The disrespect you treat me with is unwarranted and betrays low intelligence. — Dogbert

Accusing people of things that never happened is much worse, pal. All that and more.

"Ennea" is a prefix for the number "9." You can't use words outside of their meaning and expect people to read your mind. We can't. This is an English language forum, if it means something in another language, I apologize. That said, you should have offered some context first before expecting people to just know what you mean without having any ability to.

Once again, your theory is being ridiculed and discounted. Not you. I don't know you. You are not your theory. In philosophy, we attack ideas, not people. I don't know how you could have possibly arrived at the conclusion you have, but I'll keep it in mind that you're on a hair-trigger when engaging in discussions in which you're involved in the future.

It's just the Internet. Lighten up, friend. :smile:

By what standard are human beings not also commonplace matter? — T Clark

I *think* what he's saying is per law of conservation of matter (or whatever) since the beginning of the Universe, there was and remains the exact same number of atoms in existence. From the moment of the Big Bang to right now as you're reading this. There are no new atoms being made and no atoms currently in existence being destroyed (not sure about black holes). Basically saying, the atoms in each of our bodies (what he considers to be "him", his physical body, not a spiritual or metaphysical essence) are the exact same and have existed for billions of years.

It's... a novel concept. Something to chuckle at for a moment or two, I suppose. But nothing more.

Like, why didn't the atoms in my body end up becoming part of a mountain instead, or part of a star a billion light years away? Why are they exactly as they are, forming my physical body? (etc.)

You have achieved.. the number 9? Huh. Can't say I ever did that (at least not that I was aware of). So, neat, I suppose. Was it painful? :lol:

Existence comprises minds, ranging from singular particles to entire nervous systems. — Dogbert

Panpsychism is a theory. Have you proven it yourself conducting your own individual research you can share with us or do you just like the way it sounds? :chin:

A word of caution, if I may:

"You always admire what you really don't understand."
- Blaise Pascal

I like to call it "enchantment bias." (Dibs on full credit if I just coined that term right now, BTW.) :grin:

Yes, it appears to happen in all cases of genocide. The aggressor feels a moral duty to continue the genocide until the victim is extinguished. — Punshhh

The point you haven't addressed is OP's claim that he feels the concentration camps were unlike the many other historical gulags (prisoner work camps) but instead literally just erected to perform torture for torture's sake.

A rebuttal to that would be, no, minus the technological advancement that, if any other historical prisoner work camp was in a period of time that had the same technology and progress of science, would have done the same as well, if not worse (including the medical experiments, experimenting on prisoners can be traced back to the BC period).

I'm not intimately familiar with non-Christian ideology but it seems to be a common "Abrahamic" theme that "everything happens for a reason", which might work out to "if you're in a concentration camp, that's because I (God) want(s) you to be there." Which means, unlike non-religious folk who would either sabotage their equipment, kill the guard (or themselves) at the first opportunity, religious folk will work and toil as if it was any other job. What I am intimately familiar with is how the atheist mind works, and in this particular case, it works by seeing the theist as a delusional albeit "useful idiot" in the simplest of terms for the reasons I've just explained. This could explain why they valued their labor and sought to transport them (a lengthy, resource intensive process) as opposed to killing them with a bullet to the head (fast and cheap). That would logically eliminate the idea of not wanting them to tell their tale to the Allies since the latter option would have been preferred. Or perhaps, they didn't want "the world" to see the bodies. Dead soldiers are one thing. Dead civilians are another. So, transporting them (and not killing them) does not in and of itself justify an argument for "sadism."

Based on these facts, it (OP's claim) is not immediately conclusive that the perpetrators "derived sadistic pleasure" that "became a need for them", at least, not in a unique historical context contrasted to the dozens, if not hundreds, of historic cases where groups of people were enslaved and/or genocided by other groups. It's just more shocking since in the modern age we have photographs and the evidence was freshly uncovered not wiped away or degraded beyond recognition by the sands of time, not to mention the advancement of science and technology (and resulting medical experiments).

There's nothing wrong with spying. — Metaphysician Undercover

You've always been a man of mystery, MU! Thankfully one fact has been brought to light. You're clearly not a minor, one responsible for one, a female, or a minority.

Because otherwise, yeah. Spying is a form of harassment and mental assault on a person's human rights. It is akin to stalking, threatening without threatening. Restricting their movements, patterns, habits, and even thoughts. Presenting an unknown danger and essentially constantly tickling the "fight or flight" part of the brain with a feather. Or jagged piece of metal.

Those who have nothing to hide don't worry about the spies. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is also not true. You assume people who live lives of deceit are for some reason moral people who would never lie, commit sabotage, or plant evidence that would hinder people of another "team" or race or ethnic group or religion or what have you. That people wouldn't do things at the expense of another to get ahead or further either one's individual or collective interest(s). This is sheer ignorance of the global community and basic history (as well as human nature).

Come on, man, you're slipping! :razz:

I feel it worth mentioning that people generally consider "intent" to be a prerequisite for an act to be "evil."

Going to visit an isolated or uncontacted people because you want to give them money, yet end up introducing a modern bacteria that 99% of people are immune from that ends up reducing their population to a few dozen, and had no idea, probably wasn't evil, or at very least wasn't "as evil" as if you wanted to visit them to steal from them, or otherwise were fully aware of biology and had such intentions in mind, and ended up doing the same.

Reason I mention such, is it seems your flagship example of religion hinges on not only the idea that a god exists or does not exist, but whether or not the people who perform actions or inaction under the ideological mindset of such genuinely believe a god exists or not. Theoretically speaking, if they were right, and we were all wrong, they would be preventing us from eternal damnation (or whatever) and therefore, despite acts of violence that would normally be considered evil, are actually the greatest good one could ever perform. Theoretically speaking, of course.

In short, imagine an isolated, ultra-religious family believing their 6-year-old child is the devil incarnate and so they drown him to "save the world" or what have you. They'll sleep soundly at night, and never perform any other act of violence again. Take real actual examples of history. Botched exorcisms for example. Giving people the benefit of the doubt (things were much, much different back then, superstition wasn't the exclusive domain of fools and the mentally unwell as it is often considered today) that they actually believed they were doing the right thing and preventing evil, one should clearly be able to draw a line between unfortunate, misguided deeds and intentional misdeeds.

Say your child really wanted to go to summer camp by the lake, and you know he or she cannot swim, yet didn't have that item of knowledge in your mind at the time, and you permit him or her to go, and they drown, resulting in your entire family disliking you, calling for your arrest, and basically putting you on par with the likes of a murderer. Or more simply, falling asleep while your kid is swimming in your backyard pool and the same fate befalls him or her. Are you evil? Did you perform an evil act? Well, did you?

What does that mean? — praxis

He thinks this is, or rather, is used to, social media. DM stands for Direct Message, so the kids today say "DM me" which means "send me a private message."

This offer is likely so as to avoid claims or accusations of being "off topic" or "spamming."

He feels you are wrong and also feels he can easily prove it.

Kirk, and other culture warriors, profit from catering to such people. — praxis

A bigot like Kirk — AmadeusD

This is the part that I believe is liable to cause confusion. First sentence might suggest he's only doing it for the money i.e. doesn't really give a hoot let alone believe a word he's saying and is simply saying so to pander to a given audience for a strictly financial incentive. Second sentence would seem to suggest he genuinely espouses these views, and any profit made is simply icing on the cake or otherwise "just comes with the territory." That's probably what the poster whom you're replying to is a bit hung up on.

I'm very good at bridging the gaps between people. A bit too good, really. I was run out of the last town I tried to enlighten, Socrates-style. (Not really. Not yet, at least.)

I have changing views about the topic, really. I think people who identify as transgender (who have or are seriously considering permanent, irreversible surgical alteration) are vulnerable people, and vulnerable people should not be targeted. On the other hand, I can agree with the idea that the medical system (and others) are doing more harm than good, possibly, to echo your earlier frustration, strictly for the money without any genuine compassion or concern for the well-being of those they choose to involve themselves with.

Human (or human-like) beings have been around for tens of thousands of years. The first transgender surgery took place barely a century ago. I don't see how one can comport a recently-invented surgical procedure (and resulting movement) to something critical to humanity and human rights.

Perhaps that's what he meant was the "abomination": a greedy (and possibly nefarious) system that exploits vulnerable people. Hey, I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt once. :wink:

I believe I have clearly framed the topic "Are trans gender rights human rights?" Some are, some aren't. Do you agree or disagree with these assessments? — Philosophim

See, what I'm trying to say is, and forgive my brashness, perhaps you've gone gung-ho into a battle wielding what one believes to be a sword but is really a tuning fork. You're missing the forest for the trees, my good sir.

One is a term that hasn't existed in the zeitgeist of any human civilization (at least modern Western society) until recently. Whereas, "human" is a biological and absolute constant. In simple terms, one changes, basically came into existence recently, and otherwise has no consensus agreeing solid and strict definition. The other does. So the rights for something that is absolute and non-disputable, versus something that is not only a new concept to all things social and legal, something constantly changing and still not widely-agreed upon between those who deem said concept important, are like comparing apples and oranges.

Let me simplify that: One is a derivative of the other. The derivative is a social construct (relative). The derived from is a biological reality (absolute).

So, that's double the percent of alleged transgender persons so far. — Outlander


Alleged? — RogueAI

Assuming there is either a biological or medical reality behind the idea that a human being can be born into one of the binary sexes yet would fundamentally either:

A.) be more productive and natural in the opposite sex
[OR]
B. would live life in discomfort, potential mental illness, and overall failure to thrive.

If even one of the two prerequisites above are true, that would mean such an opinion should only be given by a well-educated and preferably-licensed medical or psychiatric professional, similar to legal advice online, which by penalty of law is forbidden by a layperson. If none of the above prerequisites are true, then it's literally a non-issue akin to a hobby or weird phase that only the individual themself can choose to cause detriment and negative effect.

To simplify: To err is human. People make mistakes. It's not an established science with immediate physical and visual confirmation like an X-ray or MRI. If one believes surgical and biological modification of one's self is a choice, that's a choice they made. If one believes there is a fundamental or otherwise "human-like" right that is being deprived from not being allowed to surgically and biologically modify one's body so as to please one's self, that's a science and medical reality that only those highly trained and certified should be legally allowed to determine or give opinions on.

So, let's try to get back on track here. And the best way to do so is with cold hard facts. Hypochondria, affects 5% of all persons. So, that's double the percent of alleged transgender persons so far.

Let's also bring into the discussion the idea of anxiety or panic attacks, which affect a great larger majority, about 40% of people will experience such or similar with related symptoms once in their life. This is enough to dial emergency services or visit the ER under the true and genuine belief there is a true medical emergency or condition. Difference is, untreated, general anxiety or benign malaise may be confused as something more severe, including mental illness if not diagnosed by a qualified professional, or worse, self-diagnosed (or pseudo-diagnosed by non-medically trained non-professionals who may be family or friends). Which is basically the driving force (90%+ of the so called transgender movement, which in reality is a political, economical act of warfare that only seeks to confuse and disorient, so as to give enemy troops an advantage) of this so called human rights campaign. People in general may be stupid. But the people who decide what bombs drop where, are not. So don't make yourself a target. You might regret it. Or those, what's left of those around you, that is, when it's all said and done, might curse your very being. So be careful.

It's like you're purposely trying to ignore reality by not understanding these facts thereof, OP.

Again, we haven't truly framed the topic here. We have your ignorant and silly understanding of what transgender is, which while may be shared by the world, remains silly and ignorant. Until you can admit that, OP. This topic, rather your contribution toward it, will remain little more than a circus. And a dull one at that.

Where do you get the idea I have seen anything like that in my life? "Oh! Gold chain, me stupid, i'll kill person with gold chain in alleyway because we alone and nobody catch me! Me shmeagal, i want ring!" — ProtagoranSocratist

I mean, to be fair, there's a reason horror movies are classified as horror and not fantasy. Meaning, these things do happen. All day, everyday. I can tell from your disposition as well as the dismissal of his meta-point, you clearly know where you're going to get your next meal from. Not everyone has that luxury. I strongly recommend you re-read up on the Socratic method so as to better understand (even flawed) arguments other people might make.

RogueAI, can we say on topic please? What do you think about the OP's claims on the trans gender rights listed? — Philosophim

Right but be fair. A person is a human and they have human rights. They don't suddenly vanish because they think or adopt a lifestyle or even a religion that fundamentally demands or in their own mind redefines what they are.

We all have the same laws. People invented false religions (cults) in an attempt to quash the ruling laws of a given society (in some instances they succeeded, temporarily) but in the end these so-called victories were only short-lived, doing nothing in the end but causing great and unneeded suffering unto those (and thankfully, usually, only those who perpetrated them) and everything pretty much returned back to normal, granted, sure, the same rights you always had to believe anything you want anyway, provided you work and conform and above all follow the law basically never went anyway.

In extreme relation to the topic, I could believe, and be convinced wholly I am a dog. But that doesn't give me a right to shit on your lawn, to assault and batter you by licking your face because I'm "happy to see you", to avoid a noise complaint or charge of disturbing the peace/public nuisance because I'm making loud noise or barking, or basically sexually assault you (or your leg), without facing the same legal consequence as LITERALLY ANYONE ELSE.

You can be whatever you want to be in your own head. But it needs to literally not affect any law-abiding citizen in any way whatsoever unless they desire it to. That is to say, you don't get a special set of legal rules because you want them. Only handicapped or differently-abled people get that right. Anything else is a travesty of justice.That's just not how anything works.

90%+ of people alive today would not be alive, nor have ever reproduced, were it not for violence (what mankind pitifully attempts to separate from severe mental illness, lack of worth to reproduce, specifically mass hysteria by giving it a word i.e. "war") and most importantly, enslavement and oppression of women.

You can't even begin to understand anything in regards to this topic or its tangents until you really process what that means and what we're dealing with. What's really going on. Once you do, it all makes sense. Including as to what the solution is.

It's a result of ostracism. In the animal kingdom, animals that do not fit in are ostracized, and often have a 90%+ mortality rate. You will notice the average guy of average height and appearance makes up about 0.1% of people who believe they are transgender enough to perform permanent and irreversible surgery. While ALL the rest are usually small, skinny, frail, awkward, maybe stutter, perhaps might be a minority in that specific community, don't fit in, were bullied, or were otherwise traumatized, often sexually.

It's literally a form of legal and state-sanctioned eugenics they're flashing in our face all while pretending they're doing the opposite and protecting the vulnerable.

It takes a deeper understanding before you can really see what's going on. Literally every great invention, every great movie, story, every great piece of art was created by intelligent people, who tend to be on the smaller/frailer side physically. All those who tend to be larger, generally aren't able to do anything a machine can't. They are easily replaceable, for they serve no unique function. The more humanity progresses the more one side sees themselves as pack mules and animals whose only purpose and possible contribution to society is to lift things for those who actually improve the quality of life for us all i.e. the intelligent. They've become mired in jealousy and hatred, but they do have one thing on their side. Primal lust, or simply put, fear and violence. And that's just powerful enough to find a hapless mate, prolonging their existence just ever so slightly and long enough to do the damage they're doing.

In short, yes, vulnerable people have every right you have, and much more. But that's a distraction. These people causing this must be found and given the highest form of justice available. All they had to do was go quietly. To live their last days in the utmost comfort and dignity (as provided by the intelligent people who they're so vindictively targeting), a quality of mercy they themselves never could offer and so ultimately don't even deserve. But a fool and a demi-human will always be exactly that. It was predictable, really. What a shame it's come to this.

Civilization has been around for over 10,000 years since the domestication of cattle and crop. The first sex reassignment surgery was (barely) able to be performed barely 100 years ago. You couldn't come up with a better example of a solution in search of a (non-existent) problem.

All war is based on deception. Remember that.

You asked for the truth. I only hope you can handle it.

This discussion is fascinating. The one thing that warrants the powerful to retain their power and the subservient to bask in the safety of their subservience. This... silly notion that, somehow, given the chance, given enough time, we wouldn't be worse than those we complain about. It's a timeless classic joke, between those who know the depths of human nature. Why, it never seems to get old. :smile:

For a bit of context.. no, no not at first. Everybody starts out as the noble savior. Here to vanquish those who have forgotten what it means to be human, blah blah blah. And they do so. For quite a time. Until... well, something happens, shall we put it for lack of better terms. Something changes within them. They start to think, perhaps, they were made to make decisions over others, be it by fate be it by the mere physical nature of this world, whatever their mind decides upon, the man or ego of the man calls it all the same: "destiny." And from there, rules, as we think we know them, no longer seem to apply. Consequence, merely an illusion. And so on and so forth. I won't be the one to spoil it. No, not here. Not now. :grin:

Kirk publicly claimed that trans people are an “abomination.” — praxis

This is the disconnect. That I find it strange you are unable to see.

There is no third sex in any organism that exists or has ever existed. There is, at best, "budding" or self-replication, and species that change genders due to established DNA coding that science can detect. But no mammals.

This is about "societal norms" and "gender roles" that can be forced upon any individual by a larger or prevalent enough person or majority.

It was scientifically impossible to alter one's body to conform to that of a different sex until 50 years ago due to surgical invention. Humans or human-like species have allegedly existed for hundreds of thousands of years.

Some people just want to watch the world burn. They'd gladly kill a person, perhaps who is famous, even if they end up in jail or shot. So, to kill a concept, such as man and female, and to keep oneself alive despite disfiguring oneself through mutilation or surgery, just seems like a better option.

No one has yet to explain why people who choose to surgically, permanently, and irreversibly alter their body were 90% of the time bullied, ostracized, abused, or otherwise treated differently, often at a young crucial age of development. Because it's self-evident. A mind, especially a vulnerable or young one can be led to believe anything. That's documented, scientific fact. Like I said before, No happy and accepted or appreciated man wakes up one day and says to himself "You know what, I should have been born with a vagina." Not one.

It's miserable people seeing how far they can push other people while getting away with it and not technically breaking any laws. No laws that currently exist, at least. Cowardice laws are the one thing missing from this world to make it utopia. I pray you don't find yourself on the wrong side of them when they arrive. And they will soon.

If some culture has a tradition of whale-hunting, should the global community allow that? — RogueAI

What is a culture? Cultures do change. How long has it been prevalent? What was it rooted in? There's a difference between killing for sustenance and killing for sport. Some societies and civilizations were forced to eat rats or dogs for survival after either over-hunting, natural changes in climate, or perhaps conflict and conquest. In some religions the lighting of a Menorah was to honor those before who had to make do with very little. Not quite a perfect analogy since nothing is being killed, but the concept behind remembering what those before us had to live like and the sacrifices they paid is fairly relevant to what considers a cultural practice, perhaps.

As to the "global community" (mob rule) that's a socio-political concept that has impossibly-divergent meanings to each and every individual.

Should people not care that a magnificent creature like a whale is being killed? — RogueAI

Why is it magnificent? Do you have any idea how advanced a microscopic "water bear" is? It can literally survive in space and in lava. How is that not magnificent? Oh, because we as physical beings have "size bias." It's where the word "king size" comes from (versus "fun size", because smaller people get taken advantage of i.e. are toyed with and are "abused for fun", get it yet?) Everyone wants a "big" house because it's safe. Everyone wants a "big" serving, because it's healthier and prevents you from starving. We like what is large because it reminds us simultaneously how small we are yet how allegedly superior we are in our own minds.

And what about ants? They can lift 27 times their own size. To my knowledge, a whale can barely tow its own weight, and quite slowly at that.

Whales are neat, yes. They should be (and are) protected.

I'm not losing sleep over it, but there are some who are incensed by it, and I understand why they would care. — RogueAI

Sure. Plenty of nations are going over generally established carbon output limits. What are they supposed to do, start killing civilians so there's less need to produce? People love to call one another out. I'm sure if something gets bad to the point of existential concern, it will be called out by all with a voice (and plenty without). :wink:

For instance, here in Sweden, we have a pastry that used to be called "n-word balls" in a translation from Swedish. Many invoked tradition to preserve the name. However, one can coherently be against calling the pastry something that includes a slur without having to abandon the pastry and its role in Swedish culture. It can still be at the fika table. — GazingGecko

To be fair the word for "black" in multiple languages is 90% similar to the slur, which is also the name of a country. It's literally just the word for a color (and an actual country). People are just idiots. But I suppose that needs to accounted for in, basically everything these days.

Pretentious nonsense. — Tzeentch

So, tossing aside common knowledge, we still come to the unavoidable question. Was Engels a fool? Or a psychopath who enjoyed watching a tortured man dance to the tune of a few dollars? It has to be one or the other. There's no other option for you, per the corner you've painted yourself in by way of your remarks, my friend. :smile:

while he himself was being showered in money by benefactors like Engels — Tzeentch

History is written by the winners. And winners are murderers. Immoral people. Your trust is therefore based on immorality, which does not preclude the possibility of, oh I don't know, lies. :smile:

Say it is true. Why would someone, brilliant believe in someone who was a bum? Was he a conman? Then if so, he had a great way of conducting himself that seems to elude your understanding. Or, was he a fool himself? We're only as good as the company we keep. Surely you can understand that.

I just feel there's more to this story. And your seemingly inhuman desire to ensure there isn't any, only makes it all the more intriguing. Can you not realize that?

Where I come from we call this the Streisand effect. Of course, perhaps you're well aware of this and are using this to advance a covert goal or objective. Who could say?

It’s my informed opinion, yes. It’s not my opinion that he was an abomination or other superstitiously hated thing. — praxis

I think his point was, he genuinely believed in everything he expressed (and perhaps quite a bit he chose not to, as a nod to your suspicious sentiment). At least, that's what the poster you're replying to believes that he believed.

Most respondents seem to answer as if I am attacking tradition 'just because'. The point is that heinous acts through history have been perpetrated in the name of tradition. T Clark defends hunting with his family from an typically anthropocentric perspective because it serves him and his own in group, with no regard for the needless killing of animals for one's own fun.

Why can't he and his family enjoy a board game around the fire instead?

Does the act of killing some other creature enhance the fun and togetherness? that would be a rather chilling and bloodthirsty claim to stand by. — unimportant

While I cannot answer for @T Clark, I can say that, in general, all of the examples listed on this thread so far, including hunting, have many reasons, varying in "validity" based on perspective of who's hearing them, beyond "just because [it's tradition]." Example, Christmas is often practiced under the context of deep religious conviction. That's nice you don't believe in my religion, but with all due respect, I believe one will be met with a sentiment along the lines of "kick rocks." :razz:

Similar to hunting. Not only has the entirety of humanity and their ancestors, including you and yours' survival solely thanks to the ancient practice, science proves there are dozens of essential vitamins and minerals found only in meat-based diets. Sure maybe in the past 50 years one can take a vitamin pill to adequately supplement these in lieu of such, but that's hardly the point. The body seems to be "naturally evolved" to eat meat and evolution is indisputably linked to such function. Those are all plenty of reasons beyond simple "appeal to tradition" or "just because." To name a few.

Furthermore, I strongly suggest you watch a Nature documentary. This falsehood of a "peaceful system" with all the animals singing around a campfire together having a peaceful time that all of a sudden is just shattered by @T Clark and his rifle because he wants to eat, is... well, just not true. Animals kill, maim, and eat one another all day and all the time. Quite horrifically, really. Point being, it's not like we're introducing some unspeakable horror into an otherwise peaceful environment.

If you don't believe in something, you have a right to abstain from it, and I doubt there's a single person alive who would want anything more but for you to do precisely that.

Over-hunting is a documented concern, however, yes. What goes on behind the scenes to get even the humblest of breakfast sandwiches is enough to sadden a person, admittedly.

Fair. I don't care what Marx did outside of being a bum either. — Tzeentch

You really don't like this guy, do you. Why can't you focus on his work, at least.

He was obviously persecuted by the State for his beliefs when alive. A State that was not an open, free society and therefore has no problem ruining a citizen's life, if not outright taking it. The stress of being a free thinker in a closed, backward society is enough to cause anyone to turn to a bottle or pipe.

I'm just not buying the narrative you're selling, sorry. That is, this simplistic version of "he was just like that for no other reason than to have been so, therefore, he and his works are to be despised." Not a very good argument, even if true.

And I'm generally in favor of capitalism. Regardless of one's belief or preference in economics, that doesn't seem any valid reason to speak ill of the dead, particularly a person not you nor anyone whom you know has ever even met. Just my 2 cents.

Am I seeing this argument being made?

Some people get away with murder. Therefore we should not try and stop them. — unenlightened

What specifically in this thread are you referring to that seems to parallel or equate to such an analogy in your mind?

I don't know of any longtime posters with high post counts that seem suspect of such a thing. And my job, most of the time, is to basically to be by a computer so I definitely lurk here (pop in once in a day to see if any so-called smart people say anything smart or otherwise that I've never heard before) beyond the average member.

Christmas used to be good. The spirit and the season were different. Then retail stores took over the tradition and now Christmas is about spending. — L'éléphant

Interesting. And not unnoticed! However, does it not take two to tango? The average person does, or at least desires to, hold or perhaps be invited to, feasts essentially. And giving gifts is a form of thanksgiving and charity that surely has a place in society. Both these things require, well, purchasing what one does not generally have lying around. Not everyone is a farmer who owns cattle, pigs, chickens, and such they can slaughter by hand and then invite friends, family, and neighbors over. Not everyone has the skill or time to create handmade things that have value and utility (that would actually be appreciated by the person beyond the politeness of appreciating effort, especially in the modern age). So, people generally have to buy things from those who do, no? Is there something inherently wrong with that, or better yet is there some realistic alternative that would fit the majority of people regardless of their widely different life circumstances? :chin:

I'm sure there are many people who choose to "opt out" of "commercialism", specifically on holidays. Good for them. But gift-giving in and of itself, at least once a year, perhaps to commemorate a religious story of such, or perhaps just to do because "it is better to give than receive" or simply because yes people, especially kids, do enjoy receiving new and useful things, surely isn't immoral or otherwise something civilization and society would be better off without? Sure, the businessmen will find a way to turn anything honest into a way to make more money. Just as the moral and pious will find a way to turn anything negative into something to be grateful for. Two different people, same ideologies.

Why do people listen to or make music? Why do we read books and watch shows or plays? Why don't we just wake up every morning, go to work, then return home and sit there in silence until bed and repeat the process until one can no longer walk? Why are you so concerned with what other people do? Is someone holding you at gunpoint until you go on a fox hunt or celebrate Christmas with them? No? Then don't worry about what other people do. You'll be happier and live longer.

I suppose an answer could be, it's human nature to have not only traditional (first-person or actual) nostalgia from things one literally experienced before, but also "second-hand" or "generational" nostalgia (knowledge of what one's parents and grandparents or "people" used to do one, two, maybe many more generations ago and as a result develop a deep and insatiable curiosity towards what those just like us used to do [sometimes not that very] long ago).

Sure, some traditions were better off falling out of favor and popularity. Those that don't, and that don't seem to harm anyone who doesn't willfully participate, shouldn't be any of your concern. You're not your brother's keeper. Certainly not in the context of random people you've never met or who otherwise have the courtesy not to subject your life and habits to the scrutiny of a proverbial microscope.

Also, vote for this as a Lounge topic. (Unless OP beefs it up substantially)

Marx was a lowlife who made his wife and children suffer in destitute poverty to fund his smoking, alcohol and drug habits. He did this off other people's money, of which he received copious amounts. — Tzeentch

You'd believe anything you read, now wouldn't you? Caricatures come in all forms.

The only interesting question about this man and his "philosophy" is what lapse of sanity had people taking him or it seriously. — Tzeentch

The man is dead and after 100 years even his most bitter critics speak of him. Tell me. Will your closest friends even speak of you, given that time?

The man may have been mistaken. Terribly so. But what drives an otherwise intelligent mind to seek the low route of ad hominism? Could it be, perhaps, you're afraid of a dead man and his ideas? No shame. It is Halloween, after all. :smile:

There are plenty of online tools out there that already do that. Some are more reliable than others. Tip: Avoid sponsored results that give false positives to sell you something. — Baden

I think the elephant in the room, or perhaps the question he was not able to form, would be:

Aren't people raised by their parents? The apple doesn't fall far from the tree? Don't men consciously and subconsciously become influenced by the "father" figures in their lives, be they in the flesh, or perhaps in movies, music, books, and media in general? Don't we try to learn lessons (not to say be like, as to the grounds of cosplay or impersonation) but otherwise wish to be influenced by great philosophers and other folk we respect? We do.

So what happens when people use AI more than they speak to other humans so end up speaking in the same pattern with the same frequency of usages as the AI they use does? I do tend to purposely try to speak "extra clearly, professionally, concisely, and intelligently" online, a significant more than I would talking to anyone else in person, friend or stranger. Almost, non-genuinely and "perfectly" (out of consideration and respect for the sake of readability and of course interest to the person I'm replying to). Surely you can see how there is a concern for mistakes to be made? To err is human. And to use a tool made by humans, well, that just complicates things even further, does it not? :smile:

Surprisingly, it's part of a public government-funded university. Which makes it worse. — Baden

In the dark, a lit tea light is better than nothing I suppose. :grin:

Regarding the new policy, sometimes when I’ve written something that comes out clunky I run it through an AI for “clarity and flow” and it subtly rearranges what I’ve written. Is that a non-no now? — praxis

+1 for an excellent question. Naturally, @Jamal would have the final say.

(though I would presume the answer to be no, I'd be fairly confident in stating the policy and rules will likely be selectively applied to members based on their standing and tenure here. I'd eat my hat [though perhaps I'd have to buy one first] if you were penalized for such, considering the noteworthiness of your contributions here, versus say, someone who signed up a week or a month ago and seems to be keyboard-happy)

Additionally, assuming you're honest at chess, you're clearly no simpleton. Why would a skilled biker not scoff at the idea of using training wheels for his daily commute? It just doesn't seem necessary. Look at the mod Timothy's posts. They're very long. Perfectly coherent, not a single waste of space despite the volume. But if one really wanted to critique, sure, perhaps the same idea or message can be said with a bit less wording. But that would be a butchery of his expression and who he is as a person and what he allows us to privilege to glean from his mind, and yes perhaps very soul. It would be something that was once an honor turned into a mockery of humanity itself. A simpleton might look at his posts and call such "clunky", but certainly not you.

Look at every great classic novel. If you really wanted to, you could turn every chapter or the entire book into a sentence or a paragraph without removing a bit of the "essence" or "point" the author intended or that the general readership considers as important. What kind of nightmare world would that be? Why not just look at a traffic light all day and get amazed by the simplistic changes of color. Or why not watch paint dry? Because that's what it all boils down to when you remove your, what you believe to be "clunky-ness", what you think might be excess or something you'd otherwise wish to be perfected. We're human. We're alive. We make mistakes. We make imperfections. We ARE imperfect. And that's why we're unique and can never be replaced by autonomy. If I found out all AI "died" or became inert or was otherwise outlawed tomorrow, I'd laugh. If I found out something happened to you, I'd cry. And that's the truth. Because what you may consider something people don't want to read (and sure, most people are rather dull and probably wouldn't), people who actually have their head on right, would enjoy nothing more.

You don't need AI. Not one bit. Again, you have tenure. So I wouldn't worry. Though, it couldn't hurt to set the example and just do what everyone has to, at least right away while the new rule is literally hot off the presses. :smile:

Much of what all of us do is "parrot." Not many people can come up with an original idea to save their life. — Sam26

Because it's all been said and done before. The average person in the past 50 years comes from a multi-sibling household with TV or Internet or otherwise endless forms of entertainment that people a mere few centuries ago never had. Nobody has to think anymore. Not really. Other than the basic desires and how they relate to one's safety, gain, and resulting comfort in life.

Philosophy:
"There is no such thing as a new idea. It is impossible. We simply take a lot of old ideas and put them into a sort of mental kaleidoscope."
- Mark Twain

Religion:
"There is nothing new under the Sun."
- Ecclesiastes

I mean, what yours is suggesting is akin to creating a bonfire underwater. Even if you did, what good or purpose could ever come from it? :chin:

How do they police that? — frank

Sounds like a modern for-profit college. Daddy's money buys anything these days. At the cost of the future of society. But oh well, when Country XYZ who actually punishes fraud and rewards honest intellectualism invents the Super Nuke(TM), everyone I know or care about will be dead by then. So, why worry? Logic 101. Good luck, great grandchildren.

Do you guys ever experience hypobaric hypoxia from being so high above everyone else? — Athena

If popular aphorisms are to be trusted, it's quite lonely at the top. But at least they're nice. That or desperate to trap another unwitting soul so as to alleviate their loneliness and deprive another from that nearly forgotten feeling of what is was once upon a time when one knew so little, yet could dream of so much. :cry:

In the end it's all about power. — praxis

It's about how the mind can best determine an increase of what is vital for the body to prolong its existence. So, perhaps. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), we become blinded by that which we do not understand, and so inevitably make choices that seem wise or conducive to this psychotic goal, yet eventually... make a fatal misstep. And so, the pendulum of power is, perhaps doomed, perhaps favored, to swing back and forth, forevermore. Some ranges of motion simply take longer than others. To no credit of those who become unwitting pawns of fate that a lost world has no choice but to imagine they have any control or influence over. Which they ultimately do not. No mortal does.

This is clearly a bad analogy. Scientific truths are a different category of knowledge than moral truths or values. — praxis

But do they not claim the lion's share of one's cultural or social "zeitgeist" depending on their popularity? Especially in times when perhaps, unlike today, the lines or understandings of "truth" and "morals" and "virtues" were less clearly drawn, if even visible? :chin:

Basically, there was a time when the two were one and the same. Naturally they became distinct for a reason, but can we really sit here in all honesty and pretend like the then-system didn't lay the foundation for what is the now-system and perhaps is only just another stepping stone toward a greater system? Why, who could say! Those before surely doubted, perhaps they were the most popular, and yet, here we are. So fancy that, eh?

The idea that humans are born into sin in need of salvation could not be more foreign to this concept, but instead it speaks of a divine soul, nothing wretched about it. — Hanover

To be alive is to want things, things beyond what one needs. Can you truly say you've never felt a temptation to have something, that if the actions required for that something to become yours or otherwise like yours, wouldn't hurt another person, possibly severely to the point of the worst state of mind one could imagine? We often don't think about the true, eternal, rather the chain-of-effect of a simple action like stealing a loaf of bread from a shopkeep or sleeping with someone's wife, for how could our limited mortal minds truly process such a large dynamic in a passing moment? It can't!

While some might argue this ignorance or inability is not "wretched" in nature, it surely can lead to wretched things all while simply going about one's day and not thinking any more deeply than about what is in front of one's self. You can understand that. Your whole career involves such types of thinking.

All men are capable of great good and great evil. That much should be common sense. Theology be damned (not really just as a figure of speech for those who'd only listen to those who speak their 'language').

It'll be interesting to see what others have to say. — Banno

I mean, training wheels are nice. And I'm no great scholar. A good majority of these threads and levels of discussion are a fair level over my head (but perhaps I now know why...) but aside from that, if you can't ever graduate from training wheels to riding a bike on your own, maybe, I dunno, bike riding just isn't your thing, y'know?

You can only force a thing that's not meant to be so much before it becomes a burden to not only yourself but those around you. Sure, everyone wants to be smart. Not to be "tricked" or a "sucker" or a "Fool" (or rather, they want to learn how to fool others and get ahead, gaining personal material or other benefit from knowledge, pretty much the motive of 99% of people, including myself, at one point) and everything else but, there's a natural order to things and some things can't be rushed. We can fool others, but we can never fool ourselves. Not for very long. Before one inevitably wake's up one somber morning realizing one has been living a lie and is nothing close to the person they've spent countless hours and energy convincing an ultimately uncaring world they were (or perhaps were not?).

In short, I doubt anyone with anything worth saying actually needs to use AI. Period. Full stop. Beyond that, that it would actually make anything better (other than shorter and quicker per brevity) for the reader. Save for the non-English speaker who is learning English and wishes to participate prematurely. I'm pretty sure that was the heart and spirit of the "anti-AI" rule as it was posted when it was posted. Perhaps I'm wrong. But I doubt it. Unless some backtracking or "change of heart" has occurred between the staff here. And that's fine. I'm happy to be here. I'll sing whatever tune is favored, I suppose. People do like consistency, though. All society and human struggle was fought and formed with such in mind, lest we forget. :smile:

They'll both think it good until they learn that it's not. — praxis

Ah, what a joy. FINALLY someone sunk that Titanic of a mind (or perhaps ego) of yours like a direct, apocalyptic final hit in Battleship. Of course it would be the noble Count. I knew it would happen. I've waited 5 years and played two long agonizing games of chess resulting in defeat after defeat for this moment. Victory is indeed sweet. Even if all glory doth indeed belong to another.

No, I'm sure monkeys dislike being eaten.

Monkey consumption is still good or bad relative to the perspective—whether one is the eater or the eaten. — praxis

So, you admit, with hands wringing, and one's once noble tail tucked shamefully between one's once-triumphant legs, that, if we lived in a world where monkeys were the larger, more dangerous prey, tigers being eaten would be mere "relevance to the individual" and acceptable, par for the course, if you would. Therefore, the nature of all your truth, all your validity, is hinged on not fact, not logic, not what's right or wrong. but pure and simple juvenile circumstance. Happenstance. A mere toss of the cosmic die.

And here I thought I was defeated by a greater person. No, just greater odds, it would seem and now remains self-evident. :grin:

I can judge the nature of a nitrogen electron from Andromeda from the nature of an electron of oxygen here on Earth. The foundational nature is universally uniform. — Copernicus

But you don't know that. You don't know any of that. Sure, it's a reasonable guess. You might even base a theory on that and it be proven correct. But you haven't done any of that, nor do you have the capability to. It might even be considered JTB (justified true belief), though I'm not sure as I don't read or rather immerse my virgin mind in established philosophy. But that's still just a guess. A reasonable one. A rational one, sure. But a guess all the same.

In contrast to the FALSE reality? :roll: — 180 Proof

To be fair, I don't think one can ever refer to any person (even ignoring the first 18 years of life, or whatever your society or legal government considers a "legal adult") who's never been mistaken. One might even go further and remind one that many people live and die believing falsehoods of a wide variety. Perhaps an adopted child, perhaps a man or woman who believed their disloyal spouse was in fact the opposite, or perhaps a soon to be disproved yet otherwise brilliant mind such as Newton who thought light was made of simple particles.

As you can see there are in fact "true" and "false" "realities", or at the very least more true and less true, many of which the majority of men and women will go through life happily without ever discovering.

I take his statement as suggesting there is something fundamentally incorrect about the topic at hand, or perhaps, to be charitable, at the very least, there is more to know, perhaps much more to know to the effect it has fundamental and everlasting difference. Phrased in that way and fashion, perhaps the young lad is not quite so unreasonable. :smile:

All serving the self. I can't see where not. — Copernicus

Just to update you, the OP, or father of the discussion as to where the rest of us have reached or what the metaphorical child has grown into:

Most actions are self-serving either by intent or biological inclination that offers benefit or potential of benefit.

However not all actions, including misspeaking, unconscious reflexes or habits, have intent, which is required to constitute "selfishness."

The title of the OP is false. You have admitted multiple times that not all actions are selfish or self-serving (Which you did change from selfish to self-serving after being given comeuppance, mind you).

Or is he just amusing the kids by making funny shadows on the wall behind him? — Banno

This is a good example because, he might not care about the kids, personally, or kids in general, and just does it because it's "what society would want." Perhaps he couldn't care less about whether that society lives or dies or otherwise ceases to exist. You might argue, okay, sure, then he just did so to pass the time and make that moment a bit more interesting for his enjoyment. But you don't know that. You're one man with one brain, and you still fail to realize there's 8.2 billion people with 8.2 billion brains whose might work just a tad differently than yours. How is this so hard to understand?