I think I have said you need to ask questions instead of jumping to conclusions about me. You have no idea what I know nor how I feel. Whatever is going on in your head it is not knowledge of me. — Athena

Fair enough. Don't instruct me what I need to do, and we're even.

Interesting. I have no technical expertise in any area, nor do I have much interest in math or science. Does this 'force' me into the simplisticator corner? — Tom Storm

Not at all. You can still appreciate and explore the complexity of transportation systems, foods, relationships, laws and customs, economics, cinema - whatever interests you, if you have the time to pursue the research and the kind of inquisitive mind that would make the effort.

I don't understand this exchange. Is there something we disagree about? Could you tell me what it is? — Srap Tasmaner

Only this:
Science looking for the universal of trees.
It's not important. Just got up my nose for a minute.

It was picturesque. I only mean that science seeks generality, else it's stamp collecting. Do trees have a common structure? How do they differ from other plants? — Srap Tasmaner

Coulda sworn the taxonomy of trees had already been established.
There is still no universality of trees. They are all individuals - except that one silly hemlock.

Today I may think your ideas are wonderful. — Athena

It doesn't matter. Most of the suggestions and links I offered are not my own ideas anyway - they're out there in the webisphere for anyone to access.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/climate-change-denial-fossil-fuel-think-tank-sceptic-misinformation-1.5297236
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCKz8ykyI2E
https://bravenewclimate.com/about/
If you were interested in climate change mitigation
or alternate social organizations,
https://www.ic.org/directory/communes/
https://equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09640568.2020.1837088
you would have looked up some of them.
What you are interested in is not in there, because I simply don't believe your agenda is viable.

That's funny though, because you could align the theoretical and the practical the other way around, and it would make just as much sense. (Science looking for the universal of trees, practical concerns addressing this tree in all its particularity.) — Srap Tasmaner

The 'universal of trees' doesn't sound like science to me.
Certainly each tree has practical uses - but that would be commercial and exploitative. Concern for particular trees is more in the realm of ecology, arboriculture or spiritualism.

I think you made an overstatement about your negativity causing all the trouble in the world — Athena

Well, that's a relief! I never meant to start those world wars.

And I am very sorry but I do not remember your solutions. — Athena

You either disregarded or strongly disagreed with them at the time, so there wouldn't be much point.

And your local philosopher will complain if you mention that not every tree in a pine forest is a pine — Srap Tasmaner

Leddum! My local ecologist would chide me if I failed to. (Guess which I fear more!) For scientific purposes, we complicate by considering and investigating each tree individually. For practical purposes, we generalize according to form and function.

Missing the forest for the trees is a real thing, but a forest without trees is a castle in the air, if you don't mind mixed metaphors. — Srap Tasmaner

and so you observe : pine, maple, pine, pine, pine, pine, choke cherry, pine, pine, pine, pine, pine, maple, pine, pine, pine, pine, pine pine, pine, pine, spruce, pine, pine, viburnum, pine, pine, pine, pine, pine, willow, willow, pond, willow, poplar, pine, pine, pine, pine, pine, pine, pine, pine, spruce, pine, pine, pine, pine, pine..... Pine forest.

Interesting topic. I'll have to sleep on it...
No, I won't. I'm both.
First, on an unfamiliar topic, I want as much information as possible and since I do a good deal of background research for my stories, I'm fairly quick at selecting and assessing fresh sources. On familiar topics, I already have an extensive collection of relevant links to consult. On very familiar topics, i also have a headful of prior knowledge. Information complicates the examination of issues.

But the issues themselves usually come down to what people want and why. That may seem complicated, even mysterious, in terms of individual psychology or social organization or historical accuracy - but if you can trace the main driving force, it can be summarized quite simply.
So, I guess I complicate in order to simplify.

That's an interesting article. Actually, I'm one of those weird people who rinse out the recyled cans and put the lids, as well as any broken glass in a labelled 'sharps' container (coffee cans make a handy receptacle) like they do in hospitals, for the safety of anyone who may subsequently have to deal with them. But I admit, I care considerably more about an anonymous refugee falling off an overcrowded ship than I can about a billionnaire who got into a tin can to gawk at a mass grave 4000m under water. So, yes, I can see the monkey brain being selective.

What I'm not seeing there is the relevance to the etiology of popular music, which was the explanation I was asking for.

Many fundamentalist Christians live in rural communities and are satisfied that Fox news is giving them an adequate view of the world, outside what they experience daily. — wonderer1

Now I see what you meant - I guess, not the same people I meant when referring to bigotry. I suspect, not initially: they would have been no more interested in rock than in ballroom dancing. Now I have to further wonder who actually called rock & roll the devil's music. It must have been better informed, more worldly religious leaders and high profile televangelists who did the condemning - of course, I can only speculate why - while FUX commentators and local pastors dutifully echoed their judgment.
Ah, here we are:

https://daily.jstor.org/the-conservative-christian-war-on-rock-and-roll/Conservative religious leaders believed they were locked in a battle against music that “threatened the family, the church and the very integrity of the nation.”

The irony there is, they saw grass-roots music as a slippery slope to communism. As soon as it started to catch on behind the iron curtain, the 'communist' regime condemned it just as stridently, as western degeneracy.
And a shallow dive into musicology:

Rock and roll was coming into the forefront of American culture, and every well rounded, wholesome mom and dad hated that devil's music their kids were listening to.
Let's be realistic here, rock and roll was white people stealing the blues from black people. Arguably taking what they were doing and watering it down in the typical fashion of those of European descent https://www.adamdouglass.com/guitar-blog/rock-n-roll-is-the-devils-music

The reality though, is a lot more nuanced than what you suggest. — wonderer1

I'd like to have it explained.

I'd think it largely depends on the race of the believers. It's said, that the most segregated time in America is Sunday mornings. So for white believers the answer might be, "Nothing much." — wonderer1

I doubt that. There is a good deal of bigotry in America, and the thing most notable about bigots is that they're never indifferent - even to things that have no affect whatever on them. (I mean, they get their knickers in a twist over who might be sitting in the next toilet cubicle!!) If white fundamentalists are opposed on moral grounds to music that has strong visceral rhythm, they can't possibly fail to take umbrage at the songs that arose from the despair and fervent pious yearning of enslavement.

The conflict is basically one of moral highground against antagonistic naivety. — introbert

The rebellion of youth certainly figures in the antagonism. I'm not happy with the designation 'naivety' to sum up the chafing of youth under the constraints of an oppressive regime. At the same time, the recklessness and irresponsibility of youth is also present in the music. I do also think you have to considers the historical context - what was going on in the world, in the political arena, in families.

There's a very well-worn saying in America, 'why does the Devil have all the best tunes?' The answer is 1, because rock and roll has a beat - we know what that signifies, don't we :brow: - and 2 because it has ambiguous harmonic values, the 'blue notes' and chordal dissonances which 'proper' music would never consider (listen to Purple Haze!) — Wayfarer

What, then, do American fundamentalists make of Afro-American gospel music?
I suspect the biggest problem with some music for the American brand of mainstream Protestantism is its primitive appeal. Too reminiscent of uninhibited, unfrightened, unchastised pagans.

I don't know if I'd find it arousing to shower next to an attractive woman who I was not otherwise involved with. It would be very uncomfortable though. Like very. Especially if it was like a neighbor or something, or like the neighbor's 19 year old daughter. In fact, I feel like I need to go wash my hands after typing this. — Hanover

Prescribing therapy: https://www.tripstodiscover.com/top-nude-beaches-in-the-united-states/

Like so many things we fear, it's just a question of acculturation.

Why does heaven need to be bland and unchanging?
Imagine a preferable alternative - and that's your heaven. Custom made for every angel.

I am familiar with people being called faggot and beaten up as if gays are a huge threat. — unenlightened

I'm familiar with the same phenomenon regarding Jews, Sikhs, Catholics, Muslims, Black people, kitchen maids, women, children, dogs and horses. Sex doesn't necessarily figure in the fear of non-submission. Insecure egos do not wield power well.

My feeling is that it is a species of homo-erotic fear. — unenlightened

I see where that may be part of the mix. The far right seems to have collected just about every irrational fear, loathing and phobia in its deplorable basket of grievances.

I think that a trans Olympics would be good fun and may solve the sports issue. — universeness

The Rainbow Olympics? Oooo, I'd watch that! I can think of some new events to introduce. And, it wouldn't need the local population to pony up vast sums of money for their government to waste on building new sports facilities.
Of course, some countries - also some states and provinces - would be ineligible to host it.

Sane society in the present day? Nonexistent. — Merkwurdichliebe

I'm aware. And professional-level sports bore me rigid, so I don't care how you select for them.

Oh! Well -- I'm interested then. Care to say more? — Moliere

I have.
I rather think we're in more danger from puffed-up politicians, preachers, entrepreneurs, movie moguls, sport and screen stars, future SCOTUS frat boys, commanding officers and shift foremen, not to mention incels and their older counterparts in state legislatures, than a few - so few they're not worth the expense of better partitions - men in skirts need of relief.

Can't you see the smoke-screen? Creating yet another pretend bogey-man and making a big fuss, while they're dismantling civil rights?
Seems I accidentally hit the wrong key and lost all my links to Trump, Weinberg, Cosby et al.
Pity!

Peers as a selection process for a roster are perfectly fine when sports are non-competitive and pointless. — Merkwurdichliebe

I did posit a sane society in which everyone can participate in in recreational sports in a league of their own weight-class and skill level. I forgot to add: with non-bigoted coaches.

What do magazine models have to do with making a roster? — Merkwurdichliebe

Not much. No more, in fact, than making up a league of peers for any given sport.

The fun won't last long when every woman is cut, that is, when all the coaches realize that the only way to compete is by filling the roster with men. — Merkwurdichliebe

Have you actually met any people of any sex, or are you just going by magazine models?

that fear isn't based in facts. — Moliere

My contention is: it isn't a fear at all; it's a pretense and part of the mask behind which systemic misogyny lurks.

What other context? — Moliere

Apparently, the real big issue is concern for the safety of 'genuine' females if false claimants are allowed into their sacrosanct space.
I rather think we're in more danger from puffed-up politicians, preachers, entrepreneurs, movie moguls, sport and screen stars, future SCOTUS frat boys, commanding officers and shift foremen, not to mention incels and their older counterparts in state legislatures, than a few - so few they're not worth the expense of better partitions - men in skirts needing relief.

There is. You are left without a team, which is where women will be left if forced to compete with men. — Hanover

Hey, some of us are okay playing with the men who chose the alternate gate. We'll make a fine, convivial team and have more fun than the rah-rah-rah elite ones.

As to sports, I find I am discriminated against because I am a wimpy spastic weakling. Why isn't there a category for me? — unenlightened

In a sane society, there would be. Everyone would be able to participate in a league of their peers, and nobody would be paid astronomical sums to play games in deadly, life-threatening earnest.
But that's just another silly idea....

because men are disgusting. — T Clark

I never said that! Over a long life - more at the short end, admittedly - I have found some men very, very far from disgusting. I said some users of public facilities have unhygienic habits, and that in my limited experience, these individuals have displayed their proclivity disproportionately in segragated washrooms.

Is it really a huge deal for a trans woman to use the men's room? Why? — frank

That probably isn't, unless he tried to use a urinal and failed.

In case anyone wondered, here's an unscientific, non-philosophical, unsophisticated POV:
In my last year of high-school, I had a summer job in a bowling alley that included janitorial duties. I.e. cleaning the bathrooms.
The woman's was routine: soap scum, bits of paper towel and toilet paper stuck to the floor, maybe a splat of gum or cigarette butt, the odd humorous message in lipstick or eyebrow pencil on the walls. Scrub the sinks, mop the floor, polish the mirror, empty the bins and fill the dispensers.
Then take eight or nine deep breaths, steady yourself on the wall, take a good grip on the mop handle and... approach... yes, you have to actually open the door the and enter ... the men's. Which was usually a nightmare. Some of the users had evidently not been house-trained. And this was back in the 1960's when a lot of people still ate with a knife and fork, crossed at the traffic light and wrote comprehensible son lyrics.

I'm comfortably cis, but if I shudder at the thought of going into a public mens' room, I'm sure a lot of people who were born with what looked like a tiny penis and female sensibilities would, too.

Well it's philosophy, isn't it? — Tom Storm

It's about toilets!

Anyway, How is this a philosophical question, and how can it have a philosophical answer ?
What is a man, a woman, a person, a camera, a tv? Define them how you want, posit ideal forms of each in hyperspace or whatever, the items with conscious intelligence will insist on their own identity and the inanimate ones don't care.

Carry on as if we were not here.

Has anyone, with two X chromosomes and no Y, spoken up in this thread? — wonderer1

I doubt it - though I didn't read most of the pages.
What is a woman?
According to the evidence here presented, it's someone who can be discussed, argued-over, judged, categorized and decided-about in her presence, as if she were inanimate.

I would say that moral responsibility (as opposed to one that may have a legal dimension) transcends existence — DA671

Unpredictability has its own charm — DA671

Sure. But that's a long, convoluted railroad journey from the influence of Socrates on european and subsequently American culture. I do try to stay on a straight line from post to response as long as i can, but the chain of reason, like evidence, tends to break down.

Both of those young people have names, mothers, ideas and desires of their own. But they don't own those pictures. The images being in the public domain, they can be objectified, judged, put to whatever use somebody else chooses, and they have no control or influence. And they're probably both still around, and might benefit from/be harmed by any unintended fallout.

couldn't find a TPF emoji for 'confused?'
How about: — universeness

As eye-candy goes, 8.62 - he'll either improve with age or go to fat.

As for the metaphor: controversy over Darwin's work > attackers and defenders > kicking and kicking ass > football > players, object of contention > time-clock > observer > me

I believe that opportunity of being able to play even a minuscule role in making someone's life better, it can be good enough. — DA671

Been lots of places; done lots of that; collected many teeshirts and wore them down to dust-rags.
It'll just have to do.

I would say that moral responsibility (as opposed to one that may have a legal dimension) transcends existence — DA671

Another good reason not to do anything significant - you might end up inadvertently inciting riots, starting a civil war, giving a sadistic dictator a slogan or an emblem, providing a war-monger with a novel weapon... Once you're dead, you lose whatever control you may have over your product, but you're stuck with the reputation.

All the 'guff' about Darwin's influence and Legacy (or if you prefer the almost synonymous 'inheritance from Darwin.') seems to be alive and kicking and it continues to help to kick gods ass back into non-existence, in more and more human minds. — universeness

Wonderful. Me, in a soccer game, I'd rather be the time-clock than the ball.

That's a mighty jump Vera! What did I post that suggested such linkage? — universeness

A whole lot of guff about influence and legacy.

I, too, don't hold Marx directly responsible for what Stalin did. — DA671

The beauty of it is, we can't hold him responsible: he's not here to answer charges, nor to be feted or abused. (Just as well for poor old Darwin, eh?)
One does whatever one is impelled to do. One leaves whatever one has made. How it's interpreted, remembered and regarded is up to the inheritors. The dead cannot own or control anything; it belongs to the living, to interpret and use as they will.

What you leave behind (legacy), those who remain or are yet to arrive, inherit.
You are hair splitting Vera! — universeness

Maybe, but I refuse to hold Marx responsible for Stalin's deeds.