The current feds are too timid, IMO. — jgill

How so?

And I think I have my answer; you got nothing. — unenlightened

Wow. You're getting hard core on this. As always, if you want to know the uptodateslang, you can go to a slang dictionary .

short for "involuntary celibate". often built like a discord mod, probably uses reddit, gets no bitches, says the hard r while being whiter than Wonder Bread, smells like Axe body spray and/or B.O., plays COD, and makes overused "i identify as an attack helicopter" jokes. has never felt the touch of another woman except that of his mother when she handed him snackies as a child. — Urban Dictionary

Built like a discord mod. :lol:

I give a damn, though, that you are peddling blatant untruths on the forum, and thereby derailing and undermining a proper discussion. — unenlightened

Holy shit, man. Why not just totally flip out about something that really doesn't matter?

There's beauty all around us. We take it for granted.

a derogatory term for a guy who can't get laid. — frank

I'm not sure what you're asking. The term started out as a derogatory term. Eventually it became an online phenomenon where males adopted the label with a sense of victimization.

Like any internet fixture, its population is varied. In general, as I said, the theme is that their problems are rooted in women's rights, which creates strong, independent women who can pick and choose who they have sex with.

It's mostly a ridiculous spray of useless bytes. Could someone commit rape or murder and point to incel culture as his motive? Sure. Make of that whatever you like. My give a damn is busted.

Can you provide anything to suggest that you have not just invented this? Wiki has only the second meaning : — unenlightened

I guess I could look for a citation. Didn't realize there was any question about it though.

Inflation is still around 5% in the US, and 10% in the UK. Options remain limited about addressing hyper liquidity.

In the 70s there were three waves of high inflation, so we may still be in a trough waiting for the next wave.

Don't know why prostitution is dishonorable.

If anything, prostitution is selling ones innate qualities (sexual attractiveness/beauty) and personal skills (sex) for monetary gain.

What is the difference between this and being a model (which also sell inherent beauty/sexual attractiveness). Or those that sell innate skills other than sex: strength - wrestlers, athletes etc. Or intellect - academics, professors, scientists etc.

"mind for sale"- the purview if the intellectual, and "body for sale"- the purview of the sex worker or model. Or "skills for sale" - the purview of everyone else, ought not be seen as more or less honorable than one another.

We all sell our strengths and abilities. For some that is sex. — Benj96

I agree. Why do you think the availability of prostitution does not meet the needs of incels?

Apparently what involuntary celibates struggle with is not so much lack of sex, but lack of companionship and perhaps more importantly, lack of recognition by the other sex. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

There are two meanings of "incel.". One is a derogatory term for a guy who can't get laid. The other is a self-applied term for guys who think there's something wrong with our society that would be corrected by reducing the autonomy of women.

I think the term for guys who are lonely and want female companionship, but have trouble engineering that, is just: lonely? Socially inept? I don't know.

But even though prostitution and unlimited amount of online porn is available today, it does not help the modern day "incels" in their feeling of inferiority. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

We don't have temple prostitutes. Prostitution is dishonorable in our world (for the most part). This makes that path problematic for some.

Marriage is a ruse laid by the tribal leaders to make every man in the group feel more equal and more valuable. The leaders give up their rights to exclusive access to all females and parentship of all children in the group, in exchange for having a stronger group. There might have been a critical size of the tribe that has necessitated this social development. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

Maybe, but whatever the basis might be for the institution of marriage, it has served as a source of stability for quite a while.

So tribal societies that had the institution of marriage must have been more competitive than the ones that didn't, hence virtually all primitive societies have it. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

I think marriage is more about identifying patriarchal lineage. The temple prostitutes have a civilizing effect on the population, according to the epic of Gilgamesh. Sex calms people down.

You two appear to be in an echo chamber wrestling with your own biases. Start with considering the possibility that there are significant concerns driving all aspects of reactionary conservatism.

:smile: :up:

Incel culture is associated with Jordan Peterson's views about reinvigorating patriarchal perspectives, supposedly for the mental health of both men and women. It's reactionary.

On the other hand, it probably is a symptom of the stress of the social change that's taken place over the last 100 years.

Notes from the SEP article on Descartes' proof of God.

Despite similarities, Descartes’ version of the argument differs from Anselm’s in important ways. The latter’s version is thought to proceed from the meaning of the word “God,” by definition, God is a being a greater than which cannot be conceived. Descartes’ argument, in contrast, is grounded in two central tenets of his philosophy — the theory of innate ideas and the doctrine of clear and distinct perception. He purports to rely not on an arbitrary definition of God but rather on an innate idea whose content is “given.” Descartes’ version is also extremely simple. God’s existence is inferred directly from the fact that necessary existence is contained in the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being. Indeed, on some occasions he suggests that the so-called ontological “argument” is not a formal proof at all but a self-evident axiom grasped intuitively by a mind free of philosophical prejudice — SEP

Is this a misunderstanding between "common" and "consensus"? — Moliere

Has there ever been any kind of consensus among any sort of philosophers for the last 2400 years. :razz:

Common for whom?

I don't know the domain you mean. — Moliere

Analytical philosophers

Can you explain to me how ontological antirealism differs from what you think I am talking about. I'm not seeing it. — Banno

Glance over the essay.

Sure, there are various positions. The issue here is that Sartwell would have us think that antirealism is a consensus in analytic philosophy. It isn't; quite the opposite. — Banno

Ontological anti-realism is common. The kind of anti-realism you're talking about probably isn't.

Can you offer any support for this? — Banno

Skepticism about metaphysics has been popular since Wittgenstein.

Ontological anti-realism

The author explains the spectrum of anti-realist positions.

Ontological anti-realism is basically skepticism about any sort of resolution to metaphysical questions. It's pretty common.

Or maybe Trump as candidate and DeSantis as vice president.

I'm so proud.

Will relations between Europe/US and Russia ever be normalized while Putin is in control?

Yet, this advantage can be a struggle too when you are learning another language with different sounds and pronunciations. This is when the difficulty starts. For example: In Spanish we pronounce the double "rr" in perro (dog) using a hard accent in the consonant, like if we say arrrrrrrrrre you ok this morning?
When you are used to specific sounds, it can be a struggle when you switch to another language, but the main paradox of this topic is the fact that we usually learn these "rules" unconsciously! — javi2541997

When I was studying Spanish, the r's weren't hard for me. I'm a native English speaker, but I have a natural tendency to roll r's. So when I was a child, I had trouble saying words like three the way American speakers do because I rolled the r. People treated it like a speech impediment.

What was challenging for me about Spanish was that when I went to learn it, all the French I ever learned decided to come out in place of Spanish. I didn't even realize I remembered any French, but there it was. :grin:

onclusion after these premises and examples: The people can, and always have, spoken fluent English, and produced correct pluralizations, without knowing any of these things. Then, are these "rules" part of no conscious knowledge? — javi2541997

Some people learn to speak around 10 months old. I think they learn by mimicking sounds and connecting the vocal sequences to emotions (maybe more than analyzing any of it intellectually?)

I think that's why people who don't speak the same language can sort of communicate anyway. The emotional level is still there.

In the long run you are correct. But first the Earth needs a serious cleansing. I welcome it. — Varnaj42

Good. Ditch the vague appreciation of Hitler though. That's bullshit.

Don't worry. Everything is going to be ok.

If you're 80 years old, don't you see the same stories played out over and over? Can't you tell where the train will end up by just looking at where the tracks are laid down?

Carbon dioxide is recycled -- recaptured -- by biological processes, IF -- BIG IF -- the carrying capacity of the planet is not exceeded. Maybe the planet can recycle 100 bmt of carbon in a century without a climate consequence. 100 bmt per decade is 10 times as high, and might exceed the planet's carrying capacity, resulting in global warming. — BC

The oceans scrub about 3 bmt's per year, so I guess you're right. :nerd:

Population is absolutely a problem. While birth rates are falling, the population is still growing -- it reached 8 billion about a year ago. — BC

Population is contracting in all the core nations. The next generation will be the first to experience the problems associated with this. Japan will be first I think.

We all were using a lot less energy in 1890, — BC

I don't think the rate of emission matters much. Produce the emission size from the 1890s over a period of 500 years and you've got a climate crisis.

It's about energy usage, how much people travelled and consumed. 1970 would be fine. Some dude in the Netherlands did the calculations at some point. — Benkei

That doesn't make much sense to me. I don't see how it would matter whether we emit 100 billion metric tons per decade or per century. Can you explain?

Is there no way we can cut CO2 emissions quickly? Sure there is: We can all adopt a lifestyle based on 1890s technology
— BC

Actually. 1960—1970ish would be fine. For the whole world. — Benkei

The 1890s required a lot of coal. Remember London was in a giant coal smoke fog back then?

The 70s was post combustion engine, so that won't work.

We need the technology of 2065: fusion.

I keep tripping over the second paragraph of the third meditation:

That lists everything that I truly know, or at least everything I have, up to now, discovered that I know. Now I will look more carefully to see whether I have overlooked other facts about myself. I am certain that I am a thinking thing. Doesn’t that tell me what it takes for me to be certain about anything? In this first item of knowledge there is simply a clear and distinct perception of what I am asserting; this wouldn’t be enough to make me certain of its truth if it could ever turn out that something that I perceived so clearly and distinctly was false. So I now seem to be able to lay it down as a general rule that whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true. — Descartes, Third Meditation

So he lays out the foundation he's discovered:

F: I exist and I am a thinking thing.

Next he says that F wouldn't be convincing if it wasn't necessary that what he perceives clearly and distinctly is true.

So now he establishes the rule that whatever he perceives clearly and distinctly is true.

I'm having trouble following that logic. Unless what he means by "perceives clearly and distinctly" is mental events of all kinds.

In other words, he means that if he doubts x, it is certain that he doubts x. If he tastes y, it's certain that he tastes y. That sort of thing?

One thing that's hard for the leftist in me to swallow is that one of the parties contributing to a real solution is a megastar of capitalism: Bill Gates.
See here.

He has the same autonomy to act that the Chinese government does. Both of them are actually addressing the problem while western governments do nothing but posture (or close to nothing.)

Of course when Bangladesh is 90% under water, they may overtake us. — unenlightened

I think Bangladesh will be gone soon. Similarly, the east coast of North America is going under. We wait till the hurricanes destroy the coast before we finally give up, though.

:up:

I aim to cause alarm, rather than playing 'abide with me' while the ship sinks. — unenlightened

I appreciate and honor that. I'm not alarmed. I'm just kind of heartbroken. I think the most actionable path would be fusion r+d. As the article @jgill posted said, a fair amount of the presently adopted "to do" list is pointless gesturing.

Not to worry — some guy on the internet says everything will be fine!” — Mikie

I didn't say everything will be fine. I compared the coming event to the end of the Bronze Age. The only social collapse that compares to that is the fall of Rome.

There’s still the hothouse earth scenario, — Mikie

That's not a thing.

Listen to experts who study extinctions:

If I'm to say, what do I think is the biggest contributor to the potential for human extinction going towards the future? Then climate change, no doubt.
— Luke Kemp — Mikie

Context?

There’s very good reason to believe this could cause human extinction, — Mikie

No.

I'm into the Third Meditation. I'm reading and rereading it to get the whole thing to hang together.

Should we go through it a step at a time? Or just present ideas about what the whole thing means? What do you think it means?