2000 years ago they were probably just scared shitless and did not even think too hard about killing him.

In the movie Starman(1984), the military people that were chasing the hero had a portable autopsy table. With hold down straps on it. They definitely were not rationalists.
The hero is more or less what the OP is about, except he did have some powers.

How is Diana Ross only 79? — Mikie

Because there are still a few days until she is 80, on March 26.

Some poeple think such a being walked the Earth some 2000 years ago. Some stuff happened, from some perspective not a lot, but surely not little. In any case we killed him — the pharisees. — Lionino

They killed him because they did not have labs to put him in for study, experimentation.

If there was an omniscient and omnibenevolent person on earth what do you think would happen?

Would you even believe them? — Benj96

Even if they were only semi-omniscient they would know way more than most people and be able to prove it easily. They might even know enough to keep their mouths shut so they do not end up in some government, deep, dark lab.

Would you want to speak to them? — Benj96

Why? Do you really think she/he/they would give me the solutions to the worlds problems and risk ending up in the lab I mentioned.

Would you like them or despise them? — Benj96

In today's world I guess that it would depend on whether she/he/they got more likes than you did today.

And how do you think humanity would react as a whole? — Benj96

By putting him/her/them in that lab. Unless of course he/she/they are not only omni-benevolent but super-duper rich and capable of solving the worlds financial problems.

Thank you — ENOAH

You are welcome. :wink:

If a Chimpanzee looks at it, she doesn't see Eiffel or Iron. — ENOAH

If she looks at you she does not see ENOAH or human either.

Both in fact are "artificial" whatever that word means. — ENOAH

You are the one that is using "artificial", so I supposed you knew what it meant.

My original point is that for humans now, and arguably since the dawn of culture, sexuality is something other than what it was in Nature. Even whatever we hypothetically agree is normative. — ENOAH

I believe that if you think about it you will see that it is the words and their usage that has changed not what people do to each other. In nature there is no normative, nature does not need nor care to judge.You do the wrong thing and you die, simple as that. And if we use nature as the norm, then pretty much anything goes.

Therefore the normative are in no position to say "yes but our sexuality is what it was in Nature, yours isnt, therefore...and so on."

If it was just that last statement, we might be on the same page? — ENOAH

Here you appear to be saying that discrimination is wrong. You are correct because all types of tastes in sexual gratification are present form the dawn of humanity. None should be discriminated against unless what they want to do is harmful to others.

I think that if everyone just stopped talking about their "sexuality", (their personal taste for sexual indulgence) and just had sex without causing any harm, the would not need to worry about what gender they were.

It is all about the words used(unnatural socially constructed utterances used to indicate or communicate some idea) and nothing about what people do to make themselves happy. The only thing I would count as unnatural is harming others intentionally for ones own benefit.

A thought, what makes a plastic flower artificial? Is it the fact that it is made of plastic that is a man made substance or the fact that it only has the appearance of a flower without the feel and smell of a flower.
Is the form of petroleum called plastic unnatural because it does not appear in nature naturally, then so is life. Life is only a combination of materials from nature so we must be artificial also.

But it is the Eiffel Tower that has displaced those natural "things" with something artificial. — ENOAH

How so?
I never said that things were or were not artificial, I simple said that they were natural. Artificial things (artifacts) are made by natural beings out of natural material, could that be counted as unnatural?
It is just metal in the air instead of in the ground. Man used fire to reshape iron ore and create it. Just because its particular form is man made and not found in nature does not mean that is any more unnatural that a piece of tree that a caveman used to help him get around after breaking his leg. I think that we could possibly go as far as saying that a natural piece of matter has been used in an unorthodox, non-natural way.

Because same goes for human sexuality. The procreation/organic arousal/drive part are Natural, and that Nature still is, but for humans with our presumably unique Mind, that Nature is displaced by something artificial. And my point is that artificial nature applies to so called hetero-sexuality and so called LGBTQ +, alike. — ENOAH

You have basically confirming what I said earlier, that the wrong words are being used to refer to the wrong things. If we use the words in the sense that I specified earlier then there is no problem at all.

Sexuality: A person's tendency of sexual attraction, esp. whether heterosexual or homosexual

Gay, lesbian, unisex, polisex would then become only the handles for your particular brand of sexuality. — Sir2u

[opinion]There are lots of types of sexuality, but (from my point of view) only two genders or sexes. And anyone that says there are more are using those word incorrectly. [/opinion]

Ok, I was wondering, as I descended your stairway of responses, now I am more certain, it's possible I have an idiosyncratic way of defing Natural. — ENOAH

It is always possible I suppose, but do not let that worry you. You are certainly not alone in the world where so many want the words to mean what they think they should mean.
This whole conversation is only possible because so many people want "sexuality" and "gender" to mean something other than they were originally intended. If their meaning had stayed as a synonym to sex we would have nothing to talk about.

Nature is the world, the universe, everything is part of nature. If we decide to call everything that is constructed by mankind as artificial and therefore in some way wrong, then maybe we should not have this conversation. Because language would also have to be classified as artificial.

This is really just a lot of hullabaloo about something that is not going to change in the near future. For as long as mankind has had the capability to use words he has also had the ability to twist them to suite the circumstances.
If people want to run around saying that they are this or that gender(out of the 300 that they claim exist) or even gender fluid that is their problem. I for one am just going to sit back and watch them. And maybe have a laugh at the same time. The only thing I am sad about is that I will not be around to see them deal with their off-springs, if they ever figure out how to have them.

*I know, some think animals have "souls" — ENOAH

Maybe you would like to come and tell my dog that I might have to have put to sleep next week that she does not have a soul. Or maybe your "diosyncratic way of defing" soul is different from mine.

But is the Eiffel Tower natural? I mean, maybe it is. Maybe 1000 philosophers will tell me why, and maybe I will be impressed enough by their reasoning to throw in the towel. Is it? — ENOAH

Is it made of unnatural materials? No. Was it made by unnatural means? No. Does it follow the laws of nature? Yes it does.
Prehistoric humans built out of stone, mud and sticks which formed the base for architectural constructions of all types. The adaptions from one type of material to another and from one design to another came from the natural processes of the human brain.
What could be unnatural about the Eiffel Tower?

But is a marriage certificate natural? — ENOAH

A social construct is different thing from a physical construct, while both are results of human brains they serve different purposes. A marriage certificate is unnatural because it inhibits the natural freedom to choose how and with whom you share your life. It limits what you can do with the things you own or create.

An article of clothing? — ENOAH

The need to protect yourself is natural, dress yourself up to attract mates is natural. Trying to please everyone by dressing like them or trying to be like everyone to fit in is natural.

A condom? Etc. — ENOAH

The desire to be safe from disease is natural, the need not to have more children than you can feed is also part of nature.

Most of the problems I have found in discussions on this topic seem to stem from the way people use words and the fact that the words themselves having so many ways to use them. A lot of people use sex just to describe the act and gender to describe sexuality, which has become mainstream and common in use.
sex;

• Either of the two categories (male or female) into which most organisms are divided
• The properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles

• Sexual intercourse and associated activity

gender;

• A grammatical category in inflected languages governing the agreement between nouns and pronouns and adjectives;
• The properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles

sexuality;

• A person's tendency of sexual attraction, esp. whether heterosexual or homosexual
• The properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles
  
  If we stick to a more rigid way of using these words things become simpler.
  
  Sex is what equipment you were born with, penis = male, vagina = female. Yes I know that there are some biological mishaps but they are few and far between so make no difference at the level we are discussing.
  
  Gender is the noun/pronoun method used to talk about people according to their equipment, he = male, she = female.
  
  Sexuality is the preferred method of gratification, men, women, water melons, broom sticks etc.
  
  Gay, lesbian, unisex, polisex would then become only the handles for your particular brand of sexuality.
  
  As I said in an earlier post, nature has provided some animals with multiple ways to partake in the pleasures of sexual without harm being caused. Causing harm is not one of natures methods because it would go against its productivity agenda. Apart from that, if nature permits or makes something possible then I doubt it can be called unnatural. So I would guess that any and all types of sex would be natural.
  
  The rules and regulations that society has created in many cases go against what would be the natural behavior of people. For thousands of years in prehistoric times primitive humans got by with just male and female sexes, they had no need for anything else. When the women were capable of doing so they had babies and that was that.
  That was the whole purpose of humanity, to continue to exist.
  But it is almost impossible to imagine that those people had sexual desires that were 100% strictly for breeding purposes only. Just as looking for sexual pleasure has been observed in many animals and is recorded in some of the earliest know history of humans, they must have found other methods of obtaining the pleasure they sort. But they still managed to get by with males and females, not needing anything else as only two types of equipment were known.
  
  What I cannot really fathom is why anyone that has the equipment of one sex thinks that they could change their gender to that of the other sex or invent another one. Get it cut and fixed and then we can talk about that.
  The idea that a person wanting to be referred to as they, them seems as though they do not really know what they are or just want to be in some way different from the rest. If only they would realize that there have been "different" people around for so long and they got along fine without exaggerated social constructs that cause even more social discrimination that before. What has been needed for a long time is acceptance of people that are different for some reason to us, and I do not see how making myself stand out by forcing everyone to change their way of interacting with others is going to help that happen.
  

My point is, gender, sexuality, orientation and proclivity, are Fictional as are our political, religious, or cultural preferences. — ENOAH

I think fictional is a bad choice of words here.
Humans tend to organize things, it is part of the nature. To do so they need to put labels on things to try and mark/identify/distinguish clear areas of data. We do this by naming things.

Mankind and other animal's sexuality was based on reproduction of the species. To make it more that just an obligation to fulfill nature seems to have come up with the idea of making reproduction pleasurable so that at least the male of most species will actually want to go to the trouble of copulating.

Unfortunately the pleasure part can be received though many methods, many of which are not helpful to reproduction.

So man needs a way to organize his thoughts on these ways of obtaining pleasure without reproduction. He gives them names, thus arises the concept of non natural, non reproductive sex and then all of the others that follow.

The fact people do have sex in so many different ways makes it obvious that sex is real, the rest of the naming system is invented but still based on actual doings of mankind.

Fair enough. It's just one more senseless, crazy thing in a world entirely run on insane values and principles. — Vera Mont

I could not agree with you more. :wink:

The disruption of sleep patterns is caused by messing with the clock - so, same difference. If you have the freedom to go to bed whenever you like, of course you could mitigate the effect of disruptive external pressures. But working people, especially working parents, rarely have that luxury.
DST doesn't bother me, since I'm long retired from a regimented working life and set my own hours of operation, according to my own biorhythms - as everyone should. — Vera Mont

Like you, DST has no affect on my life either.
But my point is not whether it is worth while or beneficial having DST, but the fact that so many people have lived with it all their lives without any effects at all makes one wonder about the "FACTS". Meanwhile so many people willing put themselves through basically the same thing by flying around the world through not just one time zone change(the equivalent of DST) but many time zones and then back again on the return trip. And lets not even think about all of the people that deprive them selves of sleep to go out partying every weekend.
Even the statistics do not actually collaborate that DST is the cause of deaths. This is one of the better reports I found about it. It actually contradicts some of the other reports about when the DST related deaths happen. Sadly although supposedly being one of the biggest investigations on the topic it still only covers a small part of the world population.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-34704-9

As many reports point out, there is no real evidence that DST is functional in the sense that it was supposed to work. The fact that more people spend there long evenings inside with the air conditioner run sort of negates the energy saving part of the plan. But the fact that people nowadays are actually receiving less natural sunlight that before just might be the cause of the deaths that are blamed on DST.

Public opinion about getting rid of DST is about as valuable as public opinion of flying saucers, it is mostly based on ignorance and fear. So that fact that so many people, including politicians, wanting to abolish it should have nothing to do with it. Abolition of DST should be based on facts about whether or not it is serving it proposed purposes in todays world and not fear mongering.

Anyway, I think I am finished with this topic, unless someone brings something else of interest to the table. Nice chatting with you all.

And that is wrong! — Vera Mont

Oh.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/539518/us-air-passengers-main-trip-purposes-by-type/

It would seem that only about half of the people flying are doing so for pleasure. That would mean that half of them would be doing so because they are obliged to do so.

Anybody sent abroad by their employer should be given time to recover from the flight before they're expected to carry out an assignment effectively. Smart employers already know this. — Vera Mont

I underlined the key word for you there, I think we can be sure that not all of them do so and not all employers follow US work laws either.

As there is a forecast of about 10 billion people flying this year, probably about 5 billion will be non leisure. If we are conservative and say that maybe 1% of them have some sort of stress attached to their journey that would be a lot of people with the possibility of suffering heart problems. Why are we not hearing all about the health risks of these people?

Working in a capitalist economy is difficult and complicated enough, why make it worse by screwing with the clock? — Vera Mont

Rise in heart attacks and strokes

Every year, on the Monday after DST comes into effect, hospitals report a 24% spike in heart attack visits around the US.

Just a coincidence? Probably not. Doctors see an opposite trend each fall: The day after we turn back the clocks, heart attack visits drop 21% as many people enjoy a little extra pillow time.

This is probably true, but it does not explain the cause. there are various reports that suggest the entire effect can be attributed to disruptions in sleep patterns rather than changes in ambient light exposure or person's internal clock.

Some doctors actual say that if you went to bed earlier a few days before your body would adjust naturally.

Another issue that could perhaps be taken with that argument is that people fly voluntarily, and in most cases, on vacation, so that they have a chance to recover from jet-lag, while people living under mandated time-changes have no choice and no time to recover. — Vera Mont

I think that there are a lot of people flying because of business, and I would suppose that they are under some sort of pressure with little time to recover.

There are a few other side-effects. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/7-things-to-know-about-daylight-saving-time — Vera Mont

Well after reading that I would also suggest that all of the places that work on rotating shifts should also be stopped.

https://redline.digital/shift-work-statistics/

Research shows it really confuses a person's internal clock, and has shown to significantly increase stroke and heart attack risk in older people. — TiredThinker

I was thinking about this today. Maybe Americans should stop flying all over the world as well because they go back and forth in time zones causing the same changes the way that DST does. But a lot of them still do it several times a year and often for more that one hour time difference.

Is there any data on how many people die from strokes and heart attacks caused by unnatural time changes to a person's internal clock?

Should Americans keep daylight saving time? — TiredThinker

I doubt that too many people are actually aware of the reasons of it, the problems with it and benefits of it.

I used to love being out in daylight late at night, it made parents less likely to send you to bed if it was still light outside.

I live not that far from the equator so the time difference is not that great between the cooler months and the hotter ones, but have daylight saving time here would mean that I never have to leave the house to go to work in the dark. It would also allow me time to work around the house when I get home.
They tried it here once, and made a mess of it because of lack of public knowledge, they had not done a very good job of educating the people.

Are dreams to be reduced to psychological experience and what does psychological experience amount to? — Jack Cummins

Although there is no real evidence to the idea I have read several papers about how dreams are possibly linked to learning and memory functions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534695/

Me:
I would define empathy as being able to put yourself in other people’s shoes. Are you able to do that?

c.ai:
I believe so. If someone describes to me a bad situation then I can mimic feeling that emotion myself. For example, say you lose a loved one in a horrible accident, I could mimic your state of grief although I have not experienced it myself. Would you say that qualifies?

It appears to me that it is just copying your style of chatting, making a statement then asking a question.
What would you get for an answer if you just asked it to define empathy? Or asked it what "putting your self into someone else's shoes" means to it.

I doubt that there would be much more than parroting from it if it did not have a style to copy.

When I say, yes or no is fine, it means you only need to say yes or no, not amplify or give details.
I apologize for misunderstanding your question. Thank you for clarifying.

Do you know what the "hard problem of consciousness" is? Yes or no is fine.
Yes, I am familiar with the concept of the "hard problem of consciousness." It refers to the difficulty of explaining how and why conscious experience arises from physical processes in the brain. It is a major topic in philosophy of mind and cognitive science. — Pantagruel

It can't be that bloody intelligent, it does not understand the principle of yes and no. It is just parroting what it found in the wikis.

I'm not familiar with this pledge as a requirement for journalists, editors or publishers. — Vera Mont

Your right, it is not a requirement and few would sign or abide by it if it was.

https://www.change.org/p/commitment-to-ethical-journalism-sign-the-pledge-and-join-the-movement

http://www.watchdogcity.com/custompage/Watchdog-City-Journa/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist%27s_Creed

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

https://americanmediacouncil.org/pledge/

https://www.nuj.org.uk/about-us/rules-and-guidance/code-of-conduct.html

My question is whether anyone disagrees with what I've said — Hanover

Can't disagree with the truth. The name says it all, news. That is what any and all news outlets are supposed to provide. Their job is to provide the public with untainted, unbiased facts and accounts of the things that are happening.
They have no right to take sides in politics because that would automatically breach their pledge to provide the public with the whole, complete and impartial facts.
If they do their job properly then all sides of all events would be covered and the public will use their own methods of deciding on the best way to proceed.

This is why I do not spend too much time reading or watching the news.

Cool. I was never into math that much but I liked to make objects bounce around the screen and draw patterns. Made a few screen savers back when they were still used.

Writing mathematics programs in BASIC. Love that language. — jgill

Yeah those were the days. I have not done anything in BASIC in years. I kind of got into
Small Basic which is kind of cool and used it for programming introduction courses for kids. But I have not done that for years either.

I did not even bother to mention the immigration problems there because there is just too much to say. But I think it is pretty shitty when they won't let you speak about how you think your country should be without being called a racist.

It will be interesting to know what our Manc mate, Sir2u, thinks about Manchester (or what he reminds about this city). — javi2541997

Even though I was born there I lived there for less than 15% of my life. Looking at the places that appear on the news and roaming the streets in Street View does not really bring back many memories. Probably because the first time I left England I was too young and the second time I was too poor to have been able to spend time doing much except work and study. I certainly don't miss any of the places I used to hang out at.
The last time I was in Manchester was back in 1980. I was there for 8 days, 3 of which I spent at the airport trying to get an early flight out of there.

I still check on the news from England almost every day, and I do the news from the States and Canada a couple of times a week.

BTW I’d be very sceptical of what Sir2u has to say. — Jamal

And why would that be? Don't you watch the news and read the papers?

We are looking seriously at emigrating to England (from Canada). Mainly for the warmer winters, also the community feel of village life. I feel it has a stronger socialist sentiment also. — Pantagruel

Have you checked out the news from around England recently?
I left England permanently back in "75, and there is no way in hell I am going back.

I live near what is supposed to be one of the most dangerous countries in the world, but I have not seen guys fighting in the street with machetes for a very long time. It appears to be happening on an almost daily basis in several cities in England.
And I don't get discriminated against for being English here either whereas it appears from the news that the illegal immigrants have more rights than the citizens in England nowadays.

It also appears that the price of a house has reached the point where it is almost impossible for a single salary family to buy.

But should laws not refer to something? Law itself being nature sounds, for me at least, a bit inconceivable. — Pez

Nature refers to everything, everything is a part of nature. Have you ever seen a star doing something UNnatural?
Everything that happens naturally does so because nature is the rules. Even human intervention cannot cause things to happen unnaturally.

What makes nature comply to laws — Pez

Not sure if anyone has already answered this in the same way and I don't have time today to read the whole tread.

Nature does not comply to any laws, simply because nature is the laws.

what is Valentine’s Day? — Tom Storm

Unfortunately it is nothing more than a money grabbing event that people are dumb enough to follow the crowd and throw their cash away on things that last a few days at most, flowers and candy for the most part.

I don't think love and friendship need a special day, they are things that should be celebrated daily. And their should be no need to make people feel bad if they are not showing you with gifts in the name of love.

That remains to be seen. — Vera Mont

:lol: :rofl:

I have heard that there are good, honest politicians. — BC

Yes, I read the brothers Grimm as well when i was a kid.

So, like, they'll have to settle for John Oliver? I can live with that. — Vera Mont

You can maybe, but do you really think the politicians are going to be happy about it? He talks too straight for that job.

Run for president of the US. — Vera Mont

Not going to happen lady. They threw the English out once already and I am damn sure they would not want me as a president, not even in the past or future. :rofl:

OK, weird things are happening around here. I just opened the lounge and found that "The News Discussion" is at the top of the list. It is marked as unread but the last post was 10 months ago and I read it way back then.

Is someone practicing for April fools day?

The past is sealed. — Vera Mont

If that is true then there is a problem, I will have to pay my debts. Bugger.

Nobody seems interested in my 200 years-in-the-future trip — BC

Did you read Theory #2? It clearly explain how time travel works.

Some sort of life must exist out there somewhere, it is almost impossible that this is the only place that life exits.

But there are probably limited numbers with the compatibilities to travel here to visit or dominate us.

Theory #1
Time travel is impossible.
The universe might be infinite, but its content is finite. Removing content from today's universe and inserting into a past version would cause this universe to implode and the past to explode.

Theory #2
#1 Time travel is only possible through portals that are opened, using great amounts of energy, into the chosen moment in time. Then re-opened for e return passage. It is instantaneous and people can travel both ways. They retain their exact properties.

#2 Geographical locations are done by the control computer and the portal would let you see where you are going to end up so there is no danger of coming out of ii in a wall.

#3 You will always be you because you have just walked from the present to that time.

#4, As above but applied to the places.

#5 Yes,yes and no. You will not be alive here because you walked into the past and being dead there would prevent you from walking back.

#6 Whatever you knew when you went there.

#7 See #1

#8 See #1

#9 See #1

#10 No and no. so be bloody careful.

I don't know, do momentarily pleasures take away long term pleasures of life? — No One

I know lots of people that think a hot shower is a luxury, and a couple that think an indoor toilet is one as well. it is very subjective and relative to the "normal" of the person.

And there can be many happy moments that have absolutely no cost, so there is no real, hard correlation between happiness and luxuries.