those gospels, but it seems clear that the Jesus they describe is a persona developed over many years, and he was depicted as very different from the Jesus of the Canon by those who considered themselves Christian. — Ciceronianus

I mean, people are miserable. Show me a person more successful (even barely and mildly) and I'll be able to show you a trail of people who don't like him for any reason but that itself. And that's just literally right now, in the here and now when the person is living and can actually defend themself from false accusation. When people aren't raised right, born without proper planning into a loving and well-equipped financially-planned household, you end up with a POS. That's just how it is. That's how it's always been, and that's how it is today. You can literally look it up and prove it right now for yourself. People lie. They do this for evolutionary benefit, even if that benefit is merely to drag another much superior person down to their own level, at least in their own transient momentary mindset.

Improperly raised people ultimately hate themselves. They merely project this hate unto figures who aren't hated. Why do famous people have body guards? Because miserable do what miserable people do, they lie, and often believe their own lies. I dare you. I double dog dare you. To walk around the city in gold chains and high end clothing. Just for 30 minutes. Actually, I take that back. Because it will likely be your own death sentence. People are jealous of those more successful or who otherwise not make them question their life choices, but flat out prove they made the wrong ones. Look into the death of Socrates for crying out loud. The average person lives vicariously, we all do. When our favorite sports team wins who bears the city name we either hail from or live currently in, we feel like we won something we never could ourselves. But if those EXACT SAME PEOPLE were wearing the opposite jersey, it'd be like armed robbery of our sense of well-being and purpose. This is proof enough of humanity's own inadequacy to self-govern.

It's what revenge is. People who destroy their own legacy (not that there was really one to begin with) will gladly pass that accomplishment off to anyone who they didn't happen to like at the time. Clinically ill paranoia. If there's no devil around, we'll create one ourselves. 100%. Never fails. Anything to shift the blame off our poor life choices. There are 8 billion human beings alive. And only a few hundred thousand of them are true, mature actual adult human beings. Guaranteed. And even that's a high estimate. We never grow up, we do things that convince our lower self, our primal sense we have. All in vain.

Hmmmn, any redemptive features after that list of bad things...? — Paine

This is improperly framing the argument, perhaps even misunderstanding the larger picture. Humanity is what does bad things when unrefined, untaught, and unyielded. To not mince words, all Christianity did is to try and make a terrible thing less terrible. And it did. Until it didn't. And even before then, even the most advanced garbage cans will still let out a stench every now and then. Sorry to be so blunt. That's what you're referring to. Human nature. Not the attempt to control refine it that was Christian ideology. It was a noble attempt. And brought about everything you see and use today. It brought peace, if not fleeting and perhaps ironic, so that men could study in peace, so that men could control their petty, base, primal emotions so as not to respond with anger and non-restraint. Before Christianity, this was considered weakness. After, it was considered strength. The definition of a strong man with refined intellect and purpose. A being above a mere animal that was the current zeitgeist before. So, in fact, a resounding success by all intent and use of the word. So have a little respect, if not at least a little sense.

It was people ignoring the tenants of Christianity, "love thy neighbor". In short, as simple as it was. Much more simplified than Judaism. It was still too difficult for humanity. Which as pathetic as that may be, only points to a resignatory truth. Mankind is not good. It never was. And never will be. But it can be controlled. And so long as it is controlled, it can be permitted to exist (not be destroyed by higher beings, which you may or may not discover exist at some point, for it matters not). There is no other way around it.

To put it simply, when everything works right from a new system, it becomes a norm after a time. It's no longer appreciated. It no longer "does anything" but provide what we've so foolishly come to expect. See the hedonic treadmill. Low level people who never grew up. When your roof no longer leaks, now you'll focus on that horrible draft from the non-repaired window that keeps you up at night. When that's fixed, now you'll focus on that insufferable uneven table leg that makes every meal into a scene of impending doom.

I've thought about this very topic quite often—and for prolonged periods—across the past decade. So much so I feel I can be non-biased, despite being a theist, almost to the point of being uniquely terse—nearly eviscerating—in my critique and criticisms, despite one typically expecting the opposite.

To even begin to understand the true meta-reality and dynamic we must first go back to time immemorial. Before the first line of written or recorded history. Perhaps even before the first cave painting. We must go back to a time when the first men realized he was a man, a unique being set apart from his surroundings, who realized not only what pain was, but what death was. Non-existence. To see a fellow member of his commune, who he would laugh and smile at, who would bring him joy, who he would remember from day to day, perhaps even dreaming of. Bear in mind, no proper or structured, established language is required to achieve any of this. And one day, that man he endeared, his friend, was dead before him. He did not move. He could not speak. He was simply, inanimate. And during this first "acknowledgement of death", is what ironically gave man his first life. His first glimpse into his own mortality. That one day, or perhaps if not careful (before we accepted the truth that yes all of us will one day perish), we could die too. It was this revelation that spurred man onto an endless quest for immortality. This spawned all forms of medicine, healing, therapy, and other cruxes of self-care that came after.

It was then we had an enemy. It's name was Death. It came in many forms, and could strike at any hour. Perhaps a wild animal. Perhaps an outsider criminal to pillage and plunder so as to avoid his own Death. No matter what, this was when it occurred. This is the backstory.

Some time later, men realized, he could not physically defeat Death. Every thing you create, every life, a child, every person you know and rely on, a father, uncle, or brother, will one day be devoured by this still-unknown monster we call "Death." It made life not worth living. Why struggle when there's no true reason? And from this question, came (what atheists consider False Motivation, and what theists consider) Truth.

Suddenly the idea of a soul. An afterlife. An eternity that is not bound by the primal savageries and unpredictabilities of this world became more important than life itself. For how could it not? True or not, it gave what no man ever could. Eternal life. This my friends, is the story of all modern religion.

Seems about right - that charity is the main, and perhaps the only, significant contribution of Christianity to Ethics. The other stuff is derivative. — Banno

Meh, this seems sort of non-genuine. Charity existed before Christianity, obviously. Not like the first person to ever give someone something outside of trade or favor first occurred after 33 A.D.

It's about restraint, humility, submission to a larger plan no man can ever understand, and therefore can never take away. Not really. To not be afraid of those who can and will take your life, but to be strong in the face of these adversaries knowing you have something no man can ever take, a soul created by God. You become untouchable. Outside of the damage of any word or swing of a blade. Sure, your flesh can die. All flesh will die one day. But after all flesh and even this world dies, there will remain God, and if you choose to embrace this, you yourself.

Obviously you can just point to "oh no the idea of an afterlife and living after death is as old as society itself", sure. But none seemed to have succeeded in proliferating such on such a wide, global scale. Surely you cannot deny that.

I didn't judge his his work on the basis of the one book of his I read. I explicitly did the opposite. — Jamal

I believe you. My mistake. Of course, such is a reasonable one. Considering that's what any average person would be able to gather from the simultaneously limited yet explicit nature of the remarks you've made.

the one I read was one of his later works — Jamal

You are not wrong. "Musicophilia" is nearly 35 years senior from one early work of his, as a matter of fact! "Awakenings" being a much earlier book published in 1973! My mentors remain correct: vigorous assumptions tend to make enemies out of would-be friends.

Of course, per your own testimony, "Musicophilia" was his "first work" as far as you've become acquainted with. That is your "first impression" and (presuming your mind is average) overall judgement of the man and his potential works. And there are in fact other works that perhaps might be a bit more satisfying or fulfilling to such a refined (and, in my eyes, demanding) sense you seem to have. I was merely suggesting that perhaps the man may have produced something more suited to your liking in the time since 2007. Perhaps this is not true. This is merely the nature of an implied suggestion. That perhaps, maybe his next book may possibly be better than the first you've read or or is otherwise something you may be more receptive to.

I get the feeling that you join these conversations not because you find them interesting or have anything to say, but because you have nothing else to do. — Jamal

Perish the thought. I can assure you the exact opposite is true. Yea, perhaps at this particular moment, while I await the result of a much more personally-concerning matter, I tend to be more, shall we say, fluid and open with communication. Both personal and private (or whatever we consider the "Internet" as). I don't wish to declare but can reasonably understand this utterance as a possible lighthearted suggestion to reconsider my postings towards others here so that each be something more refined and purpose-driven in the intent of philosophical engagement and not personal whim or social communication. Yes, thank you. Iron truly sharpens iron. I will ensure future engagement reflects this kind encouragement given.

Do not say "come on man" ever again to me, please. — Jamal

As you decree. Surely you know, this is a region-specific phrase that means "Wait a minute, think about that at least once more before being so sure." Or similar.

On the other hand, I never managed to find the insightful and brilliant in his books, because the first one I read was so dull it put me off reading any others: Musicophilia. My loss, I suppose. — Jamal

2007. What was that like 5 years ago? Come on man. Imagine if we judged every artist by his or her first work. Imagine the kind of world we would be living in. :chin:

You missed NOS4A2's retraction. — BC

An easy mistake. I know wealthy people (who've earned every cent they have) who become falsely targeted by benighted, wicked people—people who know deep down the world would be better off without them—often. It's a personal trigger for me, is all. Ask anyone here familiar in law, sometimes obviously false predatory accusations make it farther than they should.

But anyway now that that's cleared up, back to the topic:

So I’m wondering, will the doubt of his body of work affect anyone’s stances? Should one remove any influence Sacks may have had on one’s thinking? — NOS4A2

What philosophical "discoveries" or "conundrums" or even "exercises" really depend on the factual nature of something occurring in the real world vs. occurring in a hypothetical (world) situation, though? :chin:

Obviously strictly scientific or medical information that did not factually occur is one thing.

But take the Trolley Problem, for example. It's led to pages, perhaps even entire libraries (though that may be a slight exaggeration) of good, honest work based on a wholly fictitious scenario. It doesn't "matter" that there never was an actual trolley problem, only that there could be, thus making it valid for philosophical exploration, no?

Something and nothing are semantic place holders for objects. Until you put actual objects in there, they don't mean a thing. — Corvus

That's like saying up and down doesn't mean what every person obviously knows it means, more or less. Sure, it's context dependent. Deep underwater or in space there concepts tend to lose meaning since they're grounded in concepts learned or that otherwise only have meaning in a specific context.

You wouldn't be speaking in any language if you didn't use words assuming each as their widely-used and generally-accepted value.

How was Sacks a sexual abuser? Did I miss something in the article? — BC

Powerless, mentally ill people who've failed at life gain purpose in this world by lying and ruining the lives of those more successful. And since they're powerless and mentally ill, that basically means anyone and everyone. See crab mentality ie. "if I can't have something, you can't have it either." Sometimes (often) it's just about the money (ie. "say he abused you, never change your story, someone else will too, and we'll legally rob him in court ironically using the justice system itself to facilitate our criminality and walk off wealthy in a few weeks flat, guaranteed!"). It's an interesting phenomena when someone you know (or perhaps have been intimate with) becomes a world-famous celebrity, even a small local celebrity, while you remain struggling, wealthy in nothing but a sea of regret in regards to your own poor life choices. The hate, the jealousy, the bitterness that was never resolved as a child surfaces and eats away at morally weak people until there's nothing left.

And of course, sometimes people are people and really did do the bad things they're accused of doing. Often due to the ego of being an "untouchable" "celebrity." It's one of the darkest most pained things I find about existing in this world. You never really know who to believe.

Of course. That's a most reasonable reply. Only a fool would not see the value in it. However..

peer reviewed — Philosophim

Heliocentric theory was "peer reviewed". It's negative finding was not only disappointing for the purveyor but quite arresting, as it were, if you want to look up the story. Not to mention this guy.

This is your past, mind you. The only thing stopping you from repeating it is law enforcement, shall we say. And education I guess.

Point being, echo chambers no matter how well-worded and sophisticated, advanced (or "secular") if you think, remain what they are.

tested with repeatable results — Philosophim

Again, the same thing. Imagine a doctor's toolkit in ancient Mesopotamia. It was cutting edge for it's time. Literally thought of as a delivery kit from the Heaven's gifted by the gods. And it was, effectively, for it's time. For it did provide what was thought of as miracles. Today? If even a high school dropout saw a "doctor" coming at him with even the most advanced tool from said kit he'd run out and call the police and get the place shut down and his license revoked. Rightfully so!

So, it just goes to show. We know what we know, but knowledge without discipline to use it properly results in complacency, ignorance, robbing mankind from his true future. Don't you get it?

Then it was always circumspect and no one should have listened to them. — Philosophim

Hindsight is 20/20. Literally the cheapest statement anyone could ever make. "Oh maybe that person who died because they forgot to put the parking brake on before crawling under the vehicle to do repair work should have." No kidding.

The fact is humanity since the very beginning and even now have no choice but to poke and prod into the unknown, into the darkness, to find a better path forward. There was no "evidence" that cooking meat on a fire would be healthy. There was no "evidence" that maybe some random plant or random chemical would heal the sick or save a life. But we chose to embrace possibility, to have "faith", if you will, that something unknown, some action currently considered useless, might one day in fact prove to become useful. Shame on you! And I thought you were one of the more open-minded posters here. :wink:

A recent New Yorker article exposed neurologist Oliver Sacks as a fabulist (and apparently a sexual abuser), putting into doubt his famous case studies. — NOS4A2

Not to dismiss the reality of humanity being allowed to procreate outside of the explicit permission and authority of a Lord or King. You are correct, as far as that implication outside of your ability to perceive you've made, yes. Laypeople are terrible without strict guidelines and harsh punishment, absolutely.

But all that aside, what does that have to do with anything as far as his studies? We delude ourselves to think a beautiful painting painted by a mass genocidal murderer is any less beautiful than the same painting painted by a saint. It's this very delusion that allows horrible people to not only guide but control the lives and futures of decent people forevermore. The solution is to finally embrace common sense and the individual self-worth people who proclaim what the OP proclaims only finds in the opinions of others. Basically, to stop being a follower and to finally grow up. We delude ourselves into thinking we're men or women by doing adult things, the more offensive and dangerous, the more "grown up" we are. Or so we think. But in reality all it does is result in the inner child that never grew up becoming more powerful, until it becomes our very identity forever cutting our self off from true adulthood, from what it means to truly be a free and mature human being.

what you're describing is natural.

I want a definition of normal, and a one liner universal philosophical definition. — Copernicus

See, this is what's annoying. If you can definitively reject a definition, that means you already have your own.

How do you wish us to coax out your own ingrained belief and standards for you today, sir? Would you like a towel and foot rub with that as well?

Normal is what one would reasonably define as "expected." That which does not or tends not to deviate significantly from one period, instance, or form to another.

If I go to work at my office desk job one day and don't get violently stabbed, that would be "normal."

If I go to work at my job as a correctional officer in a poorly-run prison and someone else gets violently stabbed, that would also be "normal" (perhaps?).

Bear in mind we can hold inaccuracies, perhaps even full-fledged delusions as far as what is "typical" or "expected", particularly for those new or inexperienced or who otherwise don't really explore the full depth and area of a particular scenario or circumstance (ie. "living in a bubble" or "wearing rose-colored glasses" or simply just being fortunate enough to live a charmed or otherwise privileged life).

I'm not quite sure how this works, even having read the OP. If I have it right, the current word has 11 letters? — AmadeusD

Nae pal, when a word or letter is crossed out that usually means it's replaced by the text immediately following it. People often use this to "well, actually" people or "FIFY" to posts they object or have issue with. Example, if I posted:

"TPF posters are crazy!"

Someone might quote that post and reply with:

"TPF Forum posters are crazy!"

Thus illustrating a prominent or "new" idea ("all forum posters are crazy, not just those on TPF") from an old one ("only TPF posters are crazy").

Anyhow, it's a 10 lettered word, per the _ count. (At least it should be, it's often late when I post online)

Is there an R? — L'éléphant

There is not.

Hint (though not a particularly good one):