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):

why do you utter a meaningless sentence — Corvus

They are just words — Corvus

This is meaningless:

"Something" obviously being any form of discernible matter — Outlander

This isn't:

As soon as you say vacuum is nothing, it is something. — Corvus

There is no such a thing called nothing, hence there is no such a thing called true nothing. — Corvus

Why is that? :chin:

Edit: I get what you're saying as far as "once you talk about anything it's 'something'". That said, explanations like that will make the average person go :roll: (if you're lucky)

What do you mean by something, nothing and true nothing? What are they in material objects in the physical world? — Corvus

Exactly what you would expect them to be, in the context of the physical world. "Nothing" obviously being as close to a "true vacuum" as physically possible, and perhaps "True Nothing" or a "true vacuum" not being possible (either by current scientific standards or simply by nature of the physical world).

Relevant tidbit:

A vacuum is defined as a space with as little energy in it as possible. Despite the name, the vacuum still has quantum fields. A true vacuum is stable because it is at a global minimum of energy, and is commonly assumed to coincide with the physical vacuum state in which we live. It is possible that a physical vacuum state is a configuration of quantum fields representing a local minimum but not global minimum of energy. This type of vacuum state is called a "false vacuum". — Wikipedia (False vacuum)

"Something" obviously being any form of discernible matter (a speck of dust or a blue whale, for example). Which, sure, there will always be "something" in whatever environment we try to make as close to "nothing" as possible. Especially if we count quantum activity or waves and particles (ie. magnetic or other "force" influence).

So True Nothing would be... well, it's in the word. Truly nothing. This may or may not be (currently) possible in practice (but perhaps in posit). However, note it once was impossible to reach things such as Absolute Zero and other previously unknown/"impossible" concepts that are now reached/obtained somewhat easily.

I'm not a physicist so anything deeper would be speculation/guesswork. Which is fine, in moderation.

Transgender people — Questioner

Again, you refuse to define (and maintain a constant definition of) "transgender people". I already caught you in one backtrack you won't own up to.

You said "transgenders are born". Which due to the existence of ultrasounds that can detect even the smallest abnormalities of the brain, means "transgenderism" should be able to be "detected" early on in the womb, which no reputable science supports. Instead of admitting you were wrong, or meeting halfway and saying "I don't know, that's just what I'm parroting, perhaps I made a mistake" you arrogantly pretended like you weren't painted into a corner, trying to shift focus onto something else hoping people wouldn't notice, as if we're all stupid or something. That's offensive. All that little move did is expose the illogical nature of your argument and possibly more about your character (or agenda or purpose here).

The meaning of what I wrote is simply this: transgender persons are born that way. I never said anything about detection. That would be absurd. — Questioner

You said, and I quote:

a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born. — Questioner

Then, when I asked if you could tell the difference between a "male brain" and a "female brain", specifically around the time a human being is born, you said:

yes, it can be done with fMRI - scans of brain activity — Questioner

So which is it? Either you can "detect" whether or not a male body is allegedly paired with a "female" brain (and vice versa) or no such specific pairing occurs in the womb at all.

(Not to mention actual science that confirms the human brain isn't done developing at all until around the age of 25 or later!)

So yes, you in fact made an unfounded scientific claim not backed by reputable science. Your best bet if you want to keep going is to pull a casual "oh I didn't mean to" or maybe suggest that English isn't your first language or something. Because your wording was clear as day. You can't keep doubling down without a cop-out at this point, not without harming your own case. Which might be well-intended but nevertheless has failed to remain logically consistent. Think about it.

I'm in a good mood tonight, don't take it personally. I worry we're getting a bit off topic from the OP's stated premise. But this is not a place where you can remain logically inconsistent without being called out for it. You need to understand that.

Where did nothing come from? — Corvus

One might argue, "nothing" is merely a descriptor that refers to the absence of, well, any thing. It doesn't "come from" anywhere. It's the result of either a time before "things" or the result after which all "things" are removed. Now there's a good litany of pseudo-intellectual "gotcha" phrases associated with the idea (superficial depth, often semantics, typically leading to pseudo-"revelations") so be careful not to fall into any.

True Nothing may not have ever existed, or perhaps it did and something did indeed come from nothing. That—while "trippy" enough to fully occupy the full thought processes of the mortal mind for 1,000 lifetimes—ultimately becomes secondary to the larger, or at least more relevant, question: "can nothing really ever be reached from our current something" ie. (a true vacuum)?

They are the largest surplus resource we have. They are not special. — AmadeusD

I think it might be better said "the act of procreation", specifically in times when 60% of children didn't survive past age 5, contrasted to modern times with the introduction of contraceptives, thus making the act of coitus into a past time or hobby (and to some a competition), has somewhat cheapened what was once a widely-revered occurrence. :wink:

yes, it can be done with fMRI - scans of brain activity — Questioner

Ok, in principle I believe that. I don't like the AI link. There's no reason it had to take "AI" to reach that conclusion. I'm not saying it doesn't take automated computer processing, but that's a basic "find the similarities" process inherently similar to the grade school matching game kids solve. They had that tech in the 90s.

Literally no reason for AI to have been involved. So now I'm suspicious if that's the only link you have. Again, I'm sure there are patterns that are more or less (if not more-so than not) accurate. But I haven't read anything in the article that suggests it's 100% accurate and no outlying "configurations" are possible. And need I remind you... what was the first step in evolution but a "odd outlying configuration." Ah, yes see we get to the root of the issue back to the theory I proposed.

Assuming you believe in all that, what if the first fish that crawled out from the water never made it to land to evolve because some fish doctors and all of fish society said "oh you're a transfish, sorry. We're going to bully you and treat you different until you take mind-altering medication and surgically alter yourself until we accept you (we won't even then, but whatever, It'll be fun to watch). That's basically, at least you haven't proven otherwise, what's happening in 2025. Crabs in a bucket mentality of low IQ people. We refuse to let one another succeed, so we drag not only ourselves but all of humanity down in the process of our insipid and backwards worship of our frail egos. I said it before, I'll say it again: that's why man must be ruled by a superior force. Call that "governed" if it satiates your ego.

a "transgender" person can be definitively identified by sonogram early on before birth. — Outlander


I made no such claim. — Questioner

Ok, so here is why I see other people taking issue with your manner of replying. Let me illustrate.

The development of their brain and their body are in the same sex.

But, sometimes, the two processes do not result in the same sex. So, a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born. — Questioner

I don't see how you can say the above sentence and then reject the idea of ultrasound imagery immediately after. You know what an ultrasound is, yes? (I said sonography previously, which is the larger field)

I did a Google search using a specific phrase from your post.

You're one of "those" people aren't you. Yes, that's quite alright. We all have to make a living somehow. Truth is old-fashioned when it comes to a paycheck. Guess that means this place is getting popular. Good. That's good.

I don't appreciate the condescension. — Questioner

What, that you might be incorrect? You must be new here. That's basically the only reasonable inference one could forcibly strain from a question. Note I did not make it a "have you stopped beating your wife" false premise question since I left the secondary option (original research/own opinion) for you to answer as well. Which you did not. You're either hearing this from an organization, one I would like to know the name of, so perhaps as to verify, or this is your original research or opinion. What in Heaven's name could be so condescending about a simple desire to verify the truth? :chin:

have you ever talked to a transgender person in your life? — Questioner

That's hard to answer since you cannot seem to offer a solid fixed definition of what a "transgender" person is. First you say the process occurs and finalizes in the womb, then you say it can't be detected in the womb (which seems to imply the "transgender" baby has some sort of superpower that blocks ultrasound from observing it). Then, there's the simple definition of anyone (even just for fun or a dare) who chooses to surgically alter themself to "become" like the opposite gender. So between that widely cast net, I'd say it's likely.

But more than that. I've watched, read, and yea even studied the words, remarks, stories, but above all resulting actions and consequences of those who identify as such. In 90% of the cases the person felt "confused", was often bullied (ostracized) for not fitting in, then after cocktails of mind-altering drugs, anesthesia, pain meds (hint hint) and surgery (coincidentally right after that begins avoiding that circle of toxic people that led them to the initial state of "confusion") magically feels better. For a short period. Then whatever underlying issue was really going on tends to resurface. It's a cruel thing to watch. And it's all for money. It's a racket. And once you see it for what it is you'll have no wonder why the fate of the world must be as it will be.

Grifters who'd perform unneeded surgery on their own mother for the chance to get even one extra dime out of the bottomless money well that is insurance. Grifters all of them. :cool:

Seriously, though. Does money not make the world go 'round? Or do we do what's right simply for its own sake to the point of starvation? Tell me you know enough about your own nature as a human being to answer at least that.

During the first trimester of pregnancy, the body differentiates (testes or ovaries) under the influence of genes. And then, in a completely different process, under the influence of genes and hormones, during the 3rd trimester, the brain differentiates to a male or a female brain.

In most cases, the two processes are coincident, and a cisgender person is born. The development of their brain and their body are in the same sex.

But, sometimes, the two processes do not result in the same sex. So, a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born. — Questioner

Finally, we get to the meat of the issue. Two relevant questions that immediately come to mind.

1.) How intimate are you with neuroscience? Could you pick out a male vs. female brain NOT using post-birth indication/life experience (ie. mannerisms, social norms, cues, none of that stuff that develops AFTER a human is born)?

Pardon the morbidity, but, say if you had to examine two deceased babies, and you know for a fact one is male and one is female but you only had the brain to go by, could you really and definitively determine one from the other?

2.) The bold part of your reply shows you make the claim that a "transgender" person can be definitively identified by sonogram early on before birth. This isn't supported by any established, widely-agreed upon science I've heard of. Again, so far, all that science tell us is most males have average brains. This makes it colloquially a "male brain." Most females have average female-typical brains. This makes it, colloquially, a "female brain."

Why do you think just because a brain develops atypically, favoring patterns or structures generally common for the opposite gender, that human being is "transgender"? That's in a word, bollocks; pure quackery. So not really a question. But I need to hear your reasoning specifically what institution or group is propagating such "information" to you. Unless that's your own "original research" (random opinion).

--

There is a clear third option as well.

Perhaps the human brain is simply developing, human evolution is occurring (why would it not, after all?), and the male brain is becoming more refined (about time by God) and is slowly becoming more intelligent, able to recognize and associate more strongly with emotions and empathy (what it means to be human and not an animal), something previously gifted only to the "female brain". This enhanced ability, something the male mind lacks, is erroneously being referred to as "femininity" or "transgender" in a purposeful and widely-orchestrated attempt by the less than evolved (the majority) to retain their dominance at the cost of human evolution by ensuring the superior mind is kept down even before birth.

Sure, that's just a theory. But there's just as much evidence for that as there is for your "born transgender" claim. But it makes sense. Females are less violent, usually (perhaps due to different mental partitioning in regards to emotional capacity ie. a so-called "female" brain structure). Violence is the cause of most suffering, inequality, war, etc. on this Earth. So why would humanity not evolve as a whole to be less violent and more emotionally intelligent (or as the stubborn majority of people holding humanity back would say: "more feminine")? :chin:

Edit: That was more of a spitball, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense. This world is stained by war. Every civilization, every culture, every people, every land. Men didn't have to be intelligent. For crying out loud, they didn't even have to sane. All they had to do was be able to beat someone over the head with anything available, take what that person had, and use it to reproduce. That's what propagated throughout the tens of thousands of years. Junk DNA (not to be crude, but that's using their own vernacular when they refer to "smaller" or "weaker" people, so-called "beta males". So. That's in their own words). Intelligence clearly won, despite how its mocked so cruelly to this day. Are we not using smartphones and computers and modern engines or are we using wooden clubs and furs? Game, set, match. Good job, smart people. :cool: But the war is not yet over. No, not by far. :gasp:

What you seem to be insisting on is that the brain must match the body. — Questioner

What is a brain that doesn't match the body? How would it even function?

Again, per my above post, this has turned into a discussion about conformity to social norms, which inherently vary from culture to culture and society to society. Maybe there's some remote island village somewhere where men are enslaved by women and as a result men are "shy, reserved" or otherwise retain their childhood mannerisms (this is in reality what people actually refer to when they refer to "femininity" despite believing otherwise) whereas the women are brutish, crude, and abusive.

This makes discussing social norms and conformity to said social norms quite trivial. I cannot for the life of me imagine "a [functioning] brain that doesn't match the body?" What would that even mean? Now, as I said, it's possible more biological males (or females) in a given time, place, society, or culture are all similar. This is normally how it is. And those that aren't, are simply atypical. The problem is, as social creatures with a powerful often deadly need to conform, we assume if something is "atypical" it has to have a negative social context. Because different people who make different choices tend to make us question our own life choices. And the mind likes to be correct. So we'll discount the other person as "odd", which is true in the sense of regularity, but is actually a one-dimensional and superficial judgement that speaks volumes about the person judging and nothing about the person being judged. But we'll gladly think the opposite and sleep soundly at night all the same.