There might have been knowledge of child sacrifice that took place in Carthage centuries earlier, but it would have been contemplated with dread, not devotion. — frank

It's something you won't understand unless you're raised into it. You'd just go crazy and think the world is a simulation if you knew the truth.

Think of it as being on a desert island before a boat was invented. There's a whole new realm to be discovered, at least, according to those who believe in said branch of religion(s).

Really. Just imagine it. You're on this island, it's all you ever know. And some guy starts talking about how there's "a whole world out there basically like Heaven with flowing waterfalls, delicious meat, food, and such beauty it would make your heart skip a beat." You'd call the dude crazy. Laugh at him, maybe give him a little smack "back to reality" as you'd say, and continue on with your delusion that the world you know is all there is to know and all it ever shall be. That's what's going on here. At least, religious-minded people will equate your sentiment as parallel to the aforementioned scenario. Since you asked. You did ask, after all. At least hear out what those whom you're asking have to say.

It's pretty simple. But I shan't spoil it for you and others like you.

Basically, back then, there were much, much, much less words in existence that could only be communicated with context in speaking. Written languages are relatively new. Your so called "earliest recorded history" despite proof of intelligent human activity long before.

In the original language before what is commonly attributed to original language in the Bible, the words "large", "tall", and "intelligent" are the same word. So the "giants", or "sons of God" were basically your modern day intellects. Who had to be "flooded" or "overwhelmed with force" otherwise they would have killed off all humanity leaving only themselves. Remember, they weren't murderous, they just saw how we create our own hardship and wanted to relieve unneeded suffering in the world. But I digress. I've said far too much already. Ask and ye shall receive, of course.

We do our best to translate and listen to those greater than ourselves. But we inevitably always fail.

Voting should be restricted to legally competent adults. — LuckyR

Biological (or external and outward) maturity =/= intellectual or mental (inward or internal) maturity. Numerous studies attest to this fact. The state or quality of, basically just "not being dangerously insane" which is essentially all "legal competence" is these days, seems hardly a profound or reliable measure of judgement, to be quite honest.

education is not what creates better people and better voters — Hanover

Not perfectly, predictably, or uniformly, no. Not every time, not on every occasion. But surely lack of education is what creates worse people or at the very least perpetuates everything that plagues mankind ensuring it will remain with us for all time only worsening the state of society in perpetuity. So. at the very least, I'd suggest it (education) certainly doesn't hurt. Perhaps you're referencing strictly technical data (how to build a super weapon, for example) as opposed to emotional intelligence and social understanding (why and when not to use said weapon in the first place).

If you are consistently law abiding, Outlander, why would you fear punishment for wrongdoing? — BC

Oh come now. No innocent man has ever been framed. No bad thing has ever happened to a good person? What fanatical idealism is this? And yes, you know quite well I'm religious but even in my eyes such a sentiment is a stretch far beyond any sort of rationale.

People who have not put themselves at risk of punishment have no need to fear punishment. — BC

I find this to be a bit of a misconception. Surely you can understand why.

My ability to understand is not perfect. Everything that exists is imperfect. — Truth Seeker

See, here's the kicker. To be able to definitively say, without lying "everything is [X, Y, Z]" requires a perfect understanding. At least, one that is considerably refined. How can you know what is perfect and imperfect, without being perfect? You can't. You're guessing. Which is fine. But doesn't really churn an argument or debate forward in any positive or notable way. Do you see the point I'm trying to make? Imperfect as it is. :wink:

If religions have a divine origin, then they should be perfect. Sadly, they are of human origin, hence their imperfections. — Truth Seeker

Kind of ironic though. Implying your ability to understand is perfect in this one context only for no reason at all. :lol:

More so, as to the original point, what about how the "hyper strong" use their size as a tool to enslave anyone weaker or smaller or less powerful either as an individual or ethnic group?

Major flaw and in my view, purposely overlooked hole, in the spirit of the OP. But hey, you're imperfect, as you admit. All par for the course, assuredly. :grin:

things society and general are considered "bad" or "evil" — QuirkyZen

A "bad" or "evil" society considers things that are virtuous and just as the opposite. Similar to how kindness is equated with weakness or honesty is equated with treachery (ie. snitching). Oddly parallels many modern societies, interestingly enough. So, by that strictly verbose interpretation at least, muddies the larger issue quite well in my opinion.

most would likely take it(correct me if i am wrong) — QuirkyZen

How, with a beating? :grin:

It's not so much you're wrong, it's more you've made a claim, a very large and broad one at that, without even attempting to prove it in any way. We call that "bad form" or "in poor taste" where I come from.

Different people might choose different "evils" some might commit serious crimes like rape, while others would say no to that but still engage in something like a major theft to become a billionaire. Does that make them a bad person? — QuirkyZen

Well, hypothetically speaking of course, it depends who you rape or who you rob. Maybe you decide to rape a serial rapist. That'd be kind of funny, come to think of it. Or maybe you rob someone who only has his wealth due to him or someone before him committing acts or robbery and murder. It's all relative, friend.

Bad and good are so subjective these days. Let's invoke something more absolute and universal. A hypocrite (which is in fact considered bad), someone who does something to another yet would get upset if it were done to them. That's a good starting point to determine if something is "bad" or "good" and to what degree.

doesn’t that mean we’re all bad people deep down? — QuirkyZen

Generally speaking, intelligent beings are creatures of opportunity. You wouldn't be alive today, likely, if you believe solely on evolutionary theory, if someone before you didn't embrace, at least partially, the characteristics required to continue one's genetics in a physical world of hardship and chaos. As to what that actually means, when it comes to morality and beyond, varies from person to person.

I suppose to vindicate the human condition, one might wish to subscribe to something along the lines of "all men are capable of great good and great evil, as to which we choose and even our ability to have a choice and knowledge of the two, depends greatly on the society and set of circumstances one is born in."

The universe contains many laws which govern how the universe operates e.g. laws of physics. The question that is puzzling me right now is why are there laws in the first place and why is the universe not lawless instead ? — kindred

As a strict matter of fact, most if not all laws that govern the world we live in dissipate during at least one known and observable phenomenon, a black hole, as example. People like to say "oh no it's actually just the same law but because X Y Z is different, it's just more dramatic or pronounced" even though it's clearly not. People are silly like that.

So. One might wish to not be so "gung ho" with your initial assertion and argument. Things work here the way they do because that's just how they do here. Elsewhere? As to what lies beyond? That's a bit outside of philosophy, wouldn't you say? :smile:

Don't even get me started on the Singularity. It's far too early in the evening.

The fear of atomic warfare has never prevented small wars in the years since then. — Ludwig V

One might argue that firearm laws don't prevent firearm deaths entirely. Of course not. No more than requiring a license exam to ensure a person can safely operate a motor vehicle hasn't prevented unsafe operations of motor vehicles from licensees. No more than the fact that people wearing life jackets have in fact drowned. But how can one really say they have no purpose as far as that function goes. Just a shot in the dark, no?

It's too sycophantic is my problem with it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You can actually make your own AI, that is to say, configure it entirely based on a few prompts or an entire library, with enough resource and where-with-all.

There's a "fringe site" I visit on occasion (just for the news and on occasion to marvel at the depths of human depravity, or at least keep track of relevant trends associated with such) that did so and basically made it a "conspiracy AI" that pretty much suggests the opposite of what your standard AI will always. For what it's worth. Pretty sure that requires a fairly robust setup including your own web server and some sort of pricey license alongside considerably advanced technical knowledge. Or perhaps not. Not sure.

Perhaps something the alleged, self-professed "web developer" @Jamal might wish to consider just as proof-of-concept one day? Imagine. "Feeding" it (AI) the entire written works of one philosopher (or several! perhaps conflicting one's!) and making it a free AI bot for us all to play around with. Now, that'd be going above and beyond, as a site owner. Bah. There has to be something like that already.

(difference between regular AI is that when you "train" it based on only specific texts all it can do is rely on those texts whereas the standard AI relies on all available knowledge)

I'm not really sure what your point is — Skalidris

Let's imagine a dark room. Then you turn a light on and it's no longer dark. You don't just sit there reminiscing about how it used to be when the light wasn't on and that there's a "decline in lightness" now that it's bright just because it's not getting any brighter — it's literally just no longer dark and there's literally nothing more to see. Everything once obscured is simply not obscured any longer and perfectly visible. Well, that's one take, at least.

do you think we're not going to have any philosophical breakthroughs... — Skalidris

Quite honestly, no. Sure, some people will see things that were right in front of their face the whole time that they had the tools and resources to see anyhow because things are worded differently or otherwise now bypass certain mental blocks, quips, and complexes for whatever reason. No doubt. But that's a personal alleviation or blockage being remedied not anything that has anything to do with a larger school of thought.

...that will give rise to new useful disciplines for example — Skalidris

I mean, sure. It's possible. But superficially. If someone doesn't have legs, before someone thought of the idea of jamming a wooden pole into where the leg used to go, that person couldn't walk. But it didn't mean the idea of human locomotion was refined. I mean, sure it was a world of difference to those it benefited, but that was due to their own unique circumstance and again nothing to do with the larger concept as a whole.

Do you think anything new we'll find will be useless or of insignificant use? — Skalidris

Again, sure. If we in fact actually do find something new. I'm arguing that it's unlikely, and since you've yourself been unable to prove such, seems like a fairly defensible point and position to hold. Philosophy is not akin to innovation, at least not quite. Incandescent lighting for example, or the combustion engine, both great inventions. Changed the world, circumstantially. But didn't introduce a new concept. Not technically. We had light in darkness via candles, we had transportation via horses and carriage. Now, this might be construed as "moving the goalposts" per se, but, yes I believe all thought has been discussed and formed long ago. Even if all record of it has been destroyed. When you learn division in grade school, that's like a new idea, to you, and perhaps everybody else you know. But it's not. Not really.

Do you seriously think everything has already been discussed in agonizing details? — Skalidris

Philosophical concepts as far as what exists and can exist in the mind, more or less. Sure, maybe one day we'll invent an unlimited perpetual motion machine and solve all world hunger with a shrink ray set on "grow". :wink:

The science and technical facts, schematics, and what have you, like math, may have never been seen before by human eyes. The invention is new. The specific facilitation of logic to create a particular arrangement of matter in the physical world that results in an effect or serves as a utility in a capacity never done before might be new. But the concept... was already discussed and thought of, long, long ago....

And yet the irony of it all is, these people have yet to come up with anything that they claim to be so important! Complaining is the cheapest thing in the world. Second only to observation. Human beings literally do it in the womb before they even take their first breath. Well, crying, at least.

So. I mean, there's much to be discussed and explored, not to immediately dismiss your point brought forward, but. Still.

It's almost like, yeah, humanity has literally, finally, vomited out all there is to be thunk up. Lol. Sure, you make a new movie with physically unique characters and put them through all the same spiel, the love, loss, danger, add some explosions, a rocket ship, shoot why not a talking monkey, and it's a hit people will be talking about until their senior years. That's all that can be expected, and some would argue, all there is. :yikes:

It’s a bit like saying evolutionary adaptations are the result of billions of years of trial and errors therefore living beings don’t need to evolve anymore.

Everything changes around us, we’re surrounded with so much more technology, so it makes sense that we also would need new views on life and new disciplines, which philosophy could help with. It’s a time where philosophy could be grandiose, yet they’re stuck in the past and seem to be scared of changes. — Skalidris

Well, like I said, invent a new concept that hasn't been so already. Propose one, at least. Most all concepts are bilateral in nature or otherwise share the principle of "duality." Example. There's restraint and excess. Care and disregard. Avoidance and acceptance. I could go on.

The onus is on you. What new concept is there to invent or discuss and why haven't you done so already? Odds are, it's simply a rehash using non-essential modern factors that really in the end perfectly correlate to things that were discussed hundreds if not thousands of years ago you simply were unaware of. There's always been invention, there's always been suffering, there's always been strife, there's always been existential fear of not just personal destruction but widespread societal extinction, and so on. Just because you can plug in something unique to the modern era into the logical process, that isn't specifically written verbose in any existing book, doesn't mean it's new nor hasn't already been discussed in agonizing detail long ago.

I'm referring to the degree of "newness" and the tendency of academic philosophy to focus on existing theories rather than generating new ones. — Skalidris

I would imagine some would say something along the lines of "it's all been perfected long ago" and thus anything else is simply a deviation and less efficient form of creativity that doesn't really serve any utilitarian function other than the fact it's different ie. art.

I mean, can you — right now — really come up with something truly "new" that would be taken seriously? Rather, that would lead to new debate and discussion that isn't merely intellectual pomp, fluff, kitsch that merely occupies the mind and traverses the mental logical process yet results in little else? Please do, if so.

There's a reason the classics are classic and that tried and true methods are referred to as such. Mental endeavors generally don't result in any danger or negative outcome but a waste of one's time. Not unlike physical endeavors where one deviates from the norm and can end up injured or killed. Though, the principle is not entirely dissimilar, I feel.

However, groundbreaking philosophers had such creative ideas that transformed the way we see the world, and even gave rise to new disciplines we now see as essential. — Skalidris

We'll never really know what those before us thought of and discussed before the written record. War and the nature of this finite world itself tends to destroy even that record as well.

Common theme I hear: "There are no new ideas, only new persons who re-discover and share them to other new persons." Something like that, anyhow.

Like, there's only a few non-subjective (perhaps not the best word used) concepts, really. Existence, time, etc. Sure there's a million and one concepts relevant and not-relevant to the human experience and emotion (love, lust, desire, fear, belonging, rejection, spite, anger, distrust, etc. ad infinitum) but they're all derived from a singular source that is relevant only to places where men exist and have the capacity to think. Surely, we didn't create such concepts? Or do we? They predate us. Or do they? Now there's a debate. :grin:

Logic comes from predictability. What works consistently over what doesn't that generally offers tangible benefit, usually life saving circumstance. Don't touch fire, or you'll get burned. Don't go into the wilderness by yourself, or you'll get eaten (never return). Etc. Logic, actually, came, or perhaps rather was passed down from, folk stories. Whether true or not, they ended up being the basis of many truths we hold today. Truths that if ignored often result in tragedy.

Fables are a prime example. The average person, whether they realize it or not, base their actions on "fables" or "hypothetics" ie. "constructed scenarios" they make in their head and in a way, live out, in the context of the thought process. So, for example, let's say I haven't changed my tires in a few years. I will imagine, an unfortunate tale of what could happen (yet hasn't) to me if I continue not to do so. This will often result in actual action of the individual into something that, hopefully, prevents such. It's all really fascinating. Truly.

The plight of the thinking man.

"I've lived through some terrible things in my life, some of which actually happened"
- Mark Twain

Animals that don't fit in are ostracized. Ostracization in the animal kingdom has a 90%+ rate of death. Are you religious and believe humans are set apart from animals? If not, you believe in science. And that is the science. So, you happen to be incorrect in any and all practical sense, if so. — Outlander

The only response to that is LOL. — Malcolm Parry

That's great. You made an inaccurate statement, that statement basically being: "social expectation is not required (forced upon [anyone])". Scientific facts and reference along with common sense posted has addressed and proven said falsehood. You need to remember, this is a serious discussion forum. Please maintain decorum.

So what? — Malcolm Parry

So it's not a logical point that has any relevance in this or any discussion.

Do descriptions have to be above all beneficial to the advancement of an intelligent species? — Malcolm Parry

No, those that don't, fade away in place of those that do. What we call in the business a "red herring." The idea that something is popular (ride sharing or perhaps slavery) doesn't make it right, conducive, or part of the greater future going forward. You should know this.

There are aggregated societal differences between the sexes. — Malcolm Parry

Naturally. "Societal" differences just reminds me of fluid dynamics applied to psychology ie. "water chooses the path of least resistance" or in more lax terms "what the majority of people happen to think." Sure, the apple (an intelligent social being's observation and opinion of biological fact) doesn't fall far from the tree (biological fact itself). It's a great indicator, but it's no bullseye. No, not in every case and scenario.

Gender describes those differences. — Malcolm Parry

It is the social zeitgeist of what is desired and nothing more. Sure, often based on what's best for a given society in a given time and at a given place. But nothing more.

What is your point? — Malcolm Parry

What has been my point since the beginning, logic and refinement of views and opinions for the betterment of society. What is yours, if I may ask?

I don't see gender as something foisted on you. — Malcolm Parry

Animals that don't fit in are ostracized. Ostracization in the animal kingdom has a 90%+ rate of death. Are you religious and believe humans are set apart from animals? If not, you believe in science. And that is the science. So, you happen to be incorrect in any and all practical sense, if so.

It's just a description of cultural and social differences between the sexes. — Malcolm Parry

Not all descriptions are valid or above all beneficial to the advancement of an intelligent species. Maybe you're bigger than me and I'm smaller than you. That would, in a contemporary caveman sense, make me inferior. But. In reality, if I'm smarter than you, despite you and even the world around you being wholly unaware of not only the fact itself but what the fact effectively means for the improvement of said society, that description should be considered invalid and only held by fools. So, it's complicated. There's no black and white when it comes to this level of social cohesion with so many moving parts, known and unknown, understood (allegedly) and not.

You lie to the Gestapo, right? — RogueAI

Ideally, one should not bow to the wicked (immoral, excuse me). Of course, in practice, just as you mention in the example, people have children and they care about them and their well-being (allegedly, it's a psychological attachment, children die every day and no tears are shed but for one's own, so) and so in the end ultimately act on what's best for their own well-being and that of their family, whether it's right or not (ie. obeying authority who can take everything from you, regardless).

Say you're starving, your kids are starving, you see a loaf of bread that clearly doesn't belong to you. Do you take it, or do you die on a moral hill with your children clinging to you in tears in their last moments? It may not be an easy choice for many, but it damn sure is a consistent one. People look out for #1. Always. Never fails.

You have a point if we're talking about single males, but this doesn't apply to families with children. The children are moral innocents and should not have their lives turned upside down. — RogueAI

I've heard reports that the smugglers do in fact lie to people and say "oh everything's fine, you can do this, they won't do anything" when they in fact know it to be a lie. So yes, innocent people were misled by terrible people. And unfortunately these terrible people are outside of the legal jurisdiction of the U.S. government and so cannot be captured or killed. For now.

In short, I don't think an earnest father or mother would willingly put their kids in danger and turmoil, despite the fact they have. It wasn't their fault. That we can agree on.

But one thing, an unpopular fact, must be noted. Reproducing is literally the easiest, cheapest thing any living being can do. It's second nature. An immoral man who has convinced (or perhaps forced) a woman into spawning offspring does not make him any different than what he was before, an immoral man who is undesired by moral society. So what. Should we take their children and give them a better life? Will you invest your time and money to raise them? You can, you know. Some of us are busy with our own lives. Life is cruel. Life is indeed cruel. But like I mentioned before, people like to grandstand, but at the end of the day, when the cameras aren't rolling, you can bet the bank #1 is looked out for above any other living being or soul.

If an immigrant's only crime is coming here illegally — RogueAI

The argument is some people's definition of an "oppressive regime" is one that punishes criminals for their criminality.

There is no world government computer to look up someone's name (which can be changed) or their DNA to determine the exact nature of their crimes, if any.

It's taking a gamble with human nature. And unless you're a stranger to it, you'd know that is one of the most foolish things one can ever do. Near suicide.

This is one of the loosest MB's I've been on. — RogueAI

We frequent different depths of the Internet, that's all I can say.

It's all great fun. — RogueAI

It is. It certainly is. :grin:

If you're so smart how come you never figured out that science is true, or that Earth is a big ball of molten rock? — karl stone

I'll admit many posters here have me beat as far as strict encyclopedic memory (knowing/being able to immediately recall all the "buzzwords", and base concepts, of established mainstream philosophies and their authors and able to use them flawlessly as a second nature in debate and discussion). In my defense I've simply never taken the time to study them. I wanted to be "my own" philosopher, not being "influenced" (stealing) the ideas of other people. It didn't quite work out as I envisioned, no not yet, but a noble effort remains a noble effort. :wink:

Science is about discovery. Most discoveries are simply more correct than they are incorrect. This is what constitutes a scientific "fact." They don't change often, but sometimes they do.

It's not that the Earth isn't a big ball of molten rock, or that geothermal energy is not viable, it's that you've explicitly stated your belief in a conspiracy that powerful groups are actively suppressing the value and use of geothermal energy, for reasons you've yet to logically explain ("Big Oil" could just use their money to corner the geothermal market, make legislation and more that effectively results in little to no change in profit, theoretically at least, if one believes they're so large and nefarious).

I mean it's interesting to think about. Humans are opportunistic by nature, so greed is hardwired into our DNA and as a result "culture", despite efforts to make it a taboo. It's plausible. But just pointing to the sky and waving your arms around without really showing any proof is no way to convince anyone of anything, be they a thinking person or not, now is it? :chin:

If you're so honest, why can't you admit that's valid and relevant? — karl stone

It's factual. But see the bolded text above as to why it is you, my good sir, who makes other things not related to geothermal more relevant, which as a result consequently makes the idea of geothermal less relevant, at least in the framing of your concerns and their priority.

Not as dense as you are dishonest. — karl stone

I've illustrated no dishonesty in any interaction we've had on this web forum, whereas you, as others would agree (and perhaps may be inclined to soon punish as a result) have shown much denseness.

So, that is the dynamic upon which things rest. Not yours. But that. And that alone.

Oh contraire. Part of the problem is that we need abundant constant clean energy going forwards - not to spend fortunes mitigating some small part of carbon emissions, intermittently, in ideal weather conditions. Without discussing what may very well prove a bone of contention for those invested, emotionally if not financially in wind and solar; in terms of what these technologies are able to deliver, then the question of feasibility is mooted.

I cannot show how Limits to Growth is misconceived without proving the qualitatively superior nature of high temperature geothermal technology, not thereby inspire with a vision of a prosperous and sustainable energy abundant future. — karl stone

See, this is fine. Up to the point you fail to realize "magma energy" is akin, at least in the argument you framed, to anything that is non-dependent on "ideal weather conditions", such as solar and especially wind that are in fact dependent on such. The known (magma, atomic, etc.) and the unknown are one and the same. You simply have the apple of your eye which in its specificity is detracting from the base philosophy. If you want to promote a specific energy source, and not an idea, get some money, and go lobby at your local government. This is not what this forum is for. It's for discussing general ideas rationally, not evangelizing specific and dogmatic paths to such.

These subjectivists are preparing to die; engaged in anti-enlightenment, anti-capitalist, anti-rationalist, post-modern nihilism, via antinatalism unto the absurd. How can I break through to them; that there's is in fact a long and prosperous future ahead for the making, all to play, to hope for, to dream of and talk into existence were I contrainend from offering more than cursory demonstrations of fact? — karl stone

This has nothing to do with anything of the above (first quote), at least in the context of strict philosophic debate.

I tweeted Greta Thunberg everyday for months and got no replies — karl stone

Oh how dense can you really be. You remind me of the unfortunate ilk I have to be associated with. Do you really think any celebrity reads anything people send them? Other than law-enforcement associated types who scan incoming messages for possible threats and alert the proper authorities? On social media especially? Of course not. Big name media persons who garnish majority attention in newspapers, or even unknown models on explicit (or semi-explicit) photo sharing sites such as OnlyFans. It's run by people other than the person themself. You're responding (and spending, wasting rather, your effort and resources) on random persons who will never communicate anything you wish. It's amazing talking to someone who knows (or at least is able to articulate) knowledge much greater than I yet fails to grasp such not only common sense but basic knowledge.

Come to think of it, how is capitalism tied to Christianity, when it can also be said, as you noted earlier, that plenty of communistic type of offshoots also arose out of it? — unimportant

How could you be so dense? What is tied to every single name, claim, and refusal of such is one thing: human nature. People are liars. Natural opportunists. It's hard-coded into DNA and evolution.

No different than how even the least of us follow every single trend to a tee. No one wants to be left out. The outcast. So, in a society where Christianity is law of the land, if you're a good person, you're a Christian. And if you're a bad person, guess what? You're also a "Christian."

The same goes for any title or concept. Intelligent beings are opportunists, which means, if they have the capacity to speak, they will inevitably be liars. This isn't hard to understand. So why make it so?

So by philosophy you mean metaphysics; intellectual logic chopping rather than anything concerned with truth, wisdom, or justice as it pertains to the real world? I cannot agree; that's not what philosophy is. It's more than a mere talking shop; it's about asking how we live. — karl stone

Of course not. Furthermore, conflating metaphysics with intellectual "logic chopping" is absurd. Yes, logic is required for any sort of meaningful communication, at least when it crosses a certain threshold beyond idle pleasantries and grunts of displeasure in the form of sentences. This is an odd side of you that's coming out now. You're betraying a certain willful ignorance now that reminds me of how you made strange, esoteric references and remarks to other long term posters here. As if you've been here much longer and are much more familiar with persons here than you like to portray yourself as being to random interlocutors/casual posters such as myself.

Proving high temperature geothermal is technologically possible is not about mechanics; it's about the sustainability of human existence. — karl stone

It's an aside, as far as the underlying and larger philosophy. It doesn't matter if it's geothermal or wind or solar, if the mechanics are sound, that's all that matters and the topic reverts (or rather returns) to what it rightfully should be: the discussion of whether or not human endeavors alone can result in sustainability that results in our continued existence, or whether or not our existence can be sustained at all and how to best go forward.

The specific mathematics, equations, and studies of the type of energy are not part of the particular philosophy you purport to discuss. It's either, feasible, or it's not (but perhaps something else is). Anything specific to geothermal shouldn't require more than a half sentence per its relevance to the philosophy of sustainability. If, again, that's what you purport your desire is to discuss?

Basically, it doesn't matter. "If geothermal energy is feasible" or "if geothermal energy is not feasible but perhaps something, whether currently known or otherwise, might be", is one and the same as far as this purported philosophical argument of "sustainability" is concerned.

It's like attending a meeting in an intellectual debate club, and everyone is dressed as asked, minimal themes, nothing shocking or ostentatious, and here you are, decked out in every piece of clothing, button, or pin that advertises your one belief. It's a distraction. That's what it is — and that's all it is — a distraction. And from so deep within that heavy layer of non-necessity, I wouldn't be surprised if you failed to see such yourself. But. You're clearly capable of such. So. Come now. Step outside your current seemingly unbreakable will and current fascination, and see the larger debate for what it is. See the forest for the trees.

you sure do have a keen insight into the site owners' inner workings. — karl stone

I enjoy reading his posts. Not habitually or in an obsessive way, just casually as I see new ones on the front page. I have the site loaded up a lot. I like being intellectually stimulated. It keeps me off... other things. Usually.

It's common sense, really. Why run and actively engage in something for 10 years without pay if you're not at least mildly impassioned about it.

I hate my younger self. His naivety in allowing people to befriend him for no apparent reason is responsible for at least half my woes. — karl stone

We have that much in common, at least.

I'm wondering how you - who have such insight into the thinking of someone you profess not to know, has no insight whatsoever into the thinking of someone you profess to be a friend? — karl stone

I in fact do have much insight, as does anyone who has been here for several years and reads the posts of said individual. I mean, sure, every post he made could be facetious in some attempt to obscure his real character, for some reason, but aside from that. It doesn't take much to gleam a fair amount of a person's character from observation of a prolonged, natural expression of their posts online. Sure, he could just be a liar. But if not, it's just my opinion. Surely not infallible. I'm "in support of your membership here", I suppose is the more apt-expression as opposed to "friendship." An ally. Same concept, really.

I might appreciate my membership here more if it didn't feel I'm unwelcome. — karl stone

This is more of a philosophy forum. The science is related, indirectly, sparsely, tangentially, perhaps. But a topic centered around discussing the scientific facts of a theory is categorically off topic. Absolutely fine in the Lounge, but again, this is more about philosophy. Non-physical things. It just comes off as this obsession, that may very well change the world we live in, but nonetheless ultimately rests outside of the scope of what this forum is intended for (philosophy).

Professions of friendship confuse me. Why would you want to be my friend? — karl stone

Let's just say I see a young me (albeit much more intelligent) in you. I would hate for brashness and your obfuscation of "pushing the envelope" or "being a trendsetter" (like the philosophers named in your second post) and simply refusing to follow the rules for no other reason than to do so not required to express or share your point be your downfall here. When you clearly have so much more to offer.

I'll show what I mean. You, like most if not hopefully all persons who post here consider this site as "just the Internet." I.E. there's plenty of intellectual circles to post, engage, and become part of online. This is simply one of a great many. It's a casual hobby. Something you do for fun, no different than taking up an interest in woodwork or perhaps even twiddling one's thumbs. But not to Jamal. The site owner. He may be temperamental at times, for reasons none of us would ever know or be able to judge. But. One thing is for certain. He's worked hard on this site. He's invested great amounts of time, effort, and frustration in ensuring it's a respectable and above all fruitful forum for discussion of higher intellect, specifically philosophy. It's important to him. So it becomes a somewhat strict place as a result. And if you habitually fail to acknowledge that, specifically by, in an almost juvenile and mocking fashion, respond to "don't spam the shoutbox" by what one might construe as retaliatory spamming of the forum, well, it makes it seem like you don't really appreciate your membership here. Which is a loss for many, not just yourself, I might add. And I'm afraid his hands would be tied as to his response, now wouldn't they?

This would have probably been best communicated via private message, but I doubt this thread will linger for too long. So I'm happy to share my TPF "patriotism?" in the interim, I suppose. :grin:

Shameless plug.

Do I get a say in this? — karl stone

Have you ever? :lol:

Hey I may not be one of the players here, not so popular (as you might be able to gather from my username, I don't desire such), but as it happens to stand I may be one of your few friends here. As nominal a fact as that may be, you should be appreciative of that.

Bruh. What are you doing.

I think "being trans" is a thing. — Dawnstorm

I think it's more hijacked by those who are larger and less intelligent to bully those who are smaller, skinnier, perhaps talk with a bit higher voice, or are otherwise closer to what modern societies think of as "feminine" simply because they're cruel and miserable people who they know deep down the world would be better off without. You know the kind. The "if I'm not actively oppressing someone, no matter who it is, I don't feel normal — someone has to be inferior and beneath me for me to function properly" type. Horrible people raised by similarly horrible people thus creating a never-ending chain of blight on moral society. Until people like me are given authority by a fatigued and desperate population whose only wish is to live in the heydays of their grandparents when men knew how to act and how to respect one another.

Men are very prideful so calling someone something that suggests they're "less of a man" or "like a girl" or "little boy" that makes the implication they're unable to defend others or themselves, can be quite hurtful, to the point of mental re-configuration ie. trauma if done perpetually, repeatedly, and of course in tandem with violence or other belittlement or humiliation.

If you shout at someone loud enough, and belittle them while doing so, you will re-wire their mind to make them believe anything. It's occultic and hidden in nature but there are forms of psychological torture and programming available across the web that essentially offer step-by-step results on how to do so. I wouldn't recommend looking them up or having that on your history but, they're there. Basically like imagine a woman being kidnapped in her teens and held captive in a literally cage beating beaten, starved, force-fed (or not fed) and being insulted for a decade or longer. Their mind would turn into something unrecognizable and they would believe themself to be whatever the captor wants them to. That's a more dramatic version of what happens with some people who were bullied into believing they're unfit to even share the same gender of some very negative and cruel people.

So, as long as one can acknowledge that the above scenarios are not only possible and could adequately explain many persons who claim to be such, but do in fact happen, alongside the idea that a person may truly have gender dysphoria that came about organically and not by the work of social engineering, peer pressure, or persistent trauma, that's something I could consider as valid.

Other than that, some people just think whatever the "next big thing" is is cool and are trend followers and would falsely identify as someone who has true gender dysphoria, thus depriving the true person with gender dysphoria of their struggle, plight, and rights simply because young and uneducated people whose minds are not even fully developed have a tendency to mis-diagnose themselves if ever given the opportunity to do so as opposed to a thorough multi-session exam by a licensed medical professional.

I don't know of any forums that are prepared to fight the legal battles required to oppose the colloquial sense of Article 17 of the GDPR. In theory they could fight those battles, sure. — Leontiskos

If in the jurisdictional province subject to the aforementioned document ruled binding by the relevant governing body, one is not allowed to administrate a website where communication is possible without being subject to GDPR, then that's correct. Terrifying, yet correct.

The argument would be, there is no battle to fight if the war is simply considered irrelevant. The terms (might, I haven't checked this particular forum software of website's specific stipulations) say "everything is public communication". Article 17 is specifically about "personal data." Which they (anyone who signs up for an account to post) agreed is a non-existent concept on SiteXYZ.com, for example. I'll erase their legal first and last name or address if they were so foolish to post such, but beyond that, two people have a right to make a contract and anything that makes that impossible deprives one's right of participating in society and the legal due process.

Sure, if that's what it says that's what it says. But of course some legal contracts (yes, those things most people don't read that in fact legally serves as if they did) do consider posts made public communication, even so-called "Private" messages. At least the term that there is no such reasonable expectation of actual "privacy" on a private forum. A webmaster can view private PMs if he wishes, due to the nature of the underlying terms.

Yeah, if I'm some amateur web developer and I make a forum with no terms whatsoever that you literally just punch in the web URL and click "Post", that probably applies.

But no matter how thorough those terms are, it can't supersede the right of two people to make a contract that said work of party A belongs to said venue or otherwise party B. It's simply not possible.

I can't know what it feels like to give birth — Michael

Surely pain is measurable. Sure, specifics of such, as one could imagine privately without needing speak such graphic details are unique to those who experience them. That aside, we more or less all have the same "hardware", so to speak, at least mentally. (absent those who don't, of course)

It's not some inconceivable concept, that is. Kidney stones, for example. I'm told the pain of such is quite awful.

In most contexts. . . no. . . you seem too obsessed with ones chromosomes that your comments do not in fact make this clear. — substantivalism

To be fair, the consistent "caller of chromosomes", as it were, is not @Harry Hindu, he's simply responding to what information he was given to accept or refute.

Why would it be? — substantivalism

Because people don't like liars. Lies can be small and inconsequential, such as falsely stating you don't know where your good friend's keys are after a night of drinking where he is clearly unfit to operate a motor vehicle. Or they can be fatal. Or unethical, per one's religious belief standards, such as feeding a person who follows a certain religion forbidding the consumption of pork. A person who follows a certain religion that forbids the consumption of pork will not die or burst into flames if they ingest pork. But it brings what can be considered existential shame per their religious belief. Is it foolish? Perhaps. Is it up to you to say what a man's life purpose and pursuit of such purpose should be, where there is no other affected party but the one man? I think not.

Because I now don't care about gender or sex — substantivalism

That's fine. Some people don't care about professional sports racing or even life itself. But this is a topic of discussion for people who in fact either do care, or have some relevant knowledge as to the topic at hand.

Argument being, posting on some random website is not a requirement of life or a human right. I.E., you went to some dude's house because you wanted to (of your own volition), and he said, "oh, sure, you can come in if you do X and Y but not Z." Would you like to come in then yes or no? And the dude said yes so that's all there is to it. :100:

There's a free speech thing to "necessary" social media like Google and Facebook which some food and lodging companies or services either explicitly require or effectively require to utilize but for something like a private forum, I'm not so sure.

Like I could literally take $20 and buy theREALphilosophyforum.com, or something and start my own forum if I had the mind to. And that would be my right. So no one is deprived of some intrinsic right in such the scenario described above.

As I understand it, in some jurisdictions users have a legal right to have their posts and identity removed from the website if they so wish. — Leontiskos

IF they didn't agree to legally binding terms at the moment of account creation. Which most all forum software requires (not for the benefit of the forum host or users mind you but the software company itself).

"All content submitted becomes reproducible, archiveable, yadda yadda" Not too sure on all that really but from what I've seen.

How society looks at women. What it is to be a woman is built by society from the day a girl is born. How a woman is viewed and views herself is built minute by minute by society. Luckily, in 2025 most of society is fairly relaxed and doesn’t discriminate and laws have been put in place to prevent discrimination but there is still a fundamental difference between men and women. — Malcolm Parry

Could the same sentence(s) be said accurately if the words "woman" and "women" were replaced with "man" and "men", respectively? Why or why not?

What would it be like in a world where men never existed and only women did? They would just simply be "human" assuredly? What about a world where there was always three biological genders (say with a third form of genitalia that may or may not allow reproduction with one or more genders, perhaps including one's own)?

I get your point. It may be shallow in the sense that what it means to be a conscious human being is just so deep and rich a topic of discussion that it transcends our biological differences entirely and makes said differences seem ridiculous to talk about in comparison, but, it's still a topic nonetheless that has far reaching social and psychological implications. Having a womb and being expected to literally house an entire human being inside you for 9 months vs. the idea being all but an alien concept to one who doesn't, etc., etc...