A drop of wine in a vat of sewage is still a vat of sewage. A drop of sewage in a vat of wine is now a vat of sewage. The good, innocent person being the drop of wine, and the vat of sewage being any number of those of sound mind and judgement who chose to take a life for purposes of pleasure or monetary gain or similar benefit including placating one's severely disturbed mind, childlike emotions, and inability to function as a mature adult.

I suppose a collapse of society and a "man trying to feed his wife and kids" changes the scenario. Somewhat. Maybe you're old and dying of cancer and the man trying to rob (and kill you if necessary) is young and I don't know, genetically or intellectually gifted, and can yet contribute to the world of tomorrow in ways you no longer can- or something.

Sure, if men were psychic and you could somehow know the man trying to kill you would somehow go on to pioneer a cure for cancer or something one might be inclined to let him live or allow oneself to be killed, not sure why the two have to be mutually exclusive. Personally, I'd at least give him a fair crack under such a scenario.

Or take a different scenario. Let's say you happened to have inherited a vast amount of generational wealth from a family you found out accumulated such wealth from less than honorable means and a large mob of angry villagers has breached your legal property line, nearing your dwelling. You also have a mounted military grade mini-gun for some reason. What do you do? What to do indeed. "Sin is a matter of perspective", some claim. While doing the sinning and not on the receiving end, naturally.

As interested as I am in philosophy, in recent years I've taken the "go my own way" approach, purposely choosing to neglect reading established philosophers and their related philosophies so as to foster a sterile environment in which I can develop my own, free of influence or persuasion from others (likely based on what was already done, but allows me to enjoy a sense of pseudo-originality regardless). What comes to mind would be "the trolley problem", which doesn't seem to line up exactly considering one's own life is in danger in your line of scenario versus the life or lives of others. To my understanding people generally get their sense of morality from a few main sources, most choosing only one. Dogma (absolute notions, typically derived from religion or the idea of a higher, supernatural power), social contracts (everybody must adhere to some sort of standard in order to bring about a greater quality of life and reduce suffering and anguish), or personal relativism (golden rule, treat others as you wish to be treated, if it hurts me, it would hurt another, therefore, don't do it because ... it's wrong?). Or some haphazard mess of two or more. In some primitive nomadic cultures devoid of science or modern medicine, a broken arm or leg was an easy death sentence. I believe there was a ceremonial cliff or volcano where one would defenestrate oneself if able, or have it done by the group, typically without immense anguish due to a prevailing belief of being "reborn" whole at a later time, or as a bird or something. I can't recall. The reason I bring that up is there is a social aspect where one can become too much of a burden to the point the society suffers or even risks collapse. A modern case would be a violent criminal or dangerous mental invalid, etc. It is generally immoral to imprison someone who is not guilty of the charge of consciously committing a crime, however if the person is a dangerous invalid who would otherwise seriously injure or kill others, not doing so would be immoral. Stuff like that. In short, depends who you ask I guess.

Pain. And lot's of it. Generally some sort of loss of valued property or as it is in many cases, life.

The mind is a wonderful if not fickle thing. Cognitive bias especially when compounded with a lengthy history compromised of life choices and philosophy that essentially has ended up playing a major role in the constitution of one's "identity". In short, people don't like to be wrong, because the brain doesn't like to be wrong. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" is an operational aphorism shared by both the conscious and unconscious mind, it would seem. People would rather convince themselves it's not raining despite being soaking wet if they felt strongly enough and had the ideological motivation to do so. Similar to the arguments made by those critical of religion, I suppose.

it might help. But we have the additional problem that we don't tend to agree in the meaning of most of the words we discuss. — Manuel

Exactly my point causing , which is causing chaos in the field. — Abhiram

So, take "truth" for example. The average person or textbook definition being that which is not false. Truth would be I am writing this reply on my computer and you are now reading it. Factual and absolute events. Of course one could say, seemingly humorously if not annoyingly, "what if I'm not reading this at all and I am dreaming" or something frustrating to that effect ie. solipsism. It's a valid avenue of thought and eventual discussion. Annoying as it may be. So how would one go about trying to "pin down" something as abstract and therefore open to interpretation as "truth"?

Perhaps one would start with "social truths" as in, the way a given society thinks, granted as dynamic as it can be. Slavery was once the social norm. Therefore, it was "right", in fact, a sign of success. Now, it is wrong and a sign of a depraved and psychotic individual. Stealing and lying is wrong because it damages the social fabric. This is a social truth. Or is it? How about something more concrete, such as a mathematical truth ie. 1 + 1 = 2. Who could disagree with that? It's essentially a scientific truth such as if flame touches your skin the cells in your skin will burn and die. These are absolute truths that perhaps could change (enter science fiction or some sort of futuristic mad science transformation surgery or something).

So there are ways to best begin to attempt to find common ground. Factuality, observation, root concepts based on what we know for a fact we all have in common, things such as sight, sound, smell, touch, sensation, the fact we have a body, the fact that pain is.. painful and largely displeasurable and is both consciously and unconsciously avoided such as a non-conscious reflex of instantly retracting one's limb from a scalding hot surface, or breathing, etc. Of course, every body is different. So. In a way these concepts already exist. But for some reason, at least it would seem, their usefulness in intellectual concepts of any advanced degree seem to be limited and fall short of adequate meaning or multi-faceted proposition.

How would you best attempt to start laying these "ground rules" or "constants", if I understand your desire correctly? It interests you, so you must have thought about it enough to at least throw a few things at the wall and see what sticks, no?

Since we're posting videos.



Somewhere in the above video there's a brief synopsis along the lines of "Art is beauty. Beauty takes many forms beyond the stereotypical and expected ie. a flower or a warm summer's day. The greats before us knew this world was full of horror and tragedy, and so as artists wished to redeem these misfortunes and give solace in that which is detestable through beautification, one of the founding concepts of art." Something like that. It's explained much better in the video. Worth the watch, if you have the time and interest in the subject.

"The Game". A 1997 seldom-known, underrated gem starring Michael Douglas.

Only 50 minutes in, but I have to say I like it a lot. And I quit drinking so that's not just my "everything is great because it exists, therefore is intrinsically fascinating" mindset talking either.

Part surreal, to the point its almost supernatural or mystical, without being any of the two whatsoever. Lot of people in power pulling strings and creating scenarios that are virtually impossible, yet nothing is left unexplained. Psychological thriller, I guess. Not directly heavy on the philosophy but many subtle and indirect touches on philosophy of mind, will not disappoint someone watching it solely for the philosophical value, I'd wager.

Ethics is not, at least in the way one might be encouraged to go all out philosophically on, part of the work environment. You are guaranteed a reasonably safe work environment free of unwarranted mental or physical burden based on protected factors that are listed in whatever Constitution is in place or effect at the time, unless the job requires it (ie. you can't sue a private 911 dispatchers office for becoming "burdened" or "traumatized" by listening to people get violently killed all day, for example).

You got people who are essentially gender-blind commenting on a new blouse you purposely purchased solely due to its aesthetic appearance being likened to that of a literal rapist in some cases. Not cool.

You should be at your station or location doing your job. If you don't like someone, don't talk to them, aside from work-related necessity. Harassment or actions that contribute to distraction or non-productivity or "actions not in line with company culture" (I love that phrase, let's you fire immoral people for any reason at all) should be reported to HR and if not addressed may constitute a legal grievance that could then continue on to a legal claim.

"People are people. Wherever you go, there you are. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree."

You can't "force people to be good". Believe me, I've tried. There's a job, there's clear and absolute procedures, there's policy. You sign a waiver agreeing that you understand all of the aforementioned and furthermore agree to abide by them and acknowledge you can otherwise be fired at anytime for any reason other than factors outside of one's control (race, gender, religion, etc.) as protected under the Law. If you are a person of sound mind and body, fully capable of being a civilized person, you get paid, and subsequently don't have to starve. It's that simple. Nobody is going to spoon feed you as an adult. It's not inhumane. Humanity has nothing to do with it. You could be the only person on Earth and you would still have to work, likely much harder, to eat and survive. At least in (most) modern work environments if someone makes a mistake that causes injury or death you could sue and never have to see your coworkers again. Not a bad state of affairs, eh? Progress. That some people unfortunately take for granted.

I don't see how you get from "you see it" to "it must be governed by something". That's a big step which is completely unsupported. — Metaphysician Undercover

Fair enough. I suppose.

If you observe something, sure, perhaps it could be an illusion. A puppet of a man looks like a man. A mirage of water looks like a body of such. Neither are truly as they seem. But eventually there has to be something, some concrete principle or law other than what would be the only other option "randomly changing nonsense" or some sort of Twilight Zone.

Vision requires functionality of a sensory organ. Think about that. If it is not governed by healthy functionality, it is not to be trusted. Makes sense?

How is this not blatant contradiction to you? How would you be "reporting" something, if you are not saying it? — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, I recommend taking a step back from your world view and looking at things from a different angle. I see (I think) the A-B logic your suggesting. How could you suggest something if you then say it cannot be pinpointed. What is 0? When you think of it? I leave open the possibility of semantics, as you surely must as well. It's not the same as saying, for example, "the door is open, therefore it is closed". Let's start from there. Surely an absolute object (a physical door) cannot be in two states at once? This invokes Schrodinger's cat. Which reminds me I need to check on mine. But yes, the door can be open or closed for someone wishing to use it for its intended or expected purpose, but surely, there very well might exist other purposes where a closed door is actually an open one and vice-versa. Not trying to be cheap with you here but sometimes the simplest explanations are often the most, not only profound, but encompassing.

One of the rules of this thread is don't be rude, so I will refrain from calling you autistic. — Lionino

Happy to remind you of what your desires are, as I see you recently edited the post to now include after the fact. Free of charge this time. Lighten up. It's the Lounge. :razz:

I neither like nor appreciate how you awkwardly and clearly randomly placed your fork in the position it is exhibited in. It's as if you were some alien who has no concept of what consumption of food is and is simply required to convince others you are capable of eating or regularly practice the routine of such. Or introducing the concept of a fork to some forgotten race of people somewhere.

It's akin to witnessing someone utilizing a household floor vacuum on their driveway near the sidewalk. Unusual. If nothing else.

By the side of the plate, scooping up a morsel or piece of chicken, at the top of the plate horizontally, sure. But not this unforgivable anomaly you have cruelly sentenced all who click on this to endure.

The quoted passage here is completely nonsensical. It makes a statement, "there are natural laws". Then right after saying this he states "that can clearly not be said". How is one to make any sense out of this other than to see it as blatant hypocrisy: "what I just said cannot be said"? It is utterly ridiculous if it is supposed to be presenting something serious, because it shows itself as false, by itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

I get you 100%.

But step back for a moment and think some. From a different angle than accustomed or comfortable. From your "natural law", perhaps it could be said. "Things exist". This is a fact. Do you know how a thermonuclear fusion reactor works or how a solar system functions in every excruciating and implicit detail? Likely not. You see it, it must be governed by something, hence its existence, which is the key proposition here, true or not. Simply reporting a fact "that can clearly not be said" may refer to a relative state of affairs and absolute accurate assessment of a given situation not an absolute limitation for all knowledge or context of it. The first man who observed fire, for example. It clearly exists, it clearly has laws, but at the time, for whatever reason, also, simply could not be explained. That's one possibility.

I can relate to your mindset, I feel yours and mine are more similar than they are different. What is natural? Preexisting? Since when? For all time or due to a recent change? The waters seem to follow the moon. This is a natural law. What if the moon did not exist or where to vanish? Then this "natural" law can be changed thus validating the claim that what "exists" may cease to or otherwise change and therefore cannot be pinned down with any degree of absoluteness ie. "cannot (or perhaps should not) be said/declared". No?

You would be wise to listen to this poster, OP.

Though I have found most philosophers have a tinge of morbidity, if not full on appreciation for dark humor and, horror, basically. In which case, go for it.

IMO, socialism only works with physical borders (walls or geographic boundary that makes it difficult or impossible for someone to "wonder" toward or "casually" go to in efforts to seek nonreciprocal benefit at the expense of those who labor to provide it). Hand in hand with some sort of religious authority that instills the non-mandatory value of a hard day's work and eternal reward as well as social value. "The land of milk and honey" sounds nice. So long as someone provides it for you. Eventually, it never works due to the fact it's logistically unsustainable.

The Kingdom has seen better days, to put it lightly. I personally believe it's Biblical and the darkest before the dawn before... something happens. As to the implicit nature of this "something" I can't seem to muster. Like most things, time will tell, eh?

There have to be "reasonable" dogmas, despite there being rare exceptions that are of little use and nothing but irrelevant distraction from a larger truth.

People don't like being tortured and killed, for example. That's a pretty fair tenet that modern law and decency is hinged upon, surely. Sure there's some who might enjoy it, perhaps mentally or physically ill-equipped in an unfortunate way that thankfully most people are not. What of it?

Sure, if you happen to enjoy something 99% of people do not. That's relativism, I suppose?

There's concepts we refer to as realistic, rational, and feasible that cut out the fat so to speak and place us all on as a better path. Wouldn't you agree, @Count Timothy von Icarus?

People tend to review most of their life decisions once this hits home. — AmadeusD

Decisions are easy to reconcile, little more than footprints on the beach before the daily tide rolls in. Indecision, however, is what drives men to madness and can haunt one's very soul forevermore.

When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything." — unenlightened

Like what? Wasting away needlessly toiling in A dead world where everything, no matter how grand or monumental, flesh or stone, will inevitably decay and crumble to sand, for no purpose other than to do so for the sake of having something to do? Mindless pleasure that decays the mind? Grandiosity and a feeling of power over others that grows old faster than a piece of fruit left out in the hot sun? Yeah, no thanks pal. Keep your atheism. It is neither needed nor welcome in this land.

(would be my reply to the author of the quote in question)

Good thread. Not surprised to see the level of emotion and effort being expressed here. After all, people struggle to come up with a question more profound than the most basic: "What is life, after all?"

Likewise it takes more than mere imagination to create great works of philosophy. — Janus

Generally agree. But for sake of debate (it's own point): "You [can't help but] always admire (be fascinated with) what you really don't understand." - Blaise Pascal

Rings true, no?

Certain philosophies do seem to have less than tangible/measurable goals than others, yes.

Philosophy of law is pretty clear, to know Justice as intimately as a man knows a woman. Philosophy of mind or religion is naturally a bit more abstract and open to interpretation. I'd say so, at least.

You can lead to a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Everything is open to interpretation. Solipsism for example, I would call a non-philosophy and more of what should be a clinically recognized mental illness, however it follows all (if not most of) the rules and seems to be derived of a valid, fundamental question (what is real, what isn't, how can we be sure, etc.).

It seems to be more a means to an end not an end itself. Or something.

It creates conceptual "bricks", that do have substance, though perhaps little, that someone is supposed to use to perhaps build a house or bridge to a desired location that would have otherwise not been possible or of greater difficulty than without. Now, you can build a cheap, shabby, and even dangerous house or bridge if the bricks are not placed in ideal order by someone who doesn't know what they're doing. Or, you could feel high and mighty about being able to seemingly defeat any opinion you don't agree with by talking around it with fanciful magniloquence that seems to add up perfectly, if not just in one's own mind, and leave the person your speaking to dumbfounded to the point they forgot what they were doing. To each their own. Some are builders. Some are on a personal or selfless quest for knowledge. And surely, of course, some do indeed just like to hear themself talk. Guilty as charged. :smile:

My dear friend, I believe I can explain. As it so happens, the site owner, Jamal, being the humble and selfless (if not at times inconsiderate) person he is enjoys making use of the Shoutbox to announce site-wide changes as opposed to hogging up valuable discussion real estate space as would occur if done so in the form of a new announcement thread or "sticky", as it were.

I believe you will find the answers to all your questions in this Shoutbox post, here.

Or to be quaint, check the Lounge! :razz:

↪Paine
Never true? I've used it and meant it. — Tom Storm

Interesting for sure. Perhaps, where respect that is due, mentioning it superfluously becomes a mockery. Does it not? My kind, smart, sir, @Tom Storm :joke:

There's no such thing as a free lunch. (Tell that to the guy in school I bullied)

It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings (though perhaps the one I had in mind simply was not fat enough)

Lightning never strikes twice. (if that were the case anyone with the towering symbol of ignorance that would be a lightning rod should be tested for mental illness)

You reap what you sow. (perhaps I planted a very long-term flowering plant at a second home a squatter dug up shortly after and planted something else and, after having him shot by police on my return, I reaped something else)

It's best to let sleeping dogs lie. (Perhaps they were friendly and joined me on my daily walk and ended up mauling a would-be robber to death)

I could go on really.

Biological men are much more likely to have nefarious motives than biological women. — RogueAI

:rofl:

Oh no, my inexperienced friend, let me assure you, men are simply more physically, and as a result socially, capable of carrying out nefarious desires. Perhaps it can be argued men are traditionally greater thinkers (though the margin between those who are and aren't is quite large) ie. more likely to get away with immorality thus lessening the fear of getting caught thus increasing the desire to act on said desires, be it so out of intrinsic biological nature/adaptation or simple social status and resulting education.

Unfortunately this thread is likely doomed to be a political discussion instead of an actual philosophical one, so I will bow out.

I find this whole topic incredibly divisive and prone to abuse, intentional and otherwise. Some men are more "traditionally masculine" than others, often physically, sometimes in other ways. Just because someone is an "effeminate" male in contrast to another male does not mean they need to start thinking if they're actually a female and need to consider having their genitals removed and taking permanently mind and body altering drugs. That's predatory abuse, bullying, and frankly downright ridiculous at face value.

It is documented many trans people, before any procedure, suffered from some sort of mental illness. No one just woke up one day and said to themself "Wow I just realized I was supposed to be born with a vagina". Not a one. My point is sometimes people with a documented high risk of mental illness who are burdened with self-diagnosing any alleged "ailment" or whatever the scholarly medical term is for "being born the wrong gender" are reasonably likely to possibly be incorrect. Therefore it can be argued blind, forceful pushing of the idea on someone who later chose such an operation is abusive and illegal.

I'm a bit of an alternate thinker mind you so I believe when there's money to be made, it shall be. Insurance scams run rampant in the 21st century. At the expense of innocent, vulnerable people.

So the rules need re-writing. Why is this not in the lounge? — Banno

Perhaps OP neglected, perhaps for an unavoidable reason such as time or other constraints, what his philosophical views or belief(s) as to why this ties into philosophy. Allow me to do so.

Since the dawn of man, there has been woman. The social order, simply if not tragically simplified into two: patriarchy and matriarchy. It is a known fact, as things are now (though perhaps may have been different in the past) the average male is of higher muscle mass, higher endurance, and, this is where scholars differentiate, of higher mental fortitude or ability to handle stress and anguish, whether or not due to the proven fact menstrual cycles affect the brain and induce higher levels of rage, aggression, or perhaps on the opposite end, lower levels of tolerance and the chemicals (dopamine, serotonin) that make a person feel "okay" or "at ease".

These facts in mind, what are the social consequences of allowing someone who is advantaged by never having to ever once experience such a scientifically noted phenomenon? Any at all?

Perhaps even more importantly, how will this affect society, the social construct we call "the world", and what potential for abuse (or perhaps benefit?) is allowed or denied as a result? These are the questions people wish to know, yet often fail to ask. So, lead on OP, what do you think?

Edit: And even further, I suppose one could extract the following debate. Does one who naturally has greater ability hurt or perhaps strengthen and encourage those who, on average, have less? (Allegedly)

An excellent question, OP! Excellent indeed.

Interesting. I can't think of a single book that has changed me like this. The notion of being a better person or progressing in some way seems very quaint to me. Is this how you judge books? — Tom Storm

It's how I judge the works of those with a message worth sharing and perhaps encouraging and naturally later enforcing (though that hardly happens), yes. Not every work is of such value it transcends the genre of entertainment. Nor should there be. But generally speaking yes, the best forms of entertainment are those that manage to do so after the medium (paper or filmography) has ceased. That shouldn't be so abnormal a concept. Why is it to you?

Uncanny, haunting, and disorientating — Jamal

Oh so is an infrequent morning fog. Come on, give us a little more than that. Why are you a better or different person, at least, how has your mind or perspective on the world around you progressed or at least changed based on what you've read?

I don't see how the inverse is so much the case, especially when so many of these people are deformed. — Lionino

Any one of those pictured could have craniums the size and shape of a watermelon and jawlines reminiscent of the same, flesh literally rotting off even, and they would still be a welcome reprieve, an oasis-like vision, from the wretched abomination that is your soul, revealed by your course of conduct here.

And you can quote that and take it to the bank.

It's frustrating me, out of all the topics that are a bit over my head or which otherwise fizzle my brain out, this literal nothing of a meme has evolved into some sort of unsolved Delian Problem here for some reason.

In certain regions or neighborhoods there is what is known, informally, as "street talk" or - and there is where it takes on a racial dimension - "Ebonics" (or "ghetto speak" to some), often by African Americans or other minorities. Eg. "Can I 'axe' you a question" as opposed to"Can I ask you a question", the person is saying the latter however due to unconscious habit or perhaps ease of pronunciation the former is what actually leaves the speaker's mouth.

So I can imagine a person who speaks in such a manner getting excited at something and exclaiming or repeating "Be more specific man, be more specific" and in some sort of wry humorous way the idea of a person saying something that sounds nonsensical "Be more 'pecific, yo. You need to be more 'pecific!" over and over creates a sense of comedic absurdity - as if one could somehow become "more pacific", whatever that would mean.

It's basically making fun of anyone who doesn't pronounce the word "specific" properly, with the leading 'S' sound being omitted or nearly omitted. Which in and of itself isn't racial, though it can be lowbrow due to fact some people may mispronounce a word due to the presence of an actual speech impediment and not just the word being a linguistic anomaly the pronunciator simply doesn't say often and as such pronounces imperfectly.

I can see how it could be rationalized as offensive or cast in similar light for any of the following reasons:

- Certain ethnic groups, be it primarily linguistically and as a result physically or genetically altogether, pronounce things differently. Eg. Many Asians have a tendency to pronounce the 'L' sound as an 'R' sound. That's a stereotype but however can in fact be observed. It's standard animal kingdom ostracization ("he talks funny, he's weird/not 'one of us'", etc.)

- "Dialectism" or to be proper linguistic discrimination is a noted phenomenon, strongly, if not more so in the past, tied to classism. Meaning, if you're poor, your education was poor, so naturally your proficiency in a certain language would likely be measurably lower than someone who was rich. So following along, minorities have been noted to receive poorer education than non-minorities due to income inequality, a state of affairs many assign blame to racism.

Well that's basically it. I thought it was a funny meme worth a 2 second chuckle because I "got it", likely crafted by someone who "got it" as well and finds the whole thing an innocent pun created to encourage a smile, lighten the mood, and pass the time. That said, ostracization is a powerful first step toward isolation, which is a strong forward march toward dehumanization, from which genocide or ethnocide is but a stone's throw away. Further said, after having to explain all this, if I see it in the future, I will likely not chuckle but click away out of sheer mental exhaustion.

I study hate. That is to say, as a staunch legal enthusiast it definitely becomes a relevant field to be acquainted with on many an occasion.

The vast use of space used for roads, gas stations, parking lots, and other car related phenomena. — schopenhauer1

Very succinct, well-thought out, written, and agreeable, with the exception of this line.

Roads always existed. Either trails for walking or leading livestock comfortably, cobblestones for carriages or other wheeled mediums, etc. Gas stations = watering holes or small shops for feed. Parking lots = stables/inns one could accommodate their horse in reasonable warmth and comfort. Though, granted one would just tie up a horse to a tree and nap nearby. The sound of a horse being spooked would often awaken the traveler in the event of danger. I suppose by "other car related phenomena" you mean things like auto repair/supply shops/amateur race tracks and perhaps now EV stations? :chin:

Mass transit is nice but before there were buses they were trains. And before that caravans of buggies. Granted much more limited as far as precision or specificity as to being in the immediate vicinity of where one wished to ultimately arrive.

Also the "gas" part of the gas station actually takes up on average perhaps half or little more than half of the space the store utilizes for general parking/navigation and mainly, general commerce of goods. Safe, populated places where one would wish to store their horse or buggy took up much of the same space as well.

Cars remove the animal cruelty/burden aspect from human travel which can be equated to human existence. No man is an island. No settlement is its own universe.

Ah, I get it. Ebonics. "Be more specific" = "be more pacific".

Hey I don't have perfectly formed tongue, vocal, and throat muscles either. When I get excited I can have a bit of a lisp or otherwise unintentional mispronunciation. Of course I attribute that to being of an advanced human race that predated modern humans for millennia and as such perfected telepathy and so said muscles became nascent out of simple lack of need.

To each their own I suppose. :chin:

I think chiropractic helps people by rubbing their backs and making it hurt less, but the "science" of it in that it somehow actually changes the skeletal structures or that it corrects malalignments, that's all horseshit and should be discarded. — Hanover

While I can't say I'm familiar with any scientific research or lack thereof involving chiropractic, and generally rank your general knowledge as on par if not better, the idea, as I was sold by my former chiropractor, that over time adjustments, well, adjust, seems to be plausible.

Men grow old and often develop Dowager's Hump, or old man's hunch, after a time in life. Just as teeth can be straightened or made crooked, certainly can other bones such as the spine or neck? I had a bit of a near-hunch and was prescribed (or rather sold) a product known as a Denneroll, basically a solid pillow you place at the base of your neck for 20 minutes a day that prevents/treats/corrects what I described. I have to say I basically saw it work. Now if this is mere postural exercise, similar to laying flat on the floor and not related to chiropractic in the least, well, that's another matter. The average person will find the two related if not identical.

It's prefectly ok to say accupuncture is nonsense if it fails to show it works based upon scientific testing. And it is nonsense as a treatment for illness. It doesn't work. — Hanover

Again while I'd trust your general knowledge of most subjects over my own, the logic and claims are far from unsound. When your body is cut or pricked, it responds and releases chemicals. To quote John Hopkin's Medicine:

"Acupuncture points are believed to stimulate the central nervous system. This, in turn, releases chemicals into the muscles, spinal cord, and brain. These biochemical changes may stimulate the body's natural healing abilities and promote physical and emotional well-being."

Sure, it's not a game of Operation where you touch one spot and all of a sudden your lifelong migraines instantly vanish all the time, every time. Simply the idea, it doesn't hurt and for some people, claims to help or otherwise provide some tangible, medical benefit.

Those are just my thoughts on your comment, thoughts which are held by many, mind you.

Chinese Medicine is not a medical practice. It is a spiritual practice. And there's nothing wrong with spiritual practice. It is only wrong when presented as a medical practice. And i believe that is the case with Chinese Medicine. — AmadeusD

I've had a cousin who saw acupuncture in a favorable, presumably productive light. What about chiropractic? People say that's "not a real science/medicine". Yet people swear by it.

Just because we can't "see" something or correlate how and why something works doesn't automatically mean it doesn't. That's the life story of science and all innovation itself. We didn't know, then we did. Surely you don't suggest humanity has discovered all that is to be discovered about the human body, life, and the universe itself? We haven't even explored 5% of the world's oceans, which is nearly 75% of the entire world itself! Come now. Be humbled and ready to learn. Surely there's more to.. no? :chin:

Edit: In addition to the fact human medical experiments are generally frowned upon. It's an entirely (at least one would hope) locked up industry in the modern age.

You start getting into dangerous territory when you start asserting and especially consciously performing actions or making decisions that decide what's best for another person's child. Not to say you're not 100% factually correct and can support your correctness with enough legal and scientific research to fill a library no sane person could discount or find room to argue against. Simply that, a legal parent or guardian has every right to ruin their kids future and turn it into something abominable if they so choose and there's nary a thing you or I can do about it.

Other than make sure the law is clear, strong, and absolute, the civilian patrol is omnipresent and resolute, and the correctional or institutional facilities are large, properly-run, and always have room. That's literally all anyone concerned with the future of society- children, men, women, and anyone in between- can do right now. Know there's going to be fuck ups galore, and do your best to mitigate degeneracy from creating even more of itself by impacting those who actually raise children in a decent, proper manner, as well as said children raised accordingly, as degeneracy always seeks to do.

Oh and I guess work to provide boundless opportunities for prosperity, fulfillment, education, and recovery easy accessible to all or whatever. Blah blah blah.

Freedom is not free. We all pay the price. Each and every day. Some with our joy, some with our time, some with our sanity, some with our lives, some with all of the above. And yet, the world goes on as it always has. The celestial heartbeat and cosmic dance skips nary a beat nor rhythm. Something to marvel at if nothing else. :confused:

However, I do wonder what exactly identity is. — Walter

Age old question. Is it as simple as this:



.. or something far greater? I for one hope it is indeed something far greater.

Because if I get duplicated (no matter how), is it OK to kill one of the two 'me's'? After all, I am still 'the other one'. — Walter

OK as in acceptable? Satisfactory? Again it all depends to whom. As an atheist your highest power and moral guidance is whomever happens to be stronger than you at the time.

If you truly had the choice, and you were the original you, would you prefer the copy to be destroyed or the original you. — Walter

Seems to be a bit silly as far as questions go. I've never attempted suicide, so I don't see why another me existing would encourage me to do so simply for existing. Would you?

Let's remove the Star Trek weirdness and simplify your professedly-unique argument into the classic one, that is nothing new, and has thoroughly been discussed.

If you could create an exact copy of one's brain, everything- memories, persona, mannerism, down to the smallest trait- and place that in a (I suppose for the sake of the experiment an exactly identical body, though otherwise would be valid yet naturally deviating) new person. Is that person the same person?

Somewhat blase for this creed of crowd but until moved to the Lounge, I'll go with it. What do you think, OP? You seemed to answer your own question after all. Absent of any sort of supernatural or metaphysical nature, the two would naturally be identical. Otherwise, no. The man is the man and the copy is the copy. Lay off the whisky, will ya.

See this is the problem with (not TPF, or discourse wherever it may occur, but rather) modern debate writ-large. We go off on personal tangents, warranted in each one's own mind in the moment of rebuttal.

Let's backtrack a moment. If you could reduce or rather simplify the entire sentiment, as you first ascertained it to be, into a single sentence. For me, that single sentence was, to the best of my ability, based on your reply "Being crass or purposely offensive, for no other reason just to do so, then calling someone who believes society and humanity itself is better off without crass and (pay attention, KEY WORD here is: PURPOSELESS) insensitive demeanor and resulting sensitivity is a malady or "burden on society" while those who believe the opposite are assets to it" is in your words "unsure if [...] reasonable".

That's all I disagree with. And I can point to documentation, legal, social, and otherwise, that support my sentiment. Can you?

There is no 'largely agreed upon' standard for annoyance or loudness — AmadeusD

Purposeless degradation or defilement of one's character. It's a literal legal concept, thousands of years old. Slander.

If I come up to you and your family and say, "you're ugly and stupid" than punch you in the face, that would either offend or seem unneeded to the majority of people. That's a fact, jack. You know this. Brashness and "toxicity" go hand in hand. You could disagree with every fiber of your being of a person's life choices, but that doesn't mean calling them a disparaging name is any sort of reasonable means to go about correcting what you deem as a social ill.

Do you like being insulted? What about harmed? Again, needlessly and without purpose. I would wager you do not. And if you do, that places you as an outlier and outcast of society. "Reasonability" is subjective, and if people wish to cast or call what the average, healthy individual wishes to avoid in the light of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" that is quite in line with logic and rationale.

A child knows what pain is. So, hopefully, should an adult. So, though not quite an ad homonym, it is not "my" subjective assessment, but again, I do not understand why you do not accept this, an objective, thoroughly proven sentiment and therefore more or less reality.

I'm unsure this is reasonable in any sense. — AmadeusD

Well of course not, that's an out-of-context clipping of a larger sentiment, which was also an opinion, one that we both know is shared by the majority. I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm simply saying being loud and annoying is loud and annoying. Not a political view or lack thereof. Saying that not being loud, annoying, and offensive to, since you seem to be playing dumb for some reason, a majority and largely agreed upon standard of social morals, is some sort of hindrance to society while being offensive and irritating people is some qualification of strength. It's not.

It is not subjective, in the terms of quantitatively-measurable politics and society, that is to say it is the will of the people and even yourself. If you like abuse and unneeded suffering, burden, or difficulty, you are a "masochist", which is the cousin of a sadist, and an even closer cousin of a predator or undesirable member of society, which legally makes you a threat to others especially children. I know you're not. So please stop pretending logic is anything less than what it is for the sheer sake of chiming in.

Let’s see if we can come up with some general statements that most people would agree to.
1. The universe et.al exists.
2. Life is part of that universe.
3. Man is part of that universe.
4. Man is a sentient life form.
5. As other forms of life, man has certain characteristics.
6. One of man’s characteristics is that he is a reasoning life form.
7. Another of man’s characteristics is that he is a social animal and interacting with other people is a necessary part of his existence.
8.
Can we get anything out of these statements? A necessary part of a fundamental set of statements is that they are complete and consistent. That is, can we generate all that we want from them and are none of them contradictory. These are probably not but let’s work with them for a while. — George Fisher

I for one love a set of well-defined and descriptive criterion one can agree or unpack numerically!

1.) What is the universe? The thing we see when we go outside at night and look up, invoking the vastness of the stars and other planetary heavenly bodies, or that which is inside ourselves that lets us acknowledge the former?

2.) What is life? Being able to breath, and have said breaths and various Co2/oxygen levels recorded by scientific instrument?

3.) What is man? Why is a monkey not the true man, perhaps we performed some sort of sorcery on the original human and turned him into monkey while doing the same to change our own appearance?

Furthermore, if "that universe" is simply that which is all encompassing by the senses it quickly loses it's literal physical definition and becomes all that simply is or can ever be, here or not..

4.) Assuming you and I, and those traditionally regarded as human are "man", sentient of what? Perhaps we are sentient to that which really matters not and other beings, that we call ghosts are the true sentient beings, only visiting us ever so seldom and by accident.

5.) If you are a man who posted this particular stipulation, redundancy and purposelessness is in fact one of your certain characteristics. Though that only would apply to you.

6.) Reasonability is subjective. It is reasonable for a drunk mentally ill homeless man to jump in front of a train, or attempt to connect a banana to a wall socket. Perhaps you mean, relatively, long term provable, productive reasoning that creates efficiency in what is required? Required by whom?

7.) I've left my baby alone for a few minutes without it randomly bursting into flames so no, social interaction is not "Required" for existence.

8.) You can squeeze blood out of a penny, apparently. Though I haven't had any luck.

--

Ooh, what a delightful thread! Do continue, OP. :yum:

politically correct culture that is so prevalent in the US — baker

I still have a problem with people trying to say not being an insensitive douche is some sort of political culture. It's simply not being an insensitive childish douche. There's no politics involved in the quality of human character. You can go overboard, sure. But the question remains the same, do we want to be governed by hotheaded, crass, uncaring children or measured, polite intellectuals? Which do you think would really be most on the average "lesser" persons side?

What annoys me is annoying dickheads who justify their needless existence and burden on others by saying "oh you just need thicker thin, there's something wrong you". No, there is not. You are simply an annoying dickhead and burden to enlightened, civil society the world would be much better off without. End of discussion.

(Not toward you or Trump just my general sentiments on the back and forth/two sides or in my view "abuse" of the term "political correctness")

At the end of the day, people are dense. "Cheap taste and short memories", a favorite quote of mine. They feel if someone is either yelling or being rude, imprecise, and insensitive they must be telling the truth or somehow of a more trustworthy character. Definitely over someone of the opposite demeanor or tone of language. Psychological projection perhaps. People eat it up. Every time. Way of the world. The mans no dummy that's for sure. Now at what cost? Only time will tell.

Is a plant conscious because it can, and never fail to, grow toward a source of light and solve a maze, granted over time, humans would struggle to? Simple because we can't communicate with a plant due to it having no mammalian brain organs, that we recognize, it's just a plant?

What about a severely disabled person who can basically only respond and react to stimuli such as pain, hunger, light, shock, etc? Are they conscious?

What is consciousness, really. An excellent, if not tired prospect. "I think, therefore I am" or "I am, therefore I think". A worm tills the ground, knowing neither sleep nor gender, yet makes for an excellent buddy to procure a tasty trout from a nearby river. Though I doubt if worms could speak they would have very much to say! Or would they?

Unfortunately I have no yes or no answer for you, at present that is, rather some, what I believe to relevant if not interesting musings for your consideration, as shown above.

I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters.


Unless that person was black, that would probably win him votes. :vomit:

I think that will be my new favourite emoticon. — Benkei

You agree with his factual understanding of the current political and social climate then.

At no point did he say he would enjoy doing so, naturally he did not say he wouldn't, let alone the idea he would or wanted to have. He simply called a spade a spade and, at least in this particular scenario, happened to have told the truth.

People don't like the ugly reality of our own nature being revealed to them, we like well manicured lawns, white picket fences, adorable canines, matching iPhone covers, and our freshly made deli sandwiches cut in delectable slices with a fancy cocktail sword skewering each. So much so those who actually wish to change the status quo, at least be a barrier and source of proliferation toward neutralization of the social ills that plague, not us but someone else (therefore not an immediate concern), are often ignored as if their message of awareness was as good as the degeneracy itself. We would rather shoot the messenger, before we would accept a message directed at oneself we find too intimately revealing or personal for one's concocted sense of morals and standards, guidelines that deep down we know we would break at the first hint of losing said vanities and "givens" we have enjoyed since time immemorial, provided it is reasonably likely we would still gain the upper hand and come out on top.

This is neither a critique or praise of Trump nor one of his supporters, critics, or those in between. Simply a reminder that this is the world we live in, and ignoring the grim if not revolting realities that come with existence, only benefits those who wish to proliferate and propagate them further.

Do you not agree?

The right sized government is relevant to the right sized parenthood.

The chain that supports you from an endless, ever tormenting plummet is in fact only strongest as its weakest link. Which in this case is the most unruly child given equal rights as the most ardent scholar enjoys.

One who values life, rather the civil order that ensures such life is reasonably expected to continue the following day, would do well to acknowledge such realities.