For instance, here in Sweden, we have a pastry that used to be called "n-word balls" in a translation from Swedish. Many invoked tradition to preserve the name. However, one can coherently be against calling the pastry something that includes a slur without having to abandon the pastry and its role in Swedish culture. It can still be at the fika table. — GazingGecko

To be fair the word for "black" in multiple languages is 90% similar to the slur, which is also the name of a country. It's literally just the word for a color (and an actual country). People are just idiots. But I suppose that needs to accounted for in, basically everything these days.

Pretentious nonsense. — Tzeentch

So, tossing aside common knowledge, we still come to the unavoidable question. Was Engels a fool? Or a psychopath who enjoyed watching a tortured man dance to the tune of a few dollars? It has to be one or the other. There's no other option for you, per the corner you've painted yourself in by way of your remarks, my friend. :smile:

while he himself was being showered in money by benefactors like Engels — Tzeentch

History is written by the winners. And winners are murderers. Immoral people. Your trust is therefore based on immorality, which does not preclude the possibility of, oh I don't know, lies. :smile:

Say it is true. Why would someone, brilliant believe in someone who was a bum? Was he a conman? Then if so, he had a great way of conducting himself that seems to elude your understanding. Or, was he a fool himself? We're only as good as the company we keep. Surely you can understand that.

I just feel there's more to this story. And your seemingly inhuman desire to ensure there isn't any, only makes it all the more intriguing. Can you not realize that?

Where I come from we call this the Streisand effect. Of course, perhaps you're well aware of this and are using this to advance a covert goal or objective. Who could say?

It’s my informed opinion, yes. It’s not my opinion that he was an abomination or other superstitiously hated thing. — praxis

I think his point was, he genuinely believed in everything he expressed (and perhaps quite a bit he chose not to, as a nod to your suspicious sentiment). At least, that's what the poster you're replying to believes that he believed.

Most respondents seem to answer as if I am attacking tradition 'just because'. The point is that heinous acts through history have been perpetrated in the name of tradition. T Clark defends hunting with his family from an typically anthropocentric perspective because it serves him and his own in group, with no regard for the needless killing of animals for one's own fun.

Why can't he and his family enjoy a board game around the fire instead?

Does the act of killing some other creature enhance the fun and togetherness? that would be a rather chilling and bloodthirsty claim to stand by. — unimportant

While I cannot answer for @T Clark, I can say that, in general, all of the examples listed on this thread so far, including hunting, have many reasons, varying in "validity" based on perspective of who's hearing them, beyond "just because [it's tradition]." Example, Christmas is often practiced under the context of deep religious conviction. That's nice you don't believe in my religion, but with all due respect, I believe one will be met with a sentiment along the lines of "kick rocks." :razz:

Similar to hunting. Not only has the entirety of humanity and their ancestors, including you and yours' survival solely thanks to the ancient practice, science proves there are dozens of essential vitamins and minerals found only in meat-based diets. Sure maybe in the past 50 years one can take a vitamin pill to adequately supplement these in lieu of such, but that's hardly the point. The body seems to be "naturally evolved" to eat meat and evolution is indisputably linked to such function. Those are all plenty of reasons beyond simple "appeal to tradition" or "just because." To name a few.

Furthermore, I strongly suggest you watch a Nature documentary. This falsehood of a "peaceful system" with all the animals singing around a campfire together having a peaceful time that all of a sudden is just shattered by @T Clark and his rifle because he wants to eat, is... well, just not true. Animals kill, maim, and eat one another all day and all the time. Quite horrifically, really. Point being, it's not like we're introducing some unspeakable horror into an otherwise peaceful environment.

If you don't believe in something, you have a right to abstain from it, and I doubt there's a single person alive who would want anything more but for you to do precisely that.

Over-hunting is a documented concern, however, yes. What goes on behind the scenes to get even the humblest of breakfast sandwiches is enough to sadden a person, admittedly.

Fair. I don't care what Marx did outside of being a bum either. — Tzeentch

You really don't like this guy, do you. Why can't you focus on his work, at least.

He was obviously persecuted by the State for his beliefs when alive. A State that was not an open, free society and therefore has no problem ruining a citizen's life, if not outright taking it. The stress of being a free thinker in a closed, backward society is enough to cause anyone to turn to a bottle or pipe.

I'm just not buying the narrative you're selling, sorry. That is, this simplistic version of "he was just like that for no other reason than to have been so, therefore, he and his works are to be despised." Not a very good argument, even if true.

And I'm generally in favor of capitalism. Regardless of one's belief or preference in economics, that doesn't seem any valid reason to speak ill of the dead, particularly a person not you nor anyone whom you know has ever even met. Just my 2 cents.

Am I seeing this argument being made?

Some people get away with murder. Therefore we should not try and stop them. — unenlightened

What specifically in this thread are you referring to that seems to parallel or equate to such an analogy in your mind?

I don't know of any longtime posters with high post counts that seem suspect of such a thing. And my job, most of the time, is to basically to be by a computer so I definitely lurk here (pop in once in a day to see if any so-called smart people say anything smart or otherwise that I've never heard before) beyond the average member.

Christmas used to be good. The spirit and the season were different. Then retail stores took over the tradition and now Christmas is about spending. — L'éléphant

Interesting. And not unnoticed! However, does it not take two to tango? The average person does, or at least desires to, hold or perhaps be invited to, feasts essentially. And giving gifts is a form of thanksgiving and charity that surely has a place in society. Both these things require, well, purchasing what one does not generally have lying around. Not everyone is a farmer who owns cattle, pigs, chickens, and such they can slaughter by hand and then invite friends, family, and neighbors over. Not everyone has the skill or time to create handmade things that have value and utility (that would actually be appreciated by the person beyond the politeness of appreciating effort, especially in the modern age). So, people generally have to buy things from those who do, no? Is there something inherently wrong with that, or better yet is there some realistic alternative that would fit the majority of people regardless of their widely different life circumstances? :chin:

I'm sure there are many people who choose to "opt out" of "commercialism", specifically on holidays. Good for them. But gift-giving in and of itself, at least once a year, perhaps to commemorate a religious story of such, or perhaps just to do because "it is better to give than receive" or simply because yes people, especially kids, do enjoy receiving new and useful things, surely isn't immoral or otherwise something civilization and society would be better off without? Sure, the businessmen will find a way to turn anything honest into a way to make more money. Just as the moral and pious will find a way to turn anything negative into something to be grateful for. Two different people, same ideologies.

Why do people listen to or make music? Why do we read books and watch shows or plays? Why don't we just wake up every morning, go to work, then return home and sit there in silence until bed and repeat the process until one can no longer walk? Why are you so concerned with what other people do? Is someone holding you at gunpoint until you go on a fox hunt or celebrate Christmas with them? No? Then don't worry about what other people do. You'll be happier and live longer.

I suppose an answer could be, it's human nature to have not only traditional (first-person or actual) nostalgia from things one literally experienced before, but also "second-hand" or "generational" nostalgia (knowledge of what one's parents and grandparents or "people" used to do one, two, maybe many more generations ago and as a result develop a deep and insatiable curiosity towards what those just like us used to do [sometimes not that very] long ago).

Sure, some traditions were better off falling out of favor and popularity. Those that don't, and that don't seem to harm anyone who doesn't willfully participate, shouldn't be any of your concern. You're not your brother's keeper. Certainly not in the context of random people you've never met or who otherwise have the courtesy not to subject your life and habits to the scrutiny of a proverbial microscope.

Also, vote for this as a Lounge topic. (Unless OP beefs it up substantially)

Marx was a lowlife who made his wife and children suffer in destitute poverty to fund his smoking, alcohol and drug habits. He did this off other people's money, of which he received copious amounts. — Tzeentch

You'd believe anything you read, now wouldn't you? Caricatures come in all forms.

The only interesting question about this man and his "philosophy" is what lapse of sanity had people taking him or it seriously. — Tzeentch

The man is dead and after 100 years even his most bitter critics speak of him. Tell me. Will your closest friends even speak of you, given that time?

The man may have been mistaken. Terribly so. But what drives an otherwise intelligent mind to seek the low route of ad hominism? Could it be, perhaps, you're afraid of a dead man and his ideas? No shame. It is Halloween, after all. :smile:

There are plenty of online tools out there that already do that. Some are more reliable than others. Tip: Avoid sponsored results that give false positives to sell you something. — Baden

I think the elephant in the room, or perhaps the question he was not able to form, would be:

Aren't people raised by their parents? The apple doesn't fall far from the tree? Don't men consciously and subconsciously become influenced by the "father" figures in their lives, be they in the flesh, or perhaps in movies, music, books, and media in general? Don't we try to learn lessons (not to say be like, as to the grounds of cosplay or impersonation) but otherwise wish to be influenced by great philosophers and other folk we respect? We do.

So what happens when people use AI more than they speak to other humans so end up speaking in the same pattern with the same frequency of usages as the AI they use does? I do tend to purposely try to speak "extra clearly, professionally, concisely, and intelligently" online, a significant more than I would talking to anyone else in person, friend or stranger. Almost, non-genuinely and "perfectly" (out of consideration and respect for the sake of readability and of course interest to the person I'm replying to). Surely you can see how there is a concern for mistakes to be made? To err is human. And to use a tool made by humans, well, that just complicates things even further, does it not? :smile:

Surprisingly, it's part of a public government-funded university. Which makes it worse. — Baden

In the dark, a lit tea light is better than nothing I suppose. :grin:

Regarding the new policy, sometimes when I’ve written something that comes out clunky I run it through an AI for “clarity and flow” and it subtly rearranges what I’ve written. Is that a non-no now? — praxis

+1 for an excellent question. Naturally, @Jamal would have the final say.

(though I would presume the answer to be no, I'd be fairly confident in stating the policy and rules will likely be selectively applied to members based on their standing and tenure here. I'd eat my hat [though perhaps I'd have to buy one first] if you were penalized for such, considering the noteworthiness of your contributions here, versus say, someone who signed up a week or a month ago and seems to be keyboard-happy)

Additionally, assuming you're honest at chess, you're clearly no simpleton. Why would a skilled biker not scoff at the idea of using training wheels for his daily commute? It just doesn't seem necessary. Look at the mod Timothy's posts. They're very long. Perfectly coherent, not a single waste of space despite the volume. But if one really wanted to critique, sure, perhaps the same idea or message can be said with a bit less wording. But that would be a butchery of his expression and who he is as a person and what he allows us to privilege to glean from his mind, and yes perhaps very soul. It would be something that was once an honor turned into a mockery of humanity itself. A simpleton might look at his posts and call such "clunky", but certainly not you.

Look at every great classic novel. If you really wanted to, you could turn every chapter or the entire book into a sentence or a paragraph without removing a bit of the "essence" or "point" the author intended or that the general readership considers as important. What kind of nightmare world would that be? Why not just look at a traffic light all day and get amazed by the simplistic changes of color. Or why not watch paint dry? Because that's what it all boils down to when you remove your, what you believe to be "clunky-ness", what you think might be excess or something you'd otherwise wish to be perfected. We're human. We're alive. We make mistakes. We make imperfections. We ARE imperfect. And that's why we're unique and can never be replaced by autonomy. If I found out all AI "died" or became inert or was otherwise outlawed tomorrow, I'd laugh. If I found out something happened to you, I'd cry. And that's the truth. Because what you may consider something people don't want to read (and sure, most people are rather dull and probably wouldn't), people who actually have their head on right, would enjoy nothing more.

You don't need AI. Not one bit. Again, you have tenure. So I wouldn't worry. Though, it couldn't hurt to set the example and just do what everyone has to, at least right away while the new rule is literally hot off the presses. :smile:

Much of what all of us do is "parrot." Not many people can come up with an original idea to save their life. — Sam26

Because it's all been said and done before. The average person in the past 50 years comes from a multi-sibling household with TV or Internet or otherwise endless forms of entertainment that people a mere few centuries ago never had. Nobody has to think anymore. Not really. Other than the basic desires and how they relate to one's safety, gain, and resulting comfort in life.

Philosophy:
"There is no such thing as a new idea. It is impossible. We simply take a lot of old ideas and put them into a sort of mental kaleidoscope."
- Mark Twain

Religion:
"There is nothing new under the Sun."
- Ecclesiastes

I mean, what yours is suggesting is akin to creating a bonfire underwater. Even if you did, what good or purpose could ever come from it? :chin:

How do they police that? — frank

Sounds like a modern for-profit college. Daddy's money buys anything these days. At the cost of the future of society. But oh well, when Country XYZ who actually punishes fraud and rewards honest intellectualism invents the Super Nuke(TM), everyone I know or care about will be dead by then. So, why worry? Logic 101. Good luck, great grandchildren.

Do you guys ever experience hypobaric hypoxia from being so high above everyone else? — Athena

If popular aphorisms are to be trusted, it's quite lonely at the top. But at least they're nice. That or desperate to trap another unwitting soul so as to alleviate their loneliness and deprive another from that nearly forgotten feeling of what is was once upon a time when one knew so little, yet could dream of so much. :cry:

In the end it's all about power. — praxis

It's about how the mind can best determine an increase of what is vital for the body to prolong its existence. So, perhaps. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), we become blinded by that which we do not understand, and so inevitably make choices that seem wise or conducive to this psychotic goal, yet eventually... make a fatal misstep. And so, the pendulum of power is, perhaps doomed, perhaps favored, to swing back and forth, forevermore. Some ranges of motion simply take longer than others. To no credit of those who become unwitting pawns of fate that a lost world has no choice but to imagine they have any control or influence over. Which they ultimately do not. No mortal does.

This is clearly a bad analogy. Scientific truths are a different category of knowledge than moral truths or values. — praxis

But do they not claim the lion's share of one's cultural or social "zeitgeist" depending on their popularity? Especially in times when perhaps, unlike today, the lines or understandings of "truth" and "morals" and "virtues" were less clearly drawn, if even visible? :chin:

Basically, there was a time when the two were one and the same. Naturally they became distinct for a reason, but can we really sit here in all honesty and pretend like the then-system didn't lay the foundation for what is the now-system and perhaps is only just another stepping stone toward a greater system? Why, who could say! Those before surely doubted, perhaps they were the most popular, and yet, here we are. So fancy that, eh?

The idea that humans are born into sin in need of salvation could not be more foreign to this concept, but instead it speaks of a divine soul, nothing wretched about it. — Hanover

To be alive is to want things, things beyond what one needs. Can you truly say you've never felt a temptation to have something, that if the actions required for that something to become yours or otherwise like yours, wouldn't hurt another person, possibly severely to the point of the worst state of mind one could imagine? We often don't think about the true, eternal, rather the chain-of-effect of a simple action like stealing a loaf of bread from a shopkeep or sleeping with someone's wife, for how could our limited mortal minds truly process such a large dynamic in a passing moment? It can't!

While some might argue this ignorance or inability is not "wretched" in nature, it surely can lead to wretched things all while simply going about one's day and not thinking any more deeply than about what is in front of one's self. You can understand that. Your whole career involves such types of thinking.

All men are capable of great good and great evil. That much should be common sense. Theology be damned (not really just as a figure of speech for those who'd only listen to those who speak their 'language').

It'll be interesting to see what others have to say. — Banno

I mean, training wheels are nice. And I'm no great scholar. A good majority of these threads and levels of discussion are a fair level over my head (but perhaps I now know why...) but aside from that, if you can't ever graduate from training wheels to riding a bike on your own, maybe, I dunno, bike riding just isn't your thing, y'know?

You can only force a thing that's not meant to be so much before it becomes a burden to not only yourself but those around you. Sure, everyone wants to be smart. Not to be "tricked" or a "sucker" or a "Fool" (or rather, they want to learn how to fool others and get ahead, gaining personal material or other benefit from knowledge, pretty much the motive of 99% of people, including myself, at one point) and everything else but, there's a natural order to things and some things can't be rushed. We can fool others, but we can never fool ourselves. Not for very long. Before one inevitably wake's up one somber morning realizing one has been living a lie and is nothing close to the person they've spent countless hours and energy convincing an ultimately uncaring world they were (or perhaps were not?).

In short, I doubt anyone with anything worth saying actually needs to use AI. Period. Full stop. Beyond that, that it would actually make anything better (other than shorter and quicker per brevity) for the reader. Save for the non-English speaker who is learning English and wishes to participate prematurely. I'm pretty sure that was the heart and spirit of the "anti-AI" rule as it was posted when it was posted. Perhaps I'm wrong. But I doubt it. Unless some backtracking or "change of heart" has occurred between the staff here. And that's fine. I'm happy to be here. I'll sing whatever tune is favored, I suppose. People do like consistency, though. All society and human struggle was fought and formed with such in mind, lest we forget. :smile:

They'll both think it good until they learn that it's not. — praxis

Ah, what a joy. FINALLY someone sunk that Titanic of a mind (or perhaps ego) of yours like a direct, apocalyptic final hit in Battleship. Of course it would be the noble Count. I knew it would happen. I've waited 5 years and played two long agonizing games of chess resulting in defeat after defeat for this moment. Victory is indeed sweet. Even if all glory doth indeed belong to another.

No, I'm sure monkeys dislike being eaten.

Monkey consumption is still good or bad relative to the perspective—whether one is the eater or the eaten. — praxis

So, you admit, with hands wringing, and one's once noble tail tucked shamefully between one's once-triumphant legs, that, if we lived in a world where monkeys were the larger, more dangerous prey, tigers being eaten would be mere "relevance to the individual" and acceptable, par for the course, if you would. Therefore, the nature of all your truth, all your validity, is hinged on not fact, not logic, not what's right or wrong. but pure and simple juvenile circumstance. Happenstance. A mere toss of the cosmic die.

And here I thought I was defeated by a greater person. No, just greater odds, it would seem and now remains self-evident. :grin:

I can judge the nature of a nitrogen electron from Andromeda from the nature of an electron of oxygen here on Earth. The foundational nature is universally uniform. — Copernicus

But you don't know that. You don't know any of that. Sure, it's a reasonable guess. You might even base a theory on that and it be proven correct. But you haven't done any of that, nor do you have the capability to. It might even be considered JTB (justified true belief), though I'm not sure as I don't read or rather immerse my virgin mind in established philosophy. But that's still just a guess. A reasonable one. A rational one, sure. But a guess all the same.

In contrast to the FALSE reality? :roll: — 180 Proof

To be fair, I don't think one can ever refer to any person (even ignoring the first 18 years of life, or whatever your society or legal government considers a "legal adult") who's never been mistaken. One might even go further and remind one that many people live and die believing falsehoods of a wide variety. Perhaps an adopted child, perhaps a man or woman who believed their disloyal spouse was in fact the opposite, or perhaps a soon to be disproved yet otherwise brilliant mind such as Newton who thought light was made of simple particles.

As you can see there are in fact "true" and "false" "realities", or at the very least more true and less true, many of which the majority of men and women will go through life happily without ever discovering.

I take his statement as suggesting there is something fundamentally incorrect about the topic at hand, or perhaps, to be charitable, at the very least, there is more to know, perhaps much more to know to the effect it has fundamental and everlasting difference. Phrased in that way and fashion, perhaps the young lad is not quite so unreasonable. :smile:

All serving the self. I can't see where not. — Copernicus

Just to update you, the OP, or father of the discussion as to where the rest of us have reached or what the metaphorical child has grown into:

Most actions are self-serving either by intent or biological inclination that offers benefit or potential of benefit.

However not all actions, including misspeaking, unconscious reflexes or habits, have intent, which is required to constitute "selfishness."

The title of the OP is false. You have admitted multiple times that not all actions are selfish or self-serving (Which you did change from selfish to self-serving after being given comeuppance, mind you).

Or is he just amusing the kids by making funny shadows on the wall behind him? — Banno

This is a good example because, he might not care about the kids, personally, or kids in general, and just does it because it's "what society would want." Perhaps he couldn't care less about whether that society lives or dies or otherwise ceases to exist. You might argue, okay, sure, then he just did so to pass the time and make that moment a bit more interesting for his enjoyment. But you don't know that. You're one man with one brain, and you still fail to realize there's 8.2 billion people with 8.2 billion brains whose might work just a tad differently than yours. How is this so hard to understand?

I'll admit my prejudice is somewhat on the pissing on the forest fire side -- an almost Kantian hatred of AI. — Moliere

While I can't say I completely agree and embrace your sentiment, I certainly have respect for it and can see the dangers or otherwise loss of quality of life and human spirit that may be brought about by incessant and ceaseless use.

Everyone will sound so smart online or as long as they have their phone on them. Then, if the power goes off, or there's an error in the network, or they otherwise have to talk or explain something in person... all you're going to hear is "Uhhhhh.......yeah, I need more time to think about that to respond to it properly." :lol:

Do you believe that unchecked human population growth will ultimately result in a "tragedy of the commons" scenario, given enough time, then?

Not unlike the so-called proposed "heat death" of the Universe?

You are pressing the switch in your sound, awaken mind. — Copernicus

Hm. I'm sure the person is aware of it, but the arising tendency or intent to, in some cases, might be reflex of habit, thus never once being a thought that enters the "thoughtsphere" or "conscious mind." That's what an unconscious reflex or habit means.

Reflexive actions are done biologically for your own good. They're self-serving. — Copernicus

I'm sure many if not most have benefit, but now the person is completely removed from the equation thus eliminating all possibility of such sort of acts being either "selfish" or "selfless" since their is no agency. It never once crossed or entered the persons mind until said action long already occurred.

Anxiety or nervousness that makes one stand out and otherwise miss out of social opportunities doesn't seem "for [one's] own good." To name one example. Same with stuttering. And a few other non-willed actions that are generally lumped under "nervous tendencies."

Your entirety is your self. Whether mind (agency) or body (reaction). — Copernicus

Again, selfishness requires intent, which requires agency. Otherwise we're just talking about cellular responses, not unlike photosynthesis. Was that your intent?

Natural law, not personal experience. — Copernicus

So, what is your point then? What is the point of the OP? That organisms, no matter how simple (one-celled amoeba) or complex (human beings) perform actions that generally offer benefit to said organism in just about any and all scenarios? That's common knowledge; a solution in search of a problem.

I mean, what's next. An OP about how fire is bad if touched by most organisms?

Your brain adapting to a pattern for your future convenience — self-interest. — Copernicus

But how can that be agency, if unconscious or otherwise a non-consciously formed arrangement the human mind forms automatically with no say or input from the "self" or conscious mind?

Is that not an example of a truly "intent-less" act? Like nail-biting or some other nervous habit? Sure, you can realize "whoa, wait a minute I'm biting my nails" and stop at your leisure, but it was still initiated without a conscious agent behind it.

Agency requires awareness and intent, whereas the prevailing understanding of the human mind is that the unconscious can never be made conscious. So riddle me that.

Just like I don't measure everything in the universe but know that (a+b)²=a²+2ab+b². — Copernicus

That still doesn't comport or explain an intrinsic, large part of your theory, which seems to suggest every other person's brain on Earth who lives, ever lived, or ever will live, somehow must respond and behave the exact way yours does.

Intent to assist others — agency — serving his own will and limbs to turn on the switch. He did it to both save himself from subconsciously feeling bad for not assisting, and serve himself his agency to act. — Copernicus

Not necessarily. It could just be an unconscious habit at this point, not unlike putting the toilet seat down after use or putting the cap back on a bottle after a sip.

What defies explanation is how you assume every person on Earth both alive and who ever did live once, and who ever will live just automatically has to have a mind that works the way yours does, exactly as it does. This is just not realistic, at all.

I think what the good, noble sir @unenlightened wishes to express is that the mediums in which we expect genuine human interaction and discourse are becoming far from that, to the point that yes it may literally be exactly to that degree. He further states, perhaps, in my opinion, the overall zeitgeist of communication or media not experienced in person is becoming increasingly diluted and corrupted by non-genuine and non-human expression, despite the majority of those not realizing such and perceiving such non-human expression as if were genuine. And that, my good sir, should alarm any thinking man with a mind, heart or conscience, in my opinion. Here, here.

And truly, the ramifications of such, especially long term in reference to modern youth, are nothing short of, not only abysmal, not only cataclysmic, but perhaps apocalyptic. All things considered as far as the ever-raging battle for the mind and soul of the youth and therefore future of humanity is concerned.

A man can be a slut, too. Believe me, I tried.

If women are equal, and men living in societies with free speech is not harmful to humanity, I fail to see a problem. Does it make you question your life choices? Well, that's not anybody else's fault, is it? :chin:

I vote for this being a Lounge topic, by the way.

But I think these questions are nutso. — Jeremy Murray

That's fine, well, odd, if not disturbing, since you claim to be a professional who works with children. Or was that someone else?

The majority of the world, and all reputable science acknowledges the brain is not developed until well beyond adolescence and so children cannot be trusted to decide what's best for themselves or what they think they know. They are highly malleable, easily influenced, and can be led to believe anything. This is common knowledge and codified legal fact everywhere on Earth, which is why children are not legal adults until the age of ~18. Just for some real world context that cares not about your outlying and atypical opinion.

Suggesting a young child does not and cannot intimately and deeply know what sexuality or race is, was more of a statement. A common sense statement. The literal farthest thing from "nutso", since it is in fact normal, widely-held belief. If you cannot understand basic human nature, you have no business working with any child anywhere. Period. Sure, a young person can get aroused by human contact and feel "different" per release of hormones and various signals the brain sends to the body, that's normal. Sure, you can tell that your skin is one color and that another person's might be a different color. But these are surface level, beginnings of understanding what it means to be human, not indicative of anything, let alone set in stone just because you've been led to believe they prove something absolutely that will be inherent to the person's entire adult life.

It's really hard to respond to this. — AmadeusD

Then don't. The world and intelligent people are in charge and will decide what's best for children when adults fail to. You can bet your life on that.

Furthermore, just because you don't like, agree with, or understand something doesn't mean it's "crap", especially when it's a widely held belief the majority of the world holds and science, morals, and basic cultural and societal fabric supports and stands behind.

You're simply mistaken. It's not that big a deal, it happens to everyone at some point in life.

No. I can't understand why you're trying to talk about things I haven't said. — AmadeusD

I didn't "try" to talk about anything. I successfully asked a question. Not a statement-within-a-question, a simple question. A highly-relevant question that acknowledges common patterns of discrimination and prejudice toward people who are diverse or atypical in tone of voice or physical structure—surface-level, superficial traits that commonly result in illegitimate, ill-formed, and myopic opinion-heavy "determinations" of "feminine" vs. "masculine." Your answer was no. Moving on.

He is much more 'whimsical'. And that is feminine. — AmadeusD

And? He's a kid. Kids grow up. You can't predict a human beings entire life based on the first few years. Not for certain. So he likes expressing himself. Maybe he'll be the next rock star or something. You don't know. No one does. So don't act like you do.

I didn't mention him being bullied. I actually didn't mention any of this. — AmadeusD

No one said you did. Simply these are common traits that occur in children who act differently than their peers. Sometimes bullying/ostracization is because they are different, other times it's just what happens that leads to one becoming and acting differently as a coping strategy. This is basic psychology. I notice you don't say "he's not", which leads one to believe, perhaps I was correct, and if so, you should listen to people who are correct about topics and persons they seem to have no way of knowing anything about personally. That's called wisdom.

--

I understand it's a tough, personal topic. None of my business. Nothing to discuss with a stranger in front of more strangers. You don't have to reply. Still, this post must be posted so as to educate and reach as many as possible who might be reading who have the same misunderstandings as you, even if such education fails to reach you yourself. If at least two people discover the truth and are now free from falsehood, when one might not, that's still a win for humanity and all that is good, right, and proper.

However, the funny thing is that even the creators dont fully understand how it works. — ProtagoranSocratist

How would you know that?

You are not of sound mind. Everything you do that is not a voluntary act (under influence or coercion) doesn't count as [voluntary] action. — Copernicus

Is a person not of sound mind no longer a person? Who decides whose mind is sound and whose isn't? You? Society? Was such a formation of such standards a selfish act? How do you know? If it was a selfish act, perhaps their motives are less than representative of reality and conform to personal biases. Who are you to judge? Is this not selfish and so to be avoided, but most importantly invalidated?

Careful now. Lest one paint oneself into a corner one cannot so easily talk their way out of.

No. You served your agency or desire to act. — Copernicus

What if I was drunk/high/on drugs/delirious from lack of sleep/in an emotional frenzy and had no such agency? At least, not my own as one is generally only considered to have otherwise.

They may had gains or motives other than altruism. — Copernicus

Here we go with more presumptions. That overused word "may" that means nothing in absolute discussion.

No, that would still suggest the OP said something about the world, which it doesn't. — Hanover

I mean, the first sentence in the OP references "human", which, to my knowledge is a direct reference to a physical being that exists in, you guessed it, the world. But hey, you're the professional, I'll take your word for it. Just seems you've left ample room to argue is all.

Give me a hypothetical example of a selfless act. That you can't clarifies you're saying nothing about the world. If nothing qualifies due to logical impossibility, you're saying nothing about the world. — Hanover

Leaving a hundred dollar bill under a rock on the sidewalk, maybe? You'll never gain any benefit from it. Who knows, it might go to some drug addict. Or, someone really down on their luck who needed just that amount to make rent or cover this month's bills might pick it up instead. You'll never know. But fancy this. Imagine the person is a psychopath or sociopath, whichever one doesn't feel empathy or "happiness" like a normal person feels when helping someone in need. That would, technically be selfless, no? Random, if nothing else seeing as it would be unlikely in that prescribed scenario such an act would occur.

I get your point and like your rug example. Very poignant and succinct.

Everyone knows there can be personal benefit when you benefit others. That doesn't make it selfish. — Hanover

But it is, nevertheless, self-serving. Specifically when you do such with said knowledge (or intent) beforehand. His point is, we're somewhat "trapped" in the dynamic that everything we do is expected to have positive benefit, even things we must do or otherwise have no choice but to do.

He does have a point when he suggests "every action is out of desire", even a mental invalid who chooses to harm himself or paint his driveway a certain color and then attempt to vacuum it. Sure, in that case, while such actions have no utility or tangible benefit, they do "benefit" the person by expressing or fulfilling such a desire, misguided and whatnot as it is.

Though, some people choose self-denial or "avoidance of desire" or pleasure or what have you. He says people who do this are still doing it for a sort of tangible benefit even if that benefit is to "challenge" one's self or live a better, purer, or otherwise specific sort of life.

I responded saying, sure, most people do that, even 99%, but that doesn't mean every single person who ever existed, including people not alive or who OP would otherwise never meet necessarily fell under that wide assessment of mindset he assumes every person must subscribe or live under.

In a way, you could frame the OP as a simple critique of the modern mammalian brain. We don't do anything unless it (seems) to offer benefit, and even when it doesn't, the act of trying and failing versus not trying at all, seems to self-validate, at least in the context or argument the OP is suggesting.

define it — Copernicus

Now who's getting distracted. :smile:

You say, the only way a truly non-selfish act can occur is if one denies basically all positive and generally-appreciated aspects of life. You also say, if one does this, it is because they seek a "challenge" and some sort of fulfillment from said challenge.

I then state, it's possible that out of the billions and billions of minds that exist and have existed, one may have embraced the first part of your premise (self-denial) without doing so for the challenge or sense of fulfillment in any form.

You find this impossible. You are one person. There are billions of people. Therefore, the odds of your sentiment being correct, without substantial proof are 1 in 8 billion, and that's a high estimate in your favor.

Do you understand that?

I'd like to know where it went wrong. — Copernicus

I wouldn't say anything "went wrong", per se, just, as it stands, this isn't anything substantial that hasn't been discussed (and dismissed, if not by widely-held view, which sure, might not invalidate anything in an absolute sense). It simply didn't "transcend" what others have suggested and discussed before, in my opinion. So, nothing went wrong, it's just, it didn't seem to "catch" or what have you, in the sense of throwing things at a wall and seeing what sticks.

It's still early on, who knows, perhaps you're simply ahead of your time, not unlike the many great artists and authors whose work was discounted, even ridiculed while alive, only to become a staple in every library after their death. Vincent van Gogh only sold but one painting while his breath was still in his body. So. Who could say, yes? :smile:

From my argumentative conclusion, all people are, and it's impossible not to be. — Copernicus

See this is where things get a bit confusing. You say just a few moments ago, here:

That makes selflessness theoretically (of course, practically) unattainable. — Copernicus

Impossible = not possible.

Theoretically (practically unattainable) = possible. (albeit unlikely)

These are two starkly different worlds of possibility you seem to waver back and forth between. So, I'll ask the obvious question. Which is it?

The only selfless act would be when you deny yourself gratification, gain, achievement, everything, including your decision to deny self-interest to achieve the gratification of having the liberty of denying self-interest or to serve your adventurous desire to test yourself, and the idea of doing it all in your head by serving yourself an intellectual ride.

That makes selflessness theoretically (of course, practically) unattainable. — Copernicus

Well, this is one person's opinion. Your assurance, your worldview, the way you were raised and so live your life. Surely you don't think out of the billions people alive and who were once alive, it's impossible not one person could have thought differently than how you do in a way that laughs in the face of the way you perceive life must be lived?

To put it bluntly, your views, your limitations perhaps, weakness even, are yours and yours alone. Even if in principle they are shared by every person you've ever met or ever will meet, there's more than enough people (7 billion+) to warrant the belief that perhaps your way of looking at life, or rather, how your mind is forced to process life, isn't the only way to do so.

Does that make sense?