And that women are less likely to be victimized if they dress more conservatively is irrelevant and an insult to suggest, even if true. — Michael

Even if true. Well. There we have it. Says who? You? A male? How omniscient of you. Well it appears even the best of us have some chauvinistic tendencies.

No. The criminal is always at fault and will receive due punishment no matter how hard they try to circumvent or obfuscate. Meanwhile. Can you wave a magic wand and turn all would be rapists into dust? Can you pass some law that pragmatically eliminates all rape? Unless the answer is yes the question remains the same. Does a statement that prevents sexual assault of women in the interim offer a service or a disservice? Do you still state that such a statement that prevents sexual assault is irrelevant and an insult? Bear in mind were also talking about the general non-binary concept of a sober person being less likely to be taken advantage of than a deliriously drunk person.

Sure, there are people in this world who will harm others for no good reason — creativesoul

Like it'd be some epic lifelong journey to find some or something! :rofl:
On that note, sure there are fish in the ocean.

People, especially young ones, mentally and otherwise, crave to be desired. Especially when one's early home life did not facilitate this. It's natural.

Somewhat off topic but just to say so, my views on modesty in attire are correlated to what is conducive to a strong social fabric. Married/non-single women don't need to be on Instagram or in public bearing just about it all for the world to see. It's annoying. More poignantly, modest dress is required in the workplace or productivity will suffer. That is a fact.

None of this was my point however, my point is, in a world where men do kill other men and rape women, while we'd both agree saying a crime victim deserved it is brash and vile, if it is a fact, and I believe it is, that a woman wearing next to nothing and becoming deliriously intoxicated who becomes sexually assaulted would not have been if they were dressed modestly and sober, and if a man who states again what I am arguing is a fact. That root fact essentially being "less women will become sexually assaulted if dressed modestly and remain sober". If it is a fact and by communicating it to multiple people less women become victims of sexual assault... I ask you. Is that a service or a disservice?

There is no church state now. No moral guidelines for raising children. If people want to embrace the worst traits of humanity to get ahead they will. It is simply the world we live in. So again. Is such a statement that prevents countless sexual assaults a service or a disservice?

Man this OP took forever to read. :)

A man who appears vulnerable and is drunk out of his mind may be robbed and killed at a much greater chance. While I wouldn't say he had it coming to him, he did set the table, so to speak. The world we live in is not a masterpiece across every corner. Fortune favors the prepared.

Takes two to tango, honestly. Who's really being objectified am I right.

What about the world would you change?

Do what feels right. Eventually, after enough mistakes, you start to learn a little something every now and then. Usually. Only way some folks will ever learn anything, unfortunately. And who hasn't gone through hardship really?

All I know is a $50 steak tastes $45 better than a $5 one.

I think we all know there's a difference between people who live on social media 24/7 and those who prefer to talk to others in person or read a newspaper or books. Great. You get to see the judgements, views, and opinions of billions of people you don't know and may not ever. What does that do for the concerned reader? Besides, this doesn't get much coverage now, but you can buy followers, likes, retweets, all of that. Plus you never know who's a bot or shill.

I've always found it odd how on Trump's twitter posts even the top comments rarely ever have more than a few thousand retweets. And only a few replies down you have very few comments and discussions.

Do you count the early days of YouTube as 'social media' or would you say that's reserved for the social network/microblogging explosion?

It was a common practice. A sign of status. It'd be like having acres of land today. Many were inherited and naturally a responsibility. Of course you a 21st century person reading this on a computer can't imagine being in the 17th century when *I think* they finally invented a flushing toilet. No one like that could.

Moreover though, the idea of 'a slave to God' is a bit of a misnomer for several reasons. That assumes you believe in a God that created you for essentially no reason and usually some kind of Hell. Not hard to put two and two together. Even not, you'd just be a slave to whoever happens to be stronger than you. Not only physically, but mentally, and that's the ticket to understanding. I suppose you could say morality and whatnot didn't come from or by means of God. I say, look around even today. Do you really think anyone with amassed power would give it up just because some philosopher came up with an emotionally satisfying monologue or an oppressed people looked at the person with a sad face? Doubtful. It took divine power. And suffering.

I don't think you or I can ever name a period in history where society wasn't rapidly changing.

Social media has redefined any definition of media. We see something good, bad, or sad, we can share it. In an instant. It truly is the people's house. Most media sources, large corporate ones or personal channels tend to lean toward one political persuasion or the other. It's more or less balanced. I think each majority political view has its problems, rather extremes that can lead to bad outcomes. And some simply view one as 'more restrictive' or 'less wholesome'. It's a delicately balanced yin and yang I suppose.

In principle, in our virtual media environment, do 'real facts' matter? — Number2018

Probably. But to air on the side of safety. For many folk when it comes to things that don't immediately and blatantly affect them, "things don't matter until they do."

Basically, they do. Some are just less relevant than others. That is to say can exist without major coverage.

I'm sorry is there a philosophical question or debate to be had (using philosophy and not mindless political opinion) or is this just what the site is now.

Can we? As in is it possible? Sure.

But think for a minute. What if Brad Pitt walked into a Wal-Mart. Or a McDonalds? How do you think that would turn out. They'd want to talk to the guy, get an autograph, try to become friends. No one would just do their job and get the man his product quickly and efficiently. And worse. Alot of people, more than you might think, would want to be "the guy who spit in Brad Pitt's burger" .. or worse. Infamy. The natural consolation of those who seek fame yet do not find it.

Now imagine that times... I'd say infinity but factoring in the human comprehension probably times 10... yeah it wouldn't work out so good. I've used a metaphor for it before.

Say you have a 10 million dollar inheritance. You want it to go toward your lifelong interest of I dunno fixing up old buildings.. or something. But you're old and dying. Who do you want it to go to? Someone who knows the money is up for grabs and responds to an ad with all the right qualifications or someone who takes a blind low paying ad for the job because they love the work. Not hard to figure out really.

Will it change my life completely from what it is right now - meaningless and sad - to something else - meaningful and happy? — TheMadFool

Oh. I'm sorry I wasn't aware in the few days I've been away someone ended child hunger and slavery. *clears throat extremely loudly*

Look I don't know you mate. What you have on your plate or how your health is and whatnot but I'd bet money you wouldn't know sadness and misery if it bit you in the arse.

Sorry. Taking a deep breath. What I meant to say was, I've read many of your posts and a few threads during my time here. Always decent. Usually enjoying or at least mildly interesting. So, while I may not know you, I know your words and views are- at least in a small way- part of my own life now and consider them very meaningful. As do others I'm sure. Still, it's your perspective that you're asking about being changed more than anything. What do you think?

Hapiness is complicated. Contentness brings complacency which brings inattentiveness which brings mistakes which brings suffering.

Furthermore it's not some sleazy massage parlour under the expressway. You don't just come in saying you'll do or give this and that for this and that in return. It takes time. It's a journey. Especially for the demanding.

a benevolent creator who will unfailingly look out for me no matter what? — TheMadFool

This is setting yourself up for failure. Life is ups and downs. Sometimes more of the latter. That's why it's life. Humans are not little Tamigachi pets that God pushes buttons to feed, play with, and clean up waste.

Watch something for me would you. Twilight Zone "A Nice Place to Visit". I think you'll begin to understand how life can be as it is if there is a benevolent creator.

Consumerism, and though I largely get the idea I did Google it, meaning protection and promotion of the interests of the consumer. Before I did so Id've said it could have a few definitions or meanings rather. Two extremes, polarized, respectively. The idea of simply being able to buy and sell goods or otherwise the system of having literally anything physical that's not owned by the state. Or. Where it's essentially synonymous to materialism. Basically where it comes close to something along the lines of the only point of living is to get more stuff (non essentials). Which can deny one of some of lifes greatest true pleasures. And perhaps then some.

I'd say my view is somewhere in the middle and the actual definition sums it up nicely.

It's nice to see some of the amazing things there are to buy in the modern world. The crazy cars, the mansions, that tricked out PC setup, jewelry, watches, all that. Unfortunately or not it's the best motivator. For honest hard work.. and of course other types as well..

I'd say there are two kinds of people who want to be rich. Those who want to live like a king, and those who want to treat others as such. There's a bit of irony there for the more refined.

I wouldn't say either of you are, that is to say not earnestly arguing opposing viewpoints with relevant information to consider. However as it stands, you seem to be the one who is stopping short in this particular exchange. :)

Anyway. I believe there is both systemic and systematic racism in human society everywhere. The majority or status quo wants to maintain itself. It's human nature. A white (or black) majority doesn't want to be replaced by any other group, black, Asian, or whatever.

Obviously there is more than that going on when it comes to race relations in the US. Someone posted something along the lines of "a rich black man in a suit will be viewed/treated the same as a poor white punk". I want to doubt that as a common view as I certainly wouldn't but again I'm sure some would.

I just think it's important to distinguish an officer being uncharacteristically hostile (as in he's normally not) toward a respectable looking (all we can judge about character/danger is appearance) black man walking down a random street and an officer being on a hair trigger when facing someone blasting violent music, wearing "street clothes" that could easily conceal a gun, maybe having gang or teardrop tattoos, and speaking rude or in an unintelligent manner in an area that has a high murder rate and gang activity. It makes all the difference. You don't want to be the boy who cries wolf. You definitely don't want to make it where criminals can torment and destroy black communities unabated simply because they happen to be black. Actually. Perhaps some do...

While I agree with a fair amount of what you posted, I think. It'd be a bit like coming to the conclusion that you can't judge a book by its cover... after burning or otherwise damaging those with covers that didn't quite tickle your fancy.

There are serious problems in society. Some that a few thought-provoking philosophical arguments unfortunately can't quite address I'm afraid.

I agree what has been happening is not only not the right solution but counterproductive to all.

So what is important in all this is how other countries see the 'mercans? That sorta misses the point. — Banno

I was suggesting, to some, yes it is the only thing. It completely misses the point. And that was mine.

Exactly. No one is protesting about that. Why do you think that is? Because it doesn't effect them. They have nothing to gain.

Every country has had turmoil. Perhaps you're a glass half empty kind of guy. Darkest before the dawn isn't really your philosophy. That's fine. You could be right. I would however bet you money very little will change as a result of this as far as the national system. Maybe laws. Definitely not territory. Except, and this is important, those who do not abide by the Constitution (life, liberty, pursuit of Happiness, all men equal, etc) will be removed and may even be charged as the enemies of the State that they are, violators of 'color of law' will be punished timely and properly, and so on. Which only restores the idea and essentially gets it back on track. Basically all should be well. Got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette. Speaking of which... I'm hungry. :grin:

I think the real question is, appropriately, what are non-Americans who are so quick to shame other nations doing for the "George Floyd's" at home or concepts responsible for why we even know about the incident in the first place like free speech, open internet, independent media, accountability of the state, etc.

I'm not the only one who thinks this way as this article mentions.

I know of no country that does not have some legacy past or even current of slavery, colonialism, racism, or expansionism.

I have a few hunches. That I will keep to myself. Except to say, I really hope Trump didn't start an unwarranted global propaganda war he can't win leaving 350 million Americans to absorb the blowback.

My own biases aside, I think know if non-Americans are using an American tragedy for the sole purpose of stroking their own national ego, especially those who couldn't care less about George Floyd or not just black people but minorities in their own country... black Americans should be pissed. Not to say many or even most are just, if your nation is less than 13% African or people can't just stop and record civil servants performing their duties and share it globally, the old adage of make sure your own house is in order first and the beam in your eye before the speck in your brother's both come to mind.

Reminded of a very good movie. Should check it out.

Interestingly enough it's called "Re-Cycle". :)

Bit of horror but very well done where it's not even the focus. Stunning. Visually. And conceptually. Must see. Man I want to watch that now.

Sounds kinda shady to be honest. Every incident you described you actually witnessed?

Why would you leave for 18 months when you could just come back the next day and either defend yourself from any hostile home invaders or call the police and have them arrested on the spot? With drugs to boot.

I'm not saying this stuff doesn't happen just.. idk.

The pet aspect is kind of messed up. Does sound like gang activity/intimidation/harrassment which those involved should be arrested as they're only decreasing property values and encouraging divestment which only hurts the people living there and contributes to keeping everyone down.

You're drinking right now aren't you? :)

Why wouldn't they? They don't know the predictor is infallible nor do they know what may or may not be in Box B. I was thinking it'd be funny if Box B contained an IOU for $2,000 legally bound to the owner of the box but unfortunately that was not part of this riddle.

An infallible predictor as fictious as the idea is would focus on outcome. Free will or not. So they're either right or simply not infallible.

It can be is what I meant. Perhaps there are. But yeah the metaphorical guards I mentioned.

No not every opportunity. But perhaps more than you'd like.

Yeah perhaps you're right. It (faith) is often viewed as the antithesis of reason and whatnot and so would easily "fit the bill". It was kind of random I agree. I enjoy a few beers while I peruse the internet. Suppose I just wanted to assert that was not what I was alluding to. It could've easily seemed like it imo. Times are tough. Faith without evidence takes strength. Not one to knowingly or unknowingly weaken that.

Where would you propose a nihilist would get their motivation from?

It wouldn't be from anything meaningful hence powerful. From primal pleasure? A bottle?

That I see as a restriction.

Top right menu > Desktop Mode/View as Desktop?

The category is bolded. See left.

The guy is non-stop political. Probably 90% if not more. Which is fine. Not quite a philosophical contributor. Could at least've backed up his views with deep analysis and reasoning imo. There are many aspects of conservatism that are attractive to me however when anyone of either party are reduced to vocalizing simple wants while vaguely grasping at defining concepts coupled with insults it shows neither understanding nor appeal in regards to said ideology.

At the same time the level of understanding and knowledge many people have here make me and maybe even you seem "low quality" in comparison. I'm here to learn. Perhaps he was too. Perhaps not. We don't know why he signed up. Guess we never will..

Regardless you enter someone else's lair you should familiarize yourself with their understandings and views and learn to live with them while you're there. Or at least be thought provoking or interesting enough when you don't I suppose.

Curious as to what exactly was said but I'm sure it had something to do with recent events.

There are many lost brilliant ideas and visions, because of various limiting factors in life/society/existence, even including seemingly random factor such as "luck/fortunate". — niki wonoto

If they're lost how do you know about them.

So what does that mean. When a black man is killed by police the entire planet reacts and is thrown into chaos. Literal worldwide riots and chaos.

Meanwhile a white woman is sodomized by police on the side of the road, few people freak out online for a few days, and it's forgotten about.

Both on video.

I guess what I'm asking is if you were president, with unilateral authority, what would you do and why?

Not hard to imagine really. Go camping for a week or at least a few days with no technology. Even better, no food or water. Just a knife, basic tools, maybe an axe. Maybe I'm exaggerating. The then-state provided necessities for purchase. No iPhone, no TV, no internet, I think they had books. Not sure. No medicine at least nothing like today. No noise of planes, trains, cars. Silence. Natural sounds. I'd imagine we'd be largely the same. Emotions. Thought. Etc. Aside from that, nothing but time to ponder and wonder at nature's beauty and power.

The first entity mentioned was as you said, you obey basic laws that frankly modern civilization is based on. You survive. The latter, according to text, either favored or punished humans based on their deeds, bravery, compassion, or wrath and indifference.

Sure it all seems like a joke now as you type this on your fancy computer or iPhone, in an air conditioned house with plenty of food and a decent job that if injured during will probably have you set for life. Delicious food from any corner of the Earth minutes away. Any revolutionary invention now only a few dollars delivered the next day. But it wasn't always this way. Only recently. Right?

Thank you for your post. Always good to read about such concepts.

Mine was much simpler I'm afraid. I don't know what he meant but by common themes of recent threads (Judas was a hero) I have an idea. Inaccuracy of modern religion. Something I believe is very possible. Again my statement is much more simple. Most humans are idiots. So we shouldn't be punished for believing in "the wrong God" unless the doctrine held specifically annotated the Creator as separate from the one focused on.

Even the state doesn't execute the mentally deficient. Therefore, an all knowing God wouldn't either.

:lol:

Agree however as a mortal and how foolish and even regrettable our formation was we really can't be expected to know anything other than 'God' meaning the Creator or any name knowingly referencing any other by intent. We just were simply not given the capacity to know or understand rather differentiate these sort of things.

So since no one wants to say the obvious.

It's the nature of the human animal. The human condition. Everyone. everyone. is biologically predisposed to favor similarity and familiarity over anything else. Google "babies are racist". Something is familiar or comfortable it's likely to be safer. Otherwise, it may not be. Example, living in a grassy plain for hundreds of generations. You know it's safe, you travel far enough to see the terrain change, some will instinctively stick to what they know, some will venture outward. Perhaps beyond that plain lies danger and those inclined to venture never make it back. So, those who instinctively stick to what they know, live, survive, and reproduce. Just biology.

When you have an open society with no religious mandate in education or morality, as such defines "freedom" apparently.. you're subject to society and biology. Which if you Google'd what I mentioned, would not be unexpected. Aside from that the media, not news media but movies, TV, and music. People don't like watching happy and fulfilling things when theres more emotionally thrilling options. They find it boring and dull. When I was growing up kids didn't want to play crash bandicoot they wanted to play grand theft auto. If you didn't play it and couldn't relate to what they were talking about you were an outsider to the group. A lame-o. Many don't outgrow this mindset even in old age.

That's the why. As for the solution. Well. State churches were abolished. One pivotal one has just been burned. Otherwise. Good luck.

If you're truly concerned about the why and the solution. You have to look in other countries were whites are the minority and non-whites are the majority. Are things any different? They might be. If they're a statistical minority yet remain an influential functional majority. If so obviously the concept is not effectively present.

The peaceful protestors don't want everything destroyed. — Marchesk

What?! Come on man. I'm sorry. Surely you meant they don't want anything destroyed. Right?

@christian2017

Well, separate the artist from the art and say what you need to say.

Huh. Bet I can top ya. I think an all-seeing and all-knowing super being is watching you and me right now and one day will come to destroy the whole planet after his winged children do some crazy things first. Oh, you too? :)

Anything can happen dude. The world could end before you finish reading this sentence.



It is severely unlikely that would happen. Total chaos? Martial law? Media/phone/internet blackout? Mass killing? All possible. You know for an alleged man of faith you're awfully concerned with the world and its ways. Eh. So am I.

I dunno. Can you walk and chew gum at the same time? They're different sure, most do focus on one thing at a time for best results.

As far as how do you know when you're 'qualified' to study one you'd naturally ask a teacher or professor, who should only be a few doors down or a floor away for you. Post more. Lots of smart people here. They'll show you what you need to know by pointing out any flaws in your logic. And you'll learn from it.

"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."

It's usually either chaos or order. Religion, philosophy, math, science. Though many often intersect.

Madness is generally incoherent whereas eccentricity is a mere.. trait. Someone who blends in and is satisfied with the pleasures of this world or the state of a society often doesn't spend their time figuring things out.