Happiness: Something like the proper mixture of sensitivity, creativity and strength achieved through habit and self-reflection; a self-sustaining stability of not-wanting rather than the result of procuring something wanted; the satisfaction that comes with focusing outwards on a regular basis while recognizing choice and freedom in each moment in the context of a healthy and active imagination; originality in identity and character in a way that fosters same in others; consistent quality in thought and action. — Baden

OK, now how does being spanked fit into that? I actually know someone that loved his wife because every payday she beat the shit out of him and took all the money. I asked him a while ago about her and he told me that they had separated. The place he worked at started paying through the bank and she did not need to beat him to get the money.

Why are there so many different types of happiness? Just saying that there are different types of people does not actually explain it.

On a related note, I almost got myself beaten up by some guys last night because I thought that it would be funny to push a random button on the fruit machine they were playing as I walked by. — S

Heads I answer mean, tails I answer politely. Tails, tut tut. You should learn not to put your hands in place they are not wanted.

Like critiquing someone's ideas without offering any ideas of their own. — Purple Pond

Actually this does not make me unhappy. I enjoy when people critique my way of thinking in a constructive or even passive way. It is a good way to test ideas. What does make me unhappy is criticism that is abusive or down putting.

But going back to my question, why does spanking make some people happy and others sad? How is it possible that the same pain can have opposite effects on people?

So you don't think smiling helps? — Purple Pond

Funny thing about that, yesterday I saw a sign "In this house we don't smile because we are happy, we are happy because we smile". Maybe there is something in that after all. You would certainly have to be careful when and where you smiled though.

Don't pay any attention to him. Tell us what you think, it might just make you happier. :wink:

ineffable — Purple Pond

Well that sort of puts the dampers on things.

What makes one person happy can put one person down — Purple Pond

Like spanking maybe?

Yes indeed, and that is smiling. — Purple Pond

Do you really think that walking around smiling at people would make them happy? I know some people that I don't want smiling at me.

How would you make that philosophical? — Purple Pond

Would you like to define happiness and then explain how to make people feel like that? But we could also look at the lighter side of it.

Cheerleader2u. — S

Pull your knickers up, your jealousy is showing.

I would like to see a discussion with the title: How to silence those nagging voices that you hear in your head.

No, sorry. I just figured out that the noises are not in my head. I was reading S's posts.

Seriously though, what would be nice is a topic about making people happy.

There's a middle finger missing in the emojis. — Purple Pond

:rofl: :up: :100:

My last few discussions are practically duds. :cry: — Purple Pond

Be carefully it does not come and tell you that you are missing an "e" at the end. He will not understand that you used the correct descriptive word.

People who think they are really wise and everything. — Purple Pond

Are there any of those around here?

Ah, a complaint clinic. — Wallows

Was dat? Ain't neva herd a dem.

If you have purchased or consumed any of those products, you must be against human rights. Right? — chatterbears

Kind of funny that the first thing they show is how to use a cell phone to access the information, then go on to explain that child and forced labor is part of the process to make cell phones?

My obvious hostility is what makes me so endearing. Everyone I force into submission tells me so. — S

So they don't tell you too often then do they. :lol:

You are delirious from the poison and walked onto a road. Jump again, that's one big mother of a truck coming at you.

Slat.

Too late. :cry:

I have always had intermittent problems with the Quote function on this forum, with the button sometimes just not working, no matter how carefully, firmly and repeatedly I press it. — andrewk

I have had the same problem with my Windows 10 using Firefox on and of since about a year ago. I have no idea why it started, no new installations or updates made at that time nor any change to the problem with later updates. But it works fine with the touch screen

I found, by accident, that if I right click on the button then left click in the Reply Box it works OK.

Never had any problems on any of the other machine I have, including one that has multi-boot various versions of Linux.

No [you]. — S

No what? Could you please try a little harder to clarify what you mean?

It should be obvious that that doesn't really clarify anything and still leaves a lot of ambiguity. Healthy according to who? Or according to what criteria? Criteria set by who? Is this an ideal? Whose ideal? — S

The same could be asked when when you say that it is not necessary to eat meat to live a healthy enough life.

First of all, what claim of mine do you call into question? Then we can take it from there. If I think that anything I've claimed requires an authoritative source, I can look into it and get back to you. — S

Just answered that.

I like good grammar.
I thought you'd think that that was a mistake.What you highlighted isn't a mistake.
Although it is common to use only one "that" in such sentences. I'm just a bit of a stickler for formality. You'll see the double "that" again up above a few times and in at least one other of my sentences further down. — S

Bullshit. It makes no sense as you wrote. The fact that you can use that twice in a sentence does not mean that it will always be right. If it had read "that they" it would be clear what you mean, but it would mean almost the same as I wrote.

Do you, or do you not, claim that it's necessary to eat a certain amount or a certain type or a certain whatever of meat each day or even at all in order to be healthy? — S

No I do not claim any such thing. If you would read what I have said it will be clear that I have stated that we need certain vitamins and minerals to maintain our bodies health.

You should also concede for your own fault. But I bet you won't. — S

If you are talking about me saying that it is immoral to sit around eating all day and becoming obese then I will not admit that I am at fault. It is my judgement based, just like yours, on my facts, as I see them, logic and my feelings.

I think that it's not necessary wrong, and I think that it's wrong to simply assume that it's wrong. — S

That makes a lot of sense. Try using your logic and the facts as you see them and make a judgement.

You think that Sapiens is mediocre? Have you actually read it? Or are you judging a book by its cover? — S

No, I did not read it. I listened to it because I do not do a lot of actual reading nowadays because of my eyes. But I have read(listened to as well) much better books explaining the history of humanity.

See, this is where you're showing your ignorance. Please read the book and educate yourself. I purposefully chose the example of a Peugeot, because that's given as an example in the book. — S

See, this is where you show your arrogance. Just because it is the only one you have read you think it is sacred. There are other ways to look at things you know.

We didn't discover Peugeots, obviously. We created them. And that has to do with how we evolved to a stage where we can create fiction. That makes us unique, even among other species under the genus Homo. It's actually an extremely important part of our evolution. — S

Pathetic, any machine is a combination of discoveries. They discovered the wheel, the lever, the gear, electricity, internal combustion all of which made the Peugeot possible. Human beings have evolved little since becoming Sapiens and fiction was created long before that.
So exactly how do you think that these creations are going to change the nature of humans. Will it make us less susceptible to disease, that does not seem to be working very well. Will it make us need less food or water, I can't imagine how. Will it help us to survive as a race, could we actually evolve into a carbon monoxide breathing being.

Going back to what I said, there is plenty of info sources available about the need for vegans to take supplements because they cannot live normally without them. Here is one from a vegan and one from a government institution.
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/the-vegan-diet/
https://www.theveganrd.com/2010/11/recommended-supplements-for-vegans/

Please show me any reliable site that says they do not need to be taking supplements.

Show me a dolphin who has made a conscious ethical judgement to refrain from eating fish, and you may just have a point. Otherwise you're just trying to nail jelly to your wife. — S

So you think that dolphins automatically eat every fish they see? Try watching Discovery Channel instead of reading those mediocre books you keep recommending.

What’s wrong with the comparison? They eat what they evolved to eat, and we evolved to eat cooked meat. — Noah Te Stroete

Nothing at all wrong with the comparison, it is quite good. But we did not evolve to eat cooked meat, the cooking part came much later. A discovery, whether it is cooking meat or riding around in a Peugeot are not part of human evolution. They are just things that make life easier. That being so, they have no effect on human nature at this time. The results of the laziness that these things cause might make a difference to how humans evolve over the next hundred thousand years but I am not going to wait around to see.

The truth of your first statement hinges on your definition of "proper" survival. — S

I think that proper would mean to most people a healthy life, not just healthy enough, and it should be obvious from the context in which I used it.

And your following question appeals to a highly controversial notion about how we were "supposed" to be "by nature". — S

If humans were by nature supposed to take supplements to their natural vegan diet where do you think they would get them? — Sir2u

If humans were by nature supposed to take supplements to their natural vegan diet[, then] where do you think [that that] would get them? — S

Firstly I do not like people changing what I say to suit their way of thinking. Especial when they are people who love to point out others mistakes while making their own. Second, it does not appeal to anything at all the way I wrote it. It is just a simple question that I wanted an answer to. Based on the few vegans and vegetarians that I personally know I have learned that they do take regular store bought supplements, because there are no "none animal" sources available for those vitamins and minerals. Does Taking pills to be health instead of eating a bit of meat sound normal to you?

However, it isn't a simple necessity for us to eat 300gm of meat everyday. Nor is it necessary for us to do so in order to live a healthy enough lifestyle. — S

As I stated earlier, it is not about the meat but about the contents of the meat.

It would only be "necessary" for someone, if, for example, they're a health freak with a fixation on achieving the ideal healthy lifestyle, and they're stuck on the notion that achieving that requires eating 300gm of meat everyday. But even then, that's not strictly necessary. Maybe instead, what's necessary for them is counseling. — S

This kind of prejudiced views are what's immoral. Why would you want to call someone a freak because they want to live their life properly. And what great authority do you process to decide just what is necessary and what is not? Could we see your qualifications on nutritional counseling please?

These kind of prejudiced views are what's immoral, not eating in excess. — S

So you think that it is OK for people to sit around doing nothing but overeating and getting fat?

We eat meat so we should eat meat? — TheMadFool

I don't know anyone that eats only meat. But personally I eat meat because I enjoy it. If that is immoral then I am screwed and will not go to heaven for my sins.

I guess we can say that as of now it's necessary for us to eat meat; therefore, without a choice eating meat shouldn't be a moral issue. — TheMadFool

There you go, you are getting the idea now.

What about the future, for example if we can develop synthetic meat? This provides a more ethical option and at that point in time we should stop killing animals for meat. — TheMadFool

The stopped using horses when cars became cheaper, the stopped burning coal and wood then other methods became cheaper, they stopped making clothes at home when the shops sold them cheaper so I guess that the same principle would apply.

Another thing is the proportion of meat that should be in our diets. According to dietary recommendations meat should be, say, x% of our daily diet. Are we following these dietary recommendations or is our consumption in excess. If it is the latter then eating meat in excess would be immoral because we would be exceeding our daily meat recommendations. Right? — TheMadFool

It is not about the amount of meat we eat but the contents of the meat that we need and the body's ability to absorb them. Anything in excess is usually immoral, but who is going to figure out what each person needs. I had a girl friend a long time ago that would eat a whole giant pizza almost every day as a snack, usually late at night. She never put on any extra weight because she burned so much energy at work and in sports. Her twin brother would look at a slice once a week and get fatter.
Now those fat slobs that sit around and do nothing but eat would probably still get fat on a vegetarian diet and still be immoral.

Also, civilization began with cultivation of wheat, rice, barley, etc. (all plants) and not with livestock (animal) farming. — TheMadFool

Not all civilizations began with farming. Many of the early cultures had animals domesticated before settling down to planting. But plant crops also gave the early civilizations extra food for the breeding of animals.

Are we evolving into vegans? — TheMadFool

Anything is possible, but I serious doubt that after hundreds of thousands evolving into homo sapiens that we will see the results in a matter of 10 or 20 thousand years that civilizations have been growing their own food.

Eating animals in unethical because, as Nils Loc said it's not necessary to eat meat. How do herbivores survive if meat is essential? — TheMadFool

No has been able to prove that you can survive properly as a vegan. If humans were by nature supposed to take supplements to their natural vegan diet where do you think they would get them? Sure nowadays you can pop into a store and pick some up, but there were none available as humans developed. They got their complete set of minerals, vitamins, and fats from what ever they could find and eat.

I guess we just don't care. — TheMadFool

If you want to show how much you care, start campaigning for better methods of breeding and butchering the animal we eat. Stop telling people they are immoral because they kill animal, most of them don't, they just enjoy eating them.

Then what do you think is the best way to address this? It is the most important point; but, I'm at a loss as to how to implement or even devise it. — Wallows

This is supposed to be done at an early age, the best place to start would be preschool. There are several pilot projects being tested around the world. I seem to remember reading about one in, I think, Sweden. where they had lots of outdoor activities, even trees to climb, and the kids were allowed to develop their problem solving and social skills while they played. They are challenged to get things done and they develop their motor skills while learning to count, identify shapes and identify things in their environment.
They learn by themselves what they are good at and what they need help with. They also seem to get an idea of how they learn best the different activities, either being shown or finding out for themselves, by listening to instructions before or as they do the activities, by imitating someone else doing it or watching several others to see which is best for them. They get an opportunity to interact with others to accomplish the tasks and by doing so they learn that not all of them are equally adept at everything.

This would be the best way for kids to start primary school, but the methodology would have to continue. Throughout grades 1 to 12 most kids sit at a desk and do the exact same thing everyone else in the class is doing, most kids just follow the instructions from the teacher and the ones that do try to do things differently are often considered as disruptive elements.

What do you mean? I don't understand what you mean by most universities would close down? — Wallows

The governments in a lot of countries seem to think that doing to college/university is a necessity. Lots of parents want their kids to go to one. But how many people actually use the education they get? If I remember correctly in the UK about half of the graduates do not practice their profession. What do you think would happen if the schools turned out kids that were intelligent enough to figure ways to earn money without a degree? What would happen if the kids actually figured out that after a few years of suffering in college they would end up working in a burger joint anyway?

They educational system now turns out to many people that are not suited to the profession they picked and most of the time it is not their fault.

Education, unfortunately, is rarely at the students.
It is usually about preparing enough people to make sure that society continues to run and if possible improve. It is about preparing people to run the businesses and keep the economy rolling. It is also about sorting out the people that will get the C.E.O jobs from those that will go to work in Walmart stores.

Bitter Crank's view is somewhat idealistic, but definitely how things should be. If Bitter Crank's first proposition was done properly everyone would find their way through life much easier.
If the second was done then most of the universities would have to close down. Have you checked out how many people never practice their profession?
The third proposal should actually be #4, would make sure that the right people were doing the right job, because that is what they were supposed to do.
The forth which should be #3 would make sure that his natural skills are developed to serve in the place in society he wants to fill.

Cost could be cut all over the higher education system by making sure that the students that are training for the jobs are really the people that should be training for them.

We do not need to exploit animals for our survival. — chatterbears

Can you prove this statement? I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of how, considering the human bodies needs, it would be possible to survive without them.

Human beings are, by evolution or creation, omnivorous. That does not just mean that theycaneat most kinds of foods but that they need to eat different types of food.

You sir2u should look into Deism. — hks

Been there, done that, still not interested.

And I do know a little about the internet so I don't need you to tell me that I

can google it — hks

Wiki has a great explanation. — hks

I am wordless, that place is not on any intelligent person's list of places to find accurate information about anything.

Sometimes it is necessary to hide things from your children actually. — hks

Hiding "things" from your children is not the same as hiding yourself.

God must have a good reason for hiding from us. — hks

That is what most men that are taken to court for child maintenance say, "I had a good reason not to look after my kids".

We should therefore trust in God and not blame or prejudge Him/Her/Them for what He/She/They do/does. — hks

You would not trust your own father after he abandons you, so why would you even think about trusting something you have never even met?

The created-things are like their Creator. — hks

No we are not, we do not always hide from our children.

Why do we like beautiful things? — Purple Pond

We consider things beautiful because we like them, not that we like them because they are beautiful. They please us in some way, we like them, we call them beautiful. :smile:

A place I worked at used the 13 month calendar, six months work then two vacation twice a year. They used to close the whole factory down for maintenance for the two weeks. Good system.

Are facts necessarily about things? What if things are defined by the facts about them? — BlueBanana

That was my question earlier. What came first, the facts or the objects?

This. Fact's exist relative to an observer. It's a fact. — Posty McPostface

So, no observer no facts, therefore nothing exists unless it is observed. I like that. :up:

A picture describes how to make an object? What? Where did you get this from? What do you think objects are? — Sam26

Sorry, I got that a bit mixed up. Retry:

So if the picture basically describes the make up of an object, then would it have existed before the object? Is it necessary for the object to exist before the picture is created?

If the first then facts are independent of the mind. If the second, it would seem that the world needs us to exist.

Are you leading us to believe in idealism? — Posty McPostface

No, I'm not leading in any direction. But if one had to explain where the picture came from, creationism would be an easy answer I think. That sucks.

In my mind, Wittgenstein was not professing mind-independent facts. — Posty McPostface

I am going to look for the audio book I got and listen to it. It might shake up my memory.

I'm not sure, I suppose that one can have facts that are mind-dependent. I wouldn't assert that facts are mind-independent. — Posty McPostface

In who's mind? Would it not go back to the brain in the vat creating its surroundings if facts are mind-dependent. Or actual physical objects appearing as you obtain the facts about them.

Atomic facts are reflections of elementary propositions. Atomic facts can combine to form facts of any complexity, and as such, describe the world. So yes the whole of the world would be included. — Sam26

So if the picture is basically describes how to make an object, then the the picture must have existed before the object. So where did the picture come from?

Ever the optimist. :rofl:

Are you talking about Wittgensteinian objects, i.e., the objects of the Tractatus? You seem to be talking about objects like apples, trees, persons, etc. Your question may still be valid, but I'm trying to get clear on what you mean by objects. — Sam26

Wittgenstein said, if I remember correctly from so long ago something about the world being described properly only when it is described down to its atomic components. So surely the whole of the world would be included. But I have not read him for a long time so I might be wrong.

Both, I think. — Posty McPostface

But would there not be need of a set of facts in order to make something? Or is it possible for things to just appear?