I like things "goofy or hard to explain" — TheMadFool

As we say here in Massachusetts, "So don't I," which, for some reason means the same as "So do I."

It retrospect at the intended meaning of your statement perhaps I misinterpreted what you had written, as I had interpreted the 'you're really young' as an added phrase and not as a premise, and I am going to go back and re-discover my new position on your comment. — Bradaction

To be fair, I should have said it differently.

I'll put in another plug for this "60 Minutes" story about how moral judgement develops in very young children. It has a lot to say about your question. Thirteen minutes long. I've watched it three or four times and it amazes me every time. There are some ads.

https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/msGw1iFHLOXlVdeZtfO9KBW9Kffq3VUl/born-good-babies-help-unlock-the-origins-of-morality/

This leads me to make a troubling discovery, and that discovery is the overuse of ideals such as, ‘You’re too young to understand,’ or ‘You’re too young to hold an opinion on this matter’. This logic is fundamentally flawed, it is no worse than saying that someone is wrong because of their race, marital status, sex etc. — Bradaction

As one of the people who made this kind of statement to you, I'll respond. To be clear, I gave specific reasons for my disagreements with you about gender orientation which did not include any reference to anything personal about you. It's true, I did make this statement:

You're really young. Perhaps if you had a better understanding of what gay people have had to go through to get where they are today, it would give you a better perspective.

I'll stand behind this statement. The things you wrote in that discussion showed a lack of perspective. A lack of understanding of the history of the civil rights movement and a lack of understanding of the incredible changes that have taken place in the last 10 years. I'm certainly not an expert, but I did live through it. You seem to take all that for granted, which shows a lack of perspective, which I think is a result of your age.

82 - Hanover 73 and closing in fast. Is that my footsteps you hear? — Hanover

Another point. I think we should start over at zero so the old guys don't feel all superior.

You know TMF, not everything that seems goofy or hard to explain is a paradox.

I don't think society is collapsing, but I think we're entering a very dangerous time. Humanity more and more has learned to modify the very ground of our existence. It started with nuclear weapons. Soon we will have the ability to genetically modify and create life at will. Nanotechnologies will allow us to control and modify living things at the cellular level. Travel and commerce between different parts of the world will lead to more pandemics. Artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and related technologies the potential to cause significant disruption of civilization. There are people who believe that artificial intelligence will take over the world within the next 50 years.

I don't know what will happen. I won't be here, but I worry for my children.

My question: Will/Should the descendants of slaves (basically all of us) use robots? — TheMadFool

For someone with gender dysphoria the mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity is a cause of distress for them, which coupled with the discrimination they often face makes for the way others think and talk about their gender a matter of significance for them. — Michael

I mean this as a serious question. Would a genderqueer person be diagnosed with gender dysphoria? It seems to me they wouldn't.

Maybe, run by the old folks home afterward and slap pudding out of the hands of the elderly. — Cheshire

Upvote for the image.

I voted to get rid of it, but it's not a big issue with me. However you decide will be fine.

As others have said, the emergency of this situation is limited enough that we can take our time, accept as much as we're comfortable with, and slow down with the condemnation. — Hanover

This is a really good point.

I'd give you an upvote, but you're at 69 and I'm unwilling to change that.

Gender Orientation and Sexual Orientation are different topics, — Bradaction

Whatever positive changes have taken place in the status of transgender and genderqueer people in recent years are completely and absolutely tied to the improvements in status that gay people have fought for for decades. For you not to know that proves my point.

In this forum, all I had to do to get my name changed was to petition the mods. It was an extemporaneous act of mine that so persuaded them...but it was in my better interest. — Leghorn

Yes, well, it is probably appropriate that the forum has less stringent standards than society at large.

For my former user name was also my real one (which might have led to eventual difficulties...like if I decided to run for President), — Leghorn

As far as I know, Hanover is still looking for a running mate.

I have become at least half of a famous cartoon chicken. — Leghorn

As you probably know, a leghorn is a type of full-sized real chicken.

A political statement is a term used to describe any act or non-verbal form of communication that is intended to influence a decision made for or by a political group. — Bradaction

This is an inaccurate definition of what "political" means.

Furthermore, identifying as genderqueer, has a much larger impact on society, and is thus a social distinction. For example, identifying as genderqueer actively challenges that social understanding of gender, which is a social construct. It also challenges Religious beliefs, which in the modern day, is mostly social, and not political. Atheists may even argue that religion too, is a social construct. On top of that gender non-conformity actively challenges family values and other values that are mainly political. — Bradaction

The things you describe are definitely political in nature. If you are planning action to change society, that's politics. It's not just you making a change for your own personal satisfaction. As you note, you're trying to change people's attitudes and beliefs. That is politics, pure and simple. There's nothing wrong with politics, but that's not what's at stake. You have not made a moral argument that society is obligated to make the changes you desire.

It's a slight irony that the future for humanity has little say is the systems that run it, people can only vote when they turn 18, meaning that there could be up to a 4 year electoral gap in issues not deemed worthy by people who are older. Age does not equal wisdom, and it would be fair to suggests that issues that the younger cohorts of people find troubling should be an issue for the older in society to find troubling, as the goal of society should be to improve it's future, not its present. Improving the future does require improving the present, but improving the present does not require improving the future. — Bradaction

Adults make decisions for minors all the time. That's the way it's supposed to be. The underlying assumption is that parents are the best people to make those decisions until a minor is old enough to make them for themselves. At exactly what age majority begins is open to discussion. Eighteen years old makes sense to me, at least for society as it is now. That's the age at which people go out on their own to work or college. People before a certain age are not mature or cognitively developed enough to control their own lives. Fourteen is definitely too young.

My own view is that we should be able to choose our own identity, and, of course, we live in a social world of bodies, but we may justify our identity rather than simply being told who we are, and who we may become. — Jack Cummins

I think this is a naive view. There are certainly aspects of our identity we can't choose. We can't choose to be an adult or a minor. We can't characterize ourselves as someone who needs particular qualifications unless we have them. You can't change your identity if it is done for fraudulent reasons or to deceive someone. If you want to legally change your name, at least in my state, you have to petition the court. As long as women are treated differently than men are legally or socially, society has a legitimate interest in a person's sexual identity.

For example, it is reasonable for parents to object to their girl child having to use a bathroom also used by biological males.

What is most concerning about this, is that it seems to be a systematic denial and refusal to accept Gender non-conforming people into society. — Bradaction

Gay people have come to be accepted in society by most of us. That's a very good thing. Although I have a lot of sympathy for some people who suffer from gender dysphoria and similar conditions, society as a whole has not come to accept those conditions. If an adult biological man identifies as a women in a committed fashion, I'm willing to refer to her as a female using female pronouns.

It is my understanding that people who refer to themselves as "genderqueer" don't consider themselves either males or females. Is that correct? Many, including myself, don't consider that a legitimate social distinction. It seems much more like a political statement than a social one. Perhaps over time it will come to be accepted. You're really young. Perhaps if you had a better understanding of what gay people have had to go through to get where they are today, it would give you a better perspective.

World greatly stunned, begins to widely read
‘The End of Faith’, ‘The God Delusion’,
And ‘god is Not Great’. — PoeticUniverse

Of all your fantasies, this is the wildest. Have you read these books? Their arguments are no better than yours. They're badly written, intellectually dishonest, and smug.

I think I can expand upon it to defend my point. In order for a structure to function, it needs to rest on solid ground (unless it's something like a satellite). Solid ground works as an analogy for foundational knowledge. — Noisy Calf

There's not a lot of defending required. I think you and I are pretty close. I guess I see it more in line with your idea about a structure floating in space. It's an important feature of my metaphor that knowledge supports itself by it's bootstraps. It provides it's own foundation. As I see it, whatever foundational knowledge we have we got the same way we got all the rest, unless we're talking about physical, biological "knowledge" built into our bodies and genetics. No, I'm not talking about some sort of cosmic consciousness.

learn the MBTI — MikeListeral

Before I became an engineer, I was a psychology major. I don't think the Myers-Briggs is very useful. It takes what is basically an engineering approach to personal differences. It takes an "objective" measurement and then gives the person a classification. That's just the kind of simplification I was talking about as a limitation for engineering and a potential source of problems.

You are also missing that I usually like taking everyday assumptions and question them. You call it "unserious", but I call it not taking any given as taken for granted as "just what is the case". — schopenhauer1

As I said, you and I have both made these types of argument before without success. Not much chance of it working here.

I am not sure the goal of the theological arguments is to, on its own, demonstrate the existence of God, say. — Bylaw

I think you're right.

Not all believers try to prove God. Some scorn those who do. But there are many believers who want to help convince as many others that their belief is true. Proselytizing has a long tradition in some religions. These guys need arguments, without them being an apologist would not be possible. — Tom Storm

To be fair, in the Catholic Church at least, intellectual arguments for the existence of God have been pursued formally for at least 800 years. Hindus have been doing it much longer. For them, I think it was about their search for truth. I find the intellectual approach unconvincing, but then, I am not a theist. I don't think many Christians take an intellectual approach to their understanding of God.

As I said in my response to their post, above, I thought @Bylaw's response on the first page was the most convincing.

Why is it okay to believe in the theory of a higher-dimensional being but not God? Aren’t we describing the the same concept? — SteveMinjares

No serious scientist has suggested the existence of "higher-dimensional beings," as a serious proposal.

So about that, a theme I've been toying with for a little bit is the idea that humans have the extra burden having to justify (or make excuses) for why X, Y, Z is happening on top of just "doing" the task at hand. We don't just X, we have reasons for X (not just causes). — schopenhauer1

Again, it's what humans do. Here's what you wrote in your OP.

Is it an opportunity or is it imposing one's values at the behest of negative stress on another person? Certainly, it would be hard for people to function otherwise. They must put in some effort to do a task that institutions approve through profit/salary/subsidy. But why is the presumption, "And this is good" a true one? — schopenhauer1

My post was in response to this. You make something easy look hard for your particular rhetorical purpose. You and I have gone over this before. I'm not going to change my mind, not are you. Your posts just seem intellectually... I was going to say "dishonest," but I believe you are sincere. Maybe the right word is "unserious." I wanted to respond to that without taking it any further.

I think work should be done. My society has enculturated me to believe this is just a fact of life. I have embodied the value. Thus, other people should do the same. But this is true? — schopenhauer1

I'm retired now. I don't have to work and I love it. I would have done it long ago except I needed to eat; I needed a place to live; I needed to be able to support my family; I needed clothes. I worked because I had to, as do all humans. As do all animals I guess. It's not unfair. It's just how it works.

But at the end is something else that can be done in engineering except simplification (despite its faults of course)? According to science so far aren't these models the best (or less bad at least as to put it that way) way as to build things?? Of course they need improvement but I guess engineering at the past was much worse than nowadays. I guess many more disastrous projects occurred at the past. But isn't that natural since human knowledge gets bigger? Maybe in future these oversimplified models might get much better also. — dimosthenis9

I love engineering and science. My whole family are engineers. I have an engineer's personality. I think like an engineer. I'm not putting it down, I'm just trying to be aware of it's limitations. The way to deal with engineering is to use it in it's appropriate role and not to use it when it's not appropriate. Which is where this whole discussion started.

So same with Logic, seems Engineering also has to deal with a real Chaotic environment and we demand the best possible solution from it. As we demand from Logic the best possible solution in chaotic human societies and chaotic existential problems that a person faces on his own also. Shouldn't we be a little soft both in engineering models and Logic also? Recognize the hardships they have to deal with. — dimosthenis9

I was never arguing against logic in the kind of role you are describing. I have only been saying it's not the only way and it's not the best way for me. There is not just one way and not just one good way.

I think this is the best response I've read anywhere from a believer responding to skepticism. It's clear, reasonable, and intellectually satisfying, at least to me.

socialism as it once worked in Russia — Albero

I not aware that socialism ever worked in Russia. What are you referring to?

The one thing I can think of that might make changes in a direction that you and I both might consider progress is severely limiting the power of corporations. That even strikes me as possible, if not likely.

We must remove billionaires and I'm talking about total wealth confiscation of course. Society would probably have to beat out their superiority complex as well; I mean think about it - billionaires have a God-like status under capitalism and I don't think anything else besides a beating is going to humble them. — K Turner

Billionaires are not the problem. Taking all their money won't solve anything. It just makes people feel good to resent them. Also - some of those billionaires got their billions by changing society dramatically - Gates, Jobs, Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg. Of course, you could say that the changes are bad I guess.

The real problem is corporations. When the Constitution was written, there were two powerful institutions that we needed to be protected from - the church and government. Now, there is a third, corporations, and there are no built-in legal protections.

Is it model's fault or humans that these parts of the reality aren't taken under consideration? Shouldn't humans consider all factors even if they aren't directly related to the focused goal? Don't know just asking. At your example with pipes is there something that could be done better from humans or cause of models that's inevitable? — dimosthenis9

Model's are necessarily simplified, so, yes, it's not their fault. It is inherent in the engineering, and I would say logical, process that this type of simplification takes place. Same is true for science. The only way we can get the precision of what is called "hard science" is to strip everything away except the simplest features - electrons, electromagnetic waves, chemical bonds. That's a limitation, but it's where the power of science comes from. As you get closer to human scale, the limitations can lead to unintended consequences.

I mean you just do your best as to make the best estimation you can, but not all factors can be predicted totally. If a huge nature change happens for example and the engineering project collapse can you blame the engineer for not predicting it? It's beyond his power. At least as I see it. On the other hand you can blame him if he didn't follow engineering rules fully and that led to a disastrous project. — dimosthenis9

This is a really interesting subject for me. As an engineer, I am responsible for following "good engineering practice." Good engineering practice generally includes just those simplified models we have been discussing. So, as I said, the simplification process is built into engineering at the most basic level.

As for unforeseen conditions, dealing with uncertainty is part of the engineering process. Normally, uncertainties come in from selection of physical properties, e.g. soil strength, wind loads, water levels, material bending properties, variation in the properties of materials used. Uncertainties also come in from the simplifications in the equations themselves. These types of uncertainties are often dealt with by using factors of safety (FSs). You figure out the safe load using equations, then divide by the FS.

Another way is to use stochastic, statistical, methods, e.g. you measure physical properties - wind speeds, flood levels, rainfall amounts - for years, run some statistics, and then calculate recurrence levels for design storms. There are published tables of storm recurrence for most locations. They tell you the wind and rainfall amounts you can expect to recur every, say, 25 years. Standard practice or regulation tells you which recurrence interval you have to use - another simplification that may have consequences.

Of course, a big problem with stochastic predictions these days is climate change. Flood levels, wind speeds, air temperatures, rainfall amounts, etc. are changing so that the old data we have to figure out engineering factors are more and more inaccurate. Yes, of course, statistical predictions should be updated. Problem - how do we figure it out if we can't trust historic data. There is also resistance from bureaucratic agencies reluctant to acknowledge climate change for political reasons.

libertarian socialism is an umbrella term for a lot of ideologies like anarchism, anarchist communism, communalism, council communism, etc. — Albero

Thanks for the well thought out reply.

Do you have any inkling that a political/cultural/social system based on those principles could work at any level in the world we have? I don't think it's possible. It's utopia, and utopia never works. Maybe it could work for a small group of hunter/gatherers. I took a quick look at the document you linked. The proposed society described seems like fantasy pie in the sky.

My father worked for a large, well-known, chemical industrial company for 45 years. For the last 25 of those years, he worked to develop programs for worker participation in decision making. I understand that this is not what you are proposing. What you are after is much more radical. There was fierce resistance to the programs my father tried to set up from management and I don't think he felt he had made any lasting difference.

As someone who used to support Sanders and is now much more of a Socialist libertarian, what do you think of this? — Albero

What is the difference between a social democrat and a socialist libertarian (SL)? What policies would a SL work for? Does socialist libertarianism call for revolution?

But I guess not all these oversimplified models are wrong. There must be engineering projects that are totally successful right? With no social, environmental, or whatever negative results. The way you describe it seems that engineering just can't be totally right on everything but isn't on the right track at least? — dimosthenis9

Yes, sometimes, often, engineering projects work out well. The models aren't wrong, they just leave out parts of reality not directly related to a specific focused goal. Often that's fine, but sometimes factors not taken into account cause problems. A typical situation - in designing drainage for a redevelopment site, you select pipe sizes to handle the greatest amount of water you estimate will be generated by precipitation within, for example, 25 years. This modelling provides protection against flooding onsite, but changes in the amount of water discharged or the timing of those discharges may cause flooding downstream.

All these failures you mention it's not engineering's science fault. It's human fault in the way they practice engineering. I can only imagine that engineering must have strict rules that should be followed. If people do not follow them it's their fault. — dimosthenis9

As I noted, it is the essence of engineering that it breaks the world down into smaller pieces then builds a simplified model and uses it to make design decisions. In civil engineering in particular, they then go out into the world and dig holes, build roads, dam up rivers, build levees, build sewers and so on and so on. The simplification is essential and it's what leads to damaging outcomes. Yes, there are definitive rules. Those rules require the use of the oversimplified models.

I would never guess that you were engineer with your statements. I was counting engineers on my side at that "fight" for Logic. Surprised really. — dimosthenis9

Who better than an engineer to recognize the limits of what rationalization can achieve and it's possible dangers.

That's Exactly the method I suggest in every matter that concerns someone's life. And I mean Everything! From practical every day life matters to life decisions, existential questions, society etc.! Really I couldn't put it better! — dimosthenis9

You left out the part where I said "That's why so many civil engineering projects are disastrous."

Not familiar with your field at all, but why is that a problem to Engineering? And why also a disadvantage for Logic? — dimosthenis9

As I said before:

And that's the problem, engineering, and logic, oversimplify the world. That's why so many civil engineering projects are disastrous. Roads, highways, sewers, canals, property development, airports, can be incredibly disruptive. Failure to take factors outside a narrow focus into account lead to unintended consequences, e.g. flooding, destruction of communities and economies, pollution of waterways, increases and disruptions of traffic, air pollution, etc., etc., etc. — T Clark

I aim the same but through Logic path. Not sure that I am walking right though. But I still maintain my faith in Logic. What is your "vehicle" if not Logic then? If it's not something personal that you don't want to share of course. — dimosthenis9

Logic is not the right path for me. As I described previously:

It is possible to become more aware of your internal life - thoughts, feelings, attitudes, urges - and where they come from. When you can do that - I'm going to get all metaphorical on you now - you can learn to ride those impulses, desires, and feelings like a surfer rides a wave. You don't control them any more than a surfer controls the ocean. Can I do this? No. Well, maybe sometimes. I'm working on it. — T Clark

Formal methods for becoming more self-aware include meditation, therapy, religion - studies that focus inward. Informally, it's just a matter of paying attention to what goes on inside you.

n what circumstances would it be rational to accept one's depression or anxiety?

Would you do so yourself? — Shawn

I think accepting depression and anxiety is a healthy path to take. That doesn't mean you don't try to make things better, but rather that you don't judge yourself harshly if you fail. On the other hand, accepting these afflictions is easier said than done. It also doesn't necessarily make living with them any easier.

Since we agree on that. How you find logic as an unnecessary progression then? — dimosthenis9

It's not necessary, but I didn't say it might not be valuable. It's just not the only way and, in my opinion, not the best way, at least for me.

Since logic is the best path for our minds to seek truth (at least for me, don't know if you think the same on that) both in our lives and in social matters, why you think that it's not a good guide for our actions as to moderate them? — dimosthenis9

I think you and I are hitting on an important factor here. We both wrote "at least for me." That's the point - different styles work differently for different people. I'm a civil engineer. I guess you'd say, and I'd probably agree with you, that engineering involves logical thinking. Civil engineering can solve a certain type of problem very well, as long as it can be expressed in rational terms. To express something in rational terms, you have to simplify it, break it down, analyze it. When you're done, you can build the world back up from those little pieces. And that's the problem, engineering, and logic, oversimplify the world. That's why so many civil engineering projects are disastrous. Roads, highways, sewers, canals, property development, airports, can be incredibly disruptive. Failure to take factors outside a narrow focus into account lead to unintended consequences, e.g. flooding, destruction of communities and economies, pollution of waterways, increases and disruptions of traffic, air pollution, etc., etc., etc.

How you moderate your actions then if not logical? — dimosthenis9

You wrote about psychological urges. It is possible to become more aware of your internal life - thoughts, feelings, attitudes, urges - and where they come from. When you can do that - I'm going to get all metaphorical on you now - you can learn to ride those impulses, desires, and feelings like a surfer rides a wave. You don't control them any more than a surfer controls the ocean. Can I do this? No. Well, maybe sometimes. I'm working on it.

And at the end all people use some form of logic in every day life (at work, as to solve problems, practical things in general etc) but they have massive difficulty when it comes to life matters or decisions or beliefs as to filter them. If logic works fine in practical issues why not in all life aspects then? — dimosthenis9

I think most people address most problems using their intuition rather than by any self-conscious process such as logic. It's true, as an engineer there were many times when I had to apply a formal decision making process. That's really what design is. In the end, that has to be somewhat logical because it has to be presented in such a way that other people can understand why you made the decisions you did. Many times that logical process was used to justify, certify, decisions that had been made intuitively.

You are right that there are many people who are very good at dealing with problems in their work with moderation and reason and, sometimes, logic, but who are unable to do that in their private lives.

How could you know that? — dimosthenis9

Not everyone here is unhappy, but there are a lot. You can know that by just reading what they write. People here are pretty open about their lives, worries, and problems.

Come on, so you say that we are totally unable to control our acts?? — dimosthenis9

Of course not. I only said that logic is not the mechanism by which most of our decisions are handled. As I noted, very little of our mental life is taken up by logical or conscious thinking.

It's about realize what is wrong and right mostly for you. I strongly doubt also that people without logic live such happy lives. — dimosthenis9

I didn't say people who use logic extensively are less happy than people who don't, only that I don't see people who spend a lot of time in self-reflection as happier than others. On the other hand, I think a case could be made that unnecessary self-reflection does make you unhappy. That's just based on an impression. I don't have any specific evidence.

If for example I have a psychological urge to revenge someone by thinking Logically and realize that it will just give me more troubles and nothing else and I won't gain anything at all, it will not only slow me from doing it but at the end I just won't do it. — dimosthenis9

This sounds like the process I described - the motivation comes from somewhere else. You call it a psychological urge, which makes sense. Then logic can come in to moderate, guide, or stop that impulse.

That Logic is our strongest weapon as to filter all these things that we have the urge to do and clarify if they truly are good for us. I don't say that Logic generates our acts. Not at all. But that Logic is the best filter for them and we always have to use it. — dimosthenis9

Again, you seem to be describing the same process I did. You do bring up a question I haven't addressed - is logic the best method to guide our actions? I say "no," or at least "not necessarily." If it works for you, good. It doesn't work for me and many other people.