For the same reason you divert any sort of actual thought or sophistication:

"It's just what happened bro"

Can you prove it? "I don't feel the need to" only shifts the burden of proof to those ignorant. Yet here you are.

Just as a broken clock is right at least twice a day, so is the unexamined life. That is to say, remains in a constant state of such. Thusly, this narrow frame of mind can be called truth to those who know nothing of the sort.

If you feel threatened by its chaotic nature, it means that it disturbs your ideological beliefs — Tarskian

Does one have non-ideological beliefs? Is that a thing now? You wear double-layer body armor in your words because you know the environment (truth) presents an imminent danger (your baseless ideology), Ironic no? Prove me wrong mate.

if everything were perfectly ordered, nothing would change. Existence requires both. — Wayfarer

This invigors a deep curiosity in me. Something that does not change, does not exist? How so?

Interestingly enough, one definition of death is "to exist cease living (in a meaningful way to the majority)" and as such, is the only way many can find life or escape the constrictive confines of those who "lived" to dictate the meaning of what "life" is, a meaning birthed solely in valuation of devaluation of life itself. So, it's a conundrum at the end of the day, to say the least.

Edit: "to cease 'living' ", where 'living' is defined not strictly by a biological state but rather a societal expectation. Not sure why that didn't come out as coherently as it did in my own thoughtsphere at the time. :confused:

You have been vomiting word salad — ToothyMaw

I've made but two or three concise statements that remain consistent. I'm sorry that personal, if not conflicting opinion or commentary inter laid appears to obscure such to the degree of invoking mental images of "vomit" to you. But again, that is neither here nor there when it comes to philosophic inquiry.

Let's simplify:

Post #1: The person seems misunderstood. Perhaps this begs the question that things or judgements are not always justified?

Your reply: What?

Post #2: Perhaps people should be less judgemental.

Your reply: You hate me. You're trying to kill me.

Post #3: Lol. Anyway I agree with you. People should be more understanding. Shouldn't you lead the example?

Your reply: You should be banned. (ie. face real physical penalty for expressing a conflicting opinion, hinting at physical retribution ie. violence or harm for disagreeing)

--

Yeah. I'll just leave it at "I agree". Mental illness is real. And should be handled appropriately. Before it gets out of hand. This thread has, whether intentionally or otherwise, become a great example of that.

Clearly you are determined to cast whatever I say in a bad light. — ToothyMaw

I actually awake each morning with the sole intention in mind. Out of 8 billion persons each with a chance of a unique position or reality, yours is truly my sole and only focus. How ever did you know. :wink:

I am not sure what this means, but it sounds vaguely threatening. :down: — ToothyMaw

To you. And that is your right, notwithstanding of or in any relation to actuality.

"People fear what they don't understand and hate what they can't conquer.”
― Andrew Smith

And so, I, and any possible truth I may bear, will forever remain in a destitute state, something hostile or above all, "morally" "defeated" or "of majority disdain" and of no possible purpose. Not unlike the individual in the video.

Such is what such is.

But to the point.

You are largely correct. Humanity is, writ-large, lacking in the respect and consideration for those who are, whether by artificial and unwarranted judgement, or perhaps intrinsic truth, beneath what is expected or warranted to be. Your post begs a solution, which also seems to determine said solution as compassion and understanding. If this is so, why are you not the first and foremost to lend such?

the point is that some people might not have the patience or understanding to deal with him equitably — ToothyMaw

The problem is people appoint themselves as if they had any true authority or place to think they have the right to "deal with" let alone judge others. A gear is not a driving force, it is but a necessity. People who think otherwise best learn their place before they discover the truth that they have none other than what is given to them.

So, please consider what it would be like to be this guy. — ToothyMaw

That guy seems just fine. From all that can be rationally discerned from the interaction. Granted we remain ignorant of any backstory or context, meaning, unless, of course, he has a "flip of a switch" mood disorder and turns into an axe murderer in a moment's notice.

So, judging as if his testimony is factual and would be supported by an equally intimate observation of whatever actions that led to his current predicament, it would seem in fact any will or desire to perform an action to disrupt or eliminate whatever system or "status quo" that disrupts or restricts the freedoms of those who are peacefully existing is in fact justified. My two cents, at least.

And again, I see no evidence of that. — Leontiskos

Are you some sort of arbiter of truth? If not, that's fine and respectable. But of no relation to any sort of absolute value or meaning. Unless you do believe there is no further or greater state of understanding, knowing, or being that could possibly be achieved other than that which you now "possess" (or as I attest, possesses or rather, restricts you).

discrimination — Leontiskos

This is the word that begs further inquisition. Why not discernment? Discernment is active, alive. While discrimination is passive, dead, if you will. Completely unresponsive to new information. What makes a man an intellectual corpse, little more than a ghost whose actions, thoughts and very life become little more than but a haunting in the arena of true philosophic discourse. Sure, it's natural, wise even to believe the repeated actions of one will indicate the future action and inevitable fate of those who act on them. But seeing beyond what can be seen, beyond the arbitrary faux limits of what men think can be, is what separates the philosopher, the rightful ruler, whose proclamations or "truths" that are not based on so-called rationale propped up by inorganic states of detestable action, a dynamic of perpetual hypocrisy to simply maintain but a foothold in the mind of man instead of a persistent truth intrinsic to men rich and poor and even in infancy can recognize, the True Sovereign, from the commoner. Being alive, or open, knowing "statistically" (based on the view of the majority or "what is apparently, if not glaringly, seemingly-evident") is but a transient state of affairs that can be turned on its head in a moment's notice.

No, I see no evidence of that. — Leontiskos

You will note I said views not the current argument brought about by said views.

someone belonging to group X has Y percentage chance of committing action Z on average. — Leontiskos

This is the point of contention: "on average." As it stands, your statement of fact is correct. However one is best to bear in mind that that is all that it is: a statement. One that stands alone, isolated from factors that contribute to best discernment of actionable reality and best course of action. Not past or future, simply present. A snapshot. Akin to renting a room based on a single photograph of the interior from the most convenient, readily-available angle. Sure, you'll likely get what you expect. Unless you don't. :smile:

Not a particularly great example but sufficient for the moment. Perhaps this prospective room has a magnificent view overlooking the sea (representing the increasing opportunity for positive and lasting change for group X) that is not present in said snapshot (your sampling data of group X). Or, of course, perhaps there is a rather unpleasant occupancy of bed bugs (representing the ingrained habitual patterns and, yes your "likelihood" of regression and perpetuation of said undesirable outcomes) also not present in said snapshot. As you can see, this "snapshot" or "current sampling of available data" is a fickle indicator, whether it be positive or negative, for what the future truly beholds and as a result the best choice of action to take.

The inability to admit that it is not necessarily unreasonable to make inferences about individuals on the basis of group statistics is a form of irrationality that accompanies progressivism. — Leontiskos

If I may. Again. I think he's asserting the fact that current circumstance is a poor indicator of future circumstance and resulting potential ie. reality. Sure, a person fresh out of high school is not wise nor likely to be very skilled. I suppose you could say close to 100% of persons who fall in this category are neither wise nor skilled. However it would be foolish and irrational to assume that because of this state of factual circumstance, a person has poor chances to become wise or skilled. That I believe is the disconnect between the opposing views present in this exchange. Something surely the three of us could jollily agree on and make a toast to! :grin:

I was just reading about how different blonde and brunette women are treated across society. Blonde women still get the majority of the breaks. — Rob J Kennedy

Possibly of relevance: Color Psychology: How Yellow Color Affects Your Mood?

Most notably: "On the color wheel, yellow is placed among the warm colors which are found to induce feelings of energy, happiness, and optimism. Color specialists and psychologists tell that if you give any child a box of crayons, they will most likely reach for the yellow crayon."

Surprise, surprise. :smile:

Thousands of years of waking up to the same color (the Sun) might have something to do with, no? Almost seems natural, heh.

Sorry, 90% of the reply was to the OP due to the only compromise that respects women's desire (however prevalent it may or may not be) to restrict XX persons to women's restrooms (considering there remains no legal distinction between a legitimate female-identifying person and one who makes a false statement to that affect on a whim), along with the desire of legitimate female-identifying persons to use the restroom aligned to their gender, would be a third "gender-neutral" restroom, which is in fact a thing. A widely-discussed and popular thing, at that. Highly relevant to the topic at hand (see first sentence of the OP: "Let's talk about women's bathrooms.")

This portion was you for:

In short, it's a discussion. The OP is trying to have a discussion. It's as meaningful as those who participate in it wish it to be. — Outlander

It's late. There's not much activity this hour. Just a simple reply, nothing more. :up:

unless you have genetic testing kits at every bathroom, saying some bathrooms are for xx instead of women is completely unactionable. Are you trying to make a meaningful suggestion or are you doing something else with this xx idea? — flannel jesus

From a small business owner's perspective, the idea of having to have a third bathroom on top of the two required many can barely afford as-is would be a nightmare.

29 CFR 1910.141(c)(1)(i) states:

"Except as otherwise indicated in this paragraph (c)(1)(i), toilet facilities, in toilet rooms separate for each sex, shall be provided in all places of employment in accordance with table J-1 of this section. The number of facilities to be provided for each sex shall be based on the number of employees of that sex for whom the facilities are furnished. Where toilet rooms will be occupied by no more than one person at a time, can be locked from the inside, and contain at least one water closet, separate toilet rooms for each sex need not be provided."

--

So basically, if my business or establishment "requires" or has the level of activity that demands or otherwise makes the use of a single-occupancy restroom unfeasible, I would be required to completely overhaul basically the entire fundamental structure of the building, which mind you is already occupied to make maximum use of the space provided (no structure of business or public use just has "free unused space" lying around that can be used because "oh there's nothing going on here", every space of the structure is either currently in use or is already well designated for future use). Imagine the permits, planning, closures for renovations, and the financial costs as well as time. It would change the maximum occupancy of the building in accordance to fire code, which in turn would change basically everything about how the business operates, down to the scheduling, inventory, staff, etc. The pipework, which might require a complete excavation job to allow more water, or something of that nature. All for maybe a percent of the population to use, once for 2 minutes, if they happen to have to pee whilst patronizing my establishment. That's crazy. And often times a technical impossibility, depending on the structure, infrastructure, space, etc.

The fact remains an XY (biological male) is significantly, incredibly, indisputably more likely to have an urge and act on said urge to unwantedly, violently sexually assault (rape) an XX (biological woman) who is vulnerable with her pants down in an enclosed, private area than the other way around. That's indisputable. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either not being serious or is dangerously out of touch with reality to the point they need to be institutionalized for their own safety and that of others.

The idea that having to use a bathroom that isn't "made" for your gender, is some sort of rights violation or identity-crisis-forming scenario is ridiculous. If I have to take a whizz, and go on a tree, or something, I do it because it's what's available. I won't suddenly start having an identity crisis wondering if I'm a fox or a bear and not who I identify as after doing so. Anyone who feels otherwise clearly has something else going on irrespective of gender identity. It's simply not related.

So, for the protection of women, (XY) uses facility A and (XX) uses facility B. There's no prejudice or discrimination involved whatsoever.

Interesting fact: there are more toilets in the United States than there are people. I'm sure there's a pun there but in all seriousness the economic cost alone (not including the feasibility and flat out impossibility to add a third restroom to every two sets of standard restrooms, however many that would be) would be astronomical. Nothing short of mind-boggling.

--

In short, it's a discussion. The OP is trying to have a discussion. It's as meaningful as those who participate in it wish it to be.

My take is: I don't believe something as insignificant as the lettering on a placard that designates what room you take a dump in (of all things) amounts to any real, measurable form of discrimination or any sort of realistic identity-crisis-causing factor. If so, the problem clearly lies elsewhere, not in one's gender identity. I just don't see it as realistic or feasible to legislate mandatory third-gender/transgender/"female" identifying XY restrooms for the reasons explained.

Not to make light of the issue, but it is a known fact or "running gag" non-female-identifying males jokingly identify as "women" when "caught" messing around (whether "innocently" as in "just taking a peek" for purposes of non-physical, non-violent sexual gratification or maliciously ie. considering actually performing a violent criminal act) in or near women's restrooms. To me, legally and morally speaking, this is a clear-cut risk for women everywhere. That risk being, there is no legal distinction, no form of discernment, between a transgender female who honestly identifies as a female who has undergone surgery and everything else, and a standard biological male who got caught and claims "no I just now realized I identify as a female, five minutes ago". Absolutely none whatsoever. That is a clear and present danger to women. I don't see how any argument contrary to that is even remotely defensible. I'd honestly welcome and challenge anyone to dispute that.

Huh? Philosophy degrees need a statistics requirement. If I tell you that the Atlanta Braves team batting average in 2024 is .244 (the median in MLB), what does that tell someone about Marcell Ozuna's batting average in 2024? Nothing. He's got the 5th highest average in baseball. — LuckyR

If I may. I think he's suggesting the fact that Marcell Ozuna happens to have an exceptionally higher batting average than the rest of his teammates is a rarity. Out of all the Atlanta Braves team members, any given one would likely be much lesser and closer to .244 than to be in the 5th highest average. In other words, if you picked the Atlanta Braves (batting average of .244) and were to make a bet that a player, selected at random, assuming you don't know the identity or batting averages of any of the players, would be in the top 5 highest averages, over say, the team with the highest batting average, that would be considered foolish as it is much more likely for a randomly-selected player from a team with a much higher batting average to have a higher batting average than one from a team with a much lower batting average.

I realize this is a sub-discussion that happens to be about racial tendencies, which I find iffy, but context-aside, for the sake of the larger, more general discussion not about race from which this one is derived from, that is the bare bones logic as I see it.

If we consider evolutionary scales, very little time has passed from the moment we stopped living like our ancestors in the wilderness to today. — merloz

I would like to add, in addition to this, even less time has passed since when we wanted information or entertainment or education we would A.) take a long perilous journey to a "master's" house in another town, often undergoing a series of quests or trials B.) travel by carriage or bicycle to a local library often spending hours at the destination to make it worthwhile C.) for entertainment, go to a weekly or bi-monthly live performance show such as opera or Shakespearean play. And so on.

Information overload is a term I hear being used often to describe the sudden onset of modern communications now starting as young as when a child is able to walk and talk (see baby apps on tablets). I don't know whether to feel a sense of wonder and gratitude or revulsion and dread. Regardless, it is fundamentally changing the way human brains develop, some argue to a detriment as in simple terms having everything at our fingers or using "Reminder apps" makes us "think less", and if you know evolutionary mechanics, if you don't need something, it soon vanishes. Definitely something to ponder. Great thread, OP.

Do you think psychiatric medication belongs to the common person's future? — merloz

I find it difficult to bring myself to respond in the positive. Though, perhaps one could have said the same about alcohol. The difference is that seems to have been around for 7,000+ years and is more or less natural, per se. I suppose it depends on the medication but anything that fundamentally and artificially alters (as in was manufactured specifically with the intent to alter) the fundamental way in which the brain operates or creates artificial chemical states/blockages of chemical receptors does not seem to be without possibility of risk. Not sure how "valid" this claim is but I've heard something along the lines that many "mass shooters" were on anti-psychotics. Though that could easily be pointing to a symptom of an underlying cause while ignoring the underlying cause that could be the true culprit altogether. Even still, perhaps psychiatric medication is still in its infancy and as such remains experimental and so "mistakes will be made", something of an innovation learning curve, similar to how the first Model-T car was basically a deathtrap leading to countless deaths but was eventually perfected to a standard that we consider more or less safe and a worthwhile, now-essential invention.

what are they fighting for? For censorship and repression? — Linkey

From a general non-political non-specific state of affairs:

The "censorship" angle would hold more water if it weren't always the most awful uneducated POS' advocating for it simply so they can be better awful educated POS' and annoy and irreparably damage society with impunity. They sully their own argument, reasoning, and purpose without realizing it, and so, the best option for those who oppose them is, well, continue to let them do so!

It's not the young articulate scholar with innocent, nontraditional or nonconforming ideas who is being censored, it's the again, see above, types who in their weakness and malleability allowed themselves to be molded into a destroyed state of being by the other negative persons in their life and society who can now only do the same unto others. It's a disease, plain and simple. Disease requires quarantine. Spies or "apolitical" "anarchists" are a real thing. People who couldn't care less about the words or ideas they're attempting to make themselves seen as associated with or advocating for, but the political results and end goals they are attempting to achieve, which is instability along with fear and paranoia among a given populous with the intent of weakening patriotic resolve with again, the goal, of weakening or perhaps better yet, toppling, a nation state.

At least, that's the counterargument. And from, again, a general, non-political, non-specific state of affairs, remains solid in truth. There's also often a religious angle ("the way God wishes man to be") ie. (presumably) a state of peace, charity, understanding, and well-to-do nature toward fellow man. Anything or anyone opposite of that might cause God to turn away from said nation or for it to "lose favor" and fall. So, anyone who deviates from this "divinely intended way to live" is a literal life-and-death existential threat to the survival of millions. So, whatever must be done, must be done. "For the sake of the children", of course. And who couldn't get behind that? "What are you against children?" Check plus mate. mate. :smirk:

In short, your idea, while noble in intent, falls short and remains both woefully out-of-touch as well as out-of-date as far as any hope for a strategic change in any ongoing conflict or state of affairs. And no I'm not ignorant of the fact that totalitarian regimes are a bad idea, even when initially formed truly with all the intent and purpose they were purported to be, defend, and stand for. Simply for the reason they never last, rather corruption is the natural state of man and without checks and balances and outside input and restriction, will inevitably return to said state. Never fails. Just informing you of how other people think.

Maybe I feel this way because of the way literature shows "ugly people" as evil and untrustworthy, read Dickens, Fagin was not beautiful. — Rob J Kennedy

Hopefully not getting off topic but this is something I've pondered fairly often.

Is it because people, especially the non-wisdom-inclined, we'll say (ie. the majority), tend to treat people differently based on appearance, sometimes outright cruelly, and as such often makes the character of otherwise kindhearted people who happen to be unattractive/short/etc into such? I think so. As opposed to the stereotype you mention being of an independent and intrinsic nature. That would explain a great many things I've experienced. See "short man syndrome". Basically to say, people like that are like that because they've been made like that (were treated poorly or otherwise unfairly [which I've observed can have a snowball effect leading to paranoia and aggression which leads to a persistent mindset of purposeful mistreatment when it is in actuality not present in a given situation]).

predatory sexuality [...] high cheekbones — Vera Mont

:eyes:

Pretty sure "high cheekbones" are an ethnic, genetic trait. Not a "face" or "expression" one makes, let alone has any conscious control over. Supposedly associated with attractiveness. Ergo, sounds more like wishful thinking on the eye of the beholder. :sweat:

one that suggests treachery (blonde hair, clearly defined, symmetrical features). — Vera Mont

That's an interesting take. :brow:

Sure, Europeans have their reputation, but it was my understanding dark-haired people, epecially when bearded were "considered" or "painted" to be mischievous and untrustworthy or to some "look evil". Google "dark hair untrustworthy", for example. Or this article which states: "In popular culture, people with very dark hair are also stereotyped as sinister, untrustworthy, and wicked. Like the "good witch and the bad witch"." I find all that rather silly but regardless, the stereotype is there. Perhaps you watched one too many Bond movies. :razz:

(further "evidenced" by this Simpsons clip)


Other than that your spot on, I agree. Just felt the need to point out my observations that were in conflict, for some reason. :lol:

An excellent question. That begets an unfortunate discussion. The answer, and no it is not mere opinion but rather measurable and observable fact time and time again, no matter the sampling, no matter the sophistication be it a global consensus and lab setting with years of planning and research behind it or any random grouping of people on the street in a minute's notice, is a resounding, Yes! As far as "do people?", as in, the majority of society.

One could go on starting from the biological markets and "drives", mechanisms and physiological securities and inner workings and what not, perhaps that is after all the best place to start being a largely-influential factor. No doubt compounded by the fact media and advertisements feature "beautiful people", those with flawless skin, seemingly divinely-chiseled features and jawlines. It becomes "normal". And like anything that becomes "normal" that which deviates from said normality activates the discernment or discriminatory functionality in the brain. Naturally, perhaps one who has pierced the veil so to speak, who discovers firsthand often painfully that no, dear child, not all that glitters is in fact gold, they begin to see vanity and beauty for what it is, a skin deep characteristic independent from that of any moral or substantiating worth. This takes time and experience of course. Some never discover this truth. Call them blessed and fortunate, call them unfortunate, living a shallow life with all the depth of a thin layer of congealed fat atop the rich and hearty soup that is the examined life where virtue and character are sought after and appearance is instead but a minor side affect completely independent from beauty, true beauty that is in fact only producible, discoverable, and knowable when one shuts one's eyes to the vain and woefully predictable physicality of this world, instead embracing the value and virtue that comes from one's innermost heart and desire manifested via action and engagement toward fellow man on a true heart-to-heart emotional level instead of false valuation of that which one has little control over and did not a thing to gain nor does a thing to maintain.

Edit: Just caught how you mentioned "beauty in people", as to make it only a side point or but one of many avenues of discussion, considering the fact "goodness" is basically a quality restricted to persons or intelligent beings, not say, architecture, or a well-thought out idea. That would be "soundness", not so much "goodness". Still, from there, take a beautiful song or masterful piece of artwork depicting an old, rundown house. These things would be "visually satisfying", perhaps even mentally or spiritually, that is to say they "hit all the intended marks" or check all the desired boxes, per se. That I suppose is equatable to "goodness", though lacking in any of the fundamental meanings typically associated with such, I'd say..

But I am asking whether some people here do believe there is a smallest number. — TonesInDeepFreeze

That's a good question. As a relative simpleton who's been trying his best to follow along with the recent arguments, I would ask: why could you not take the smallest number (my rudimentary mind imagines something along the lines of 0.0[insert a bajillion zeroes here]1) and divide that by 2? And divide even that by 2? And so on? We can't "run out" of numbers, per se. For that is there design. Though I'm sure there reaches a "hard point", a threshold if you will where a certain degree of number fails to appear or exist anywhere in the known universe thus ceases to become of use or mention. I'm sure there's a term for that- somewhere. :chin:

They could never execute me. — fishfry

:eyes:

Fun fact: Socrates was imprisoned for his own safety. Just about everybody who knew him either wanted to kill him or make him "go away". And eventually succeeded, mind you. You don't happen to have access to any wild hemlock, do you? :smile:

"Never assume malice for what can be adequately explained by simple ignorance and misunderstanding (or earnest and genuine albeit unrefined or naive curiosity)." :cheer:

Were it not for those who follow this sacred principle, I likely may have not lasted the years myself. :grin:

Adult — Captain Homicide

What is an adult? Is it legally set by the State? Or biologically by puberty? What if one is a eunuch and does not go through "puberty" per se? Or has some other condition where the biological process of adulthood does not occur? Does a person require mental faculties and sanity to be considered an adult? What about an adolescent who has seen and been through more than most adults can and will and has an IQ of 200 and has physically developed to full physical and mental maturity? If that person is not an adult then it means "adulthood" is set by the State and very well could be declared tomorrow that being eight years old is now an adult.

human — Captain Homicide

What is a human? What if one's brain has been altered to fundamentally operate as an AI or replaced altogether with an AI brain? What if science reaches the point of head transplants and one becomes just a brain in an entirely robot body?

female — Captain Homicide

This is simply glossing over and rephrasing the term that is currently under scrutiny, is it not?

The question remains why do some people become dependent and others do not? — Tom Storm

Surely genetics must play some role, if not the occasional cameo. Not to suggest willpower or simple availability of the thing (convenience meets opportunity) isn't a factor, however.

Psychedelics are not without danger. They are very powerful and can exacerbate or cause mental illness. They can also do some really, really wonderful things. I've experienced both aspects and feel ambivalent about them. I generally don't recommend them to people. If you are inclined to explore such territories, you will go there of your own accord. I suppose it's like scuba diving or mountaineering. There are amazing things to see, but some people drown or crash on the rocks. Others find much of value. — petrichor

it seems like a shortcut for desired revelations about one's inner-life. — Shawn

This I admire most about this thread; I wonder the exact same. Turned out great btw, very highly intellectual and compelling non-biased descriptions of psychedelics here. Primarily by the quoted poster and @Joshs, IMO.

I guess to springboard off your question, if not add to it, particularly for those who have experienced psychedelics, is the profoundness really something that can't be experienced by reading or watching a really really good book or reading a good piece of detailed writing (something Nietzsche-level the average writer cannot convey in words)? I feel any physical experience is exactly that, a physical experience. Sure it's "crazy", surreal, mind-bending all that. But at the end of the day it's just a sensation overlaid by irregular thoughts overlaid by visuals. I'm sure I'll get the "no bro you gotta try it, I left my body and became God. I could hear colors and see sounds, bro" kind of verbal kitsch, but really, as an intellectual, if you can't put it into words you simply felt really weird and your making a big deal out of it because its something you never felt before.

So while I don't think its necessarily a "psychotic break" that perhaps is transient in nature altering your identity and concept of self, no different than a first time vacation or sightseeing trip would do if you lived in a small village your whole life, I think its a bit overblown simply based on the facts. People exciting themselves over a temporary period of irregular brain activity leading to a very base level change in perception that just so happens to barely constitute a "changed life perspective". Nothing a movie, in theory, couldn't replicate, if you truly immerse yourself into it.

It's the nature of business that partnerships go sour. You have to nail everything down in legal documents and even then, a former friend is likely to stab you in the back. Much better to go it alone. — frank

Sounds like you speak from experience? :chin:

--

But generally speaking, OP. The wisdom of the old ones ring true: "If there's a market for your idea, it's long been filled." In other words, everything worth doing has already been done, otherwise, it would have been done already. Sure, not 100%. But definitely more so than not, I'd wager. There's always niche and pseudo-"emerging" markets you can try to corner. Some do. Rarely does it amount to the vision of outright success one desires. But like they say, "you never know".

Example, I'm working on something like that now. It's a service, we'll say. Wanted to make it free to use, supported by ads. Let's just say, I'm starting to see why such services charge premium rates by the minute. What a pity too. It actually incorporates this forum as a minor functionality, that in and of itself could easily bring about hours of enjoyment and social enlightenment to all. I'm still working on it, however. Though it helps to keep a realistic mindset, especially when it comes to risking one's standard of living, and in many cases, livelihood altogether.

I'm hesitant to consider the listed reasons as rationalizations; but, regarding psychologizing the issue, I would like to know why people seek mood alteration? What's the reason why people want to alter their moods? — Shawn

Why do men seek pleasure and not misery? To keep on track with psychoanalyzing, well, because a happy life is a good one, no? Other than that, it's simply the way man is wired. Historically, if it makes you go "ouch" you avoid it and if it makes you go "ooh" or "ahh" or "yum", you go for it. Not much philosophy involved, really. Perhaps I'm being dense. There's also an aspect of discovery and "having lived", I guess you could even say not being "afraid" or "too mild-mannered and boring", something men fear to be looked upon as by their peers.

So, what are your thoughts about this situation? — Shawn

My thoughts on the "situation" are exactly this. If I was tasked with overthrowing a nation state, or fighting an army, if I could have one condition granted to bestow upon my enemy or targeted population, it would be for them all to be high. Very high. From there it'd be a walk in the park. That's an underlying concern I feel many miss but fortunately the government does not miss the mark on.

Why are drugs so alluring to some and growing in popularity amongst (quite a few) Americans? — Shawn

But more generally speaking, it's basically the only "instant mood change" available to man. Bills too high? Wife got you down? Dog ran away? Wife ran away with your dog and left you with a bill? Don't worry, get high! Heh, something like that.

All drugs are different of course, except for the fact they fundamentally (some more than others) alter your mind state. People want escape from their mundane often dreary lives, and what quicker way then to get high for a spell. Sure, rational men know it doesn't really solve anything, in fact can amount to problems piling up, but for the average folk, if it feels good, it solves a problem, and that is good enough.

Opinion - communism goes against human nature, so it can only be forced on people from above. — T Clark

While I don't disagree with you in principle, I feel compelled to ask: doesn't law and order as well? Surely the two aren't so terribly dissimilar in sharing similar qualities of being a "manufactured" or inorganic state of affairs, despite both also having relatable qualities of natural social cohesion and the resulting "values", virtues, whatever you wish to call the things that make a society a pleasant thing to call one's own? If I, absent of modern upbringing in any civilized society, feel hungry, or even not, and I see one of lesser or smaller stature than me in possession of something I wish to make mine, would I not be inclined to do so, whether by means of deceit or perhaps a bit more forceful of an approach?

Capital "F" "Fate" is consciously determined by an outside actor in which said actions to determine said fate were performed willfully with the intent of such. Determinism is a school of thought or affirmation that, due to cause and effect, the nature of consciousness, and how we perceive the world with our five biological senses and physical brain, basically everything we "do" or "are" or think we are is essentially the result of something or someone else in one way or the other, somewhere down the line. A successful businessman? You were born with an apt mind for business and innate drive to succeed due to genetics passed on in which you had no say over. World champion athlete? The same. World champion panhandler who hasn't had a stable home or been sober for years? Also, the same. Etc, etc.

ie. "The jury will now decide your fate" vs. "due to the recently-revealed fact you are a eunuch, it has been determined the allegations against you levied by Mrs. Bronson are in fact, impossible, thusly, you are free to go.", etc.

I guess...... — Bob Ross

My reasoning is that you're looking for someone who is not only intelligent but content with themselves as a person, developed well beyond the child-like inner mentality and core persona of many "adults" that you seem to have little interest or connection with. My line of thinking is such a person would likely not be busying themselves trying to find a partner online but exploring the world or enriching themselves mentally in the flesh, as opposed to waiting idly by on a lackluster one-dimensional platform of lust and vanity, wouldn't you agree?

I must say this is surely a Lounge topic.

Also, stop giving me lucrative business ideas. It stirs a very troublesome aspect of my persona I have yet to reign in proper.

Hm. Actually. It looks like "intellimeet.com" is available for the dirt cheap bargain price of only $5,799 USD. Perhaps @Jamal can organize a community fundraiser. From there, it would be a pleasure, nay, the highest of honors, to be able to help make your dream a reality.

That or try either Barnes & Noble or your local library. Worth a shot, eh? :smirk:

Edit: Sadly, "intelligents.com" commands a bit more of a premium, sitting at a cool 15,000 USD. But surely they can be persuaded toward a lower, more reasonable number. Still a bit beyond my purchasing power at the moment, I'm afraid. Another day, perhaps. :meh:

I get his point, though. Perhaps it's my OCD but in essence, words kinda do have to mean something otherwise we don't have a discussion we have an unintelligible madhouse and non-discussion.

I understand how some might not consider, say, burping or passing gas as an art, yet another might. Similar to how a wall of used gum or business cards at a diner may or may not be considered the same.

But surely you would agree, some definitions are, as a strict matter of fact, wrong. There have to be. Unfortunately for those whom the burden of proof happens to fall on, art is one of those concepts where the lines are in fact thoroughly blurred. To take a liberal view, perhaps anything can be art, however nothing is absent of two things: human involvement be it capture or placement and an intended audience of which to view it. Would you agree with that?

So for you art has to be something 'special'? — Tom Storm


Yes! — Baden

Riddle me this, for the sake of defining art. What is "special"? Unique? Surely a blank piece of paper with a black dot squarely in the center is not what comes to mind when one thinks of "art". Or is it?

What if it's a single drop of blood, sweat, or tears from a person's last moment in life as he performed a valiant act of self-sacrifice saving an entire village from a deadly threat or attack? Surely that would be considered "special" and, due to its context, make it a worthy competitor along the lines of other great works. Symbolizing the lone nature of the sacrifice, one man, surrounded by the vastness of the world and the insurmountable odds around him, something like that, no?

What is an example of something "non-special" that attempts to masquerade as art? A simple outline of a circle is not considered "art", I wouldn't think? What would have to be added to that circle to make it qualify, to graduate from a mere diagram to something that can be considered "art"?

Yes, "designed to mock the world of art, and the snobberies that go with it." — ENOAH

Well, that definitely wasn't my point of contention or "indirect message" at all. Just an interesting documentary I thought you'd enjoy and perhaps others a bit less informed or impassioned on the subject writ-large might benefit from, and along with the DuChamp segment offering a point of discussion and insight as to the changing definition or accepted bounds of "what is art", etc.

Didn't mean nothing by it. :sweat:

As for singing being a talent as opposed to creative, I beg to differ. The creative interpretations by these presumably novices, is one of the things which moved me physically. — ENOAH

No, right on. As I said, I must've been barely an adolescent at the time I happened on a few episodes. Can definitely see it as falling under the loose category of "art" on that alone. :up:

Still, the various replies touching on the "intent" of the show being, at its core, a search for talent with the aim of financial motive, that just so happens to offer itself as an engaging and watchable art in and of itself (again, likely simply as to monetize literally every step of the process) seems relevant.

Marcel Duchamp — BC

Ah, I was hoping someone would mention Duchamp!

For anyone interested, especially the OP, as it seems rather relevant:



The whole thing is worth a watch IMO but FF to 5:00 for an excerpt on Duchamp and his role or "take" on art.

Is American Idol art? — ENOAH

After reading your well-thought out OP I must, at the risk of sounding like a dullard, remind that American Idol is an opinion-based talent competition at its core. It's format is artful, yes. i remember watching segments of it while young, I can't recall if "performance" was a factor in the acts, confusing it with America's Got Talent or similar programming where vocal talent was but one of many factors in the act, not a prerequisite at all. As in, I can't recall if one was expected or encouraged to dance, perform gymnastically, etc. in unison with their singing or if singing was in fact the sole point of contention. Singing is indeed an art form, if not in the way art is a discipline, similar to cooking or even something non-traditional like debate or insult-slinging. If it was strictly singing I'd personally consider it to be more of a talent competition than a performance art or exhibition act like ballet would be considered. Art generally requires creativity, something that would not be present absent of human involvement. Though this is challenged by modern art (see "The Lights Going on and Off". "Banana Duct-taped To Wall", or Martin Creed's "Work No. 301: A sheet of paper crumpled into a ball" for example). You can be the world's most talented and favored singer, but this doesn't require creativity as you could simply be reciting the work of another simply "matching the notes" with your voice, which admittedly is not something most can do and requires talent, but nonetheless can be compared to pushing a button when a prompter says to. I'd say?

You're correct in saying the "reality TV" stigma runs strong, for me at least. The "realness", behind-the-scenes drama, and human emotion of the show (something I believe is there for purposes of ratings and "interpersonal connection" and desire to watch it again more so than anything else) does seem to give it a pretense of being more than a simple talent measuring contest. But these factors are also present in other reality shows. Is "Jersey Shore" "art" as well for having all these factors minus the presence of any actual "art form"? One would likely say no. Bearing in mind many of the acts (I believe) were in fact written by the performers themselves, and perhaps even improv'd at times (though I can't recall) there's certainly an artistic quality to the final product. Perhaps it's my personal understanding of "art", in a non-discipline context where it is not defined as a measurable skill, but rather the traditional idea of art being a physical representation, be it on paper or on a stage where performers make a human pyramid, etc.

Just to look at things a different way, if we consider singing more of a talent rather than an artistic discipline, would a pie-eating contest be considered art? Likely not. More of a "live event". You could add all the things also present: drama, emotion, human connection, progression of character, overcoming of personal obstacles, etc. but would this not make it more of a documentary?

Though singing is commonly grouped in under "the arts". Combined with physical performance that certainly makes it a performing art such as opera or a play. By itself though, I remain uncertain. I guess in my head when I think of art I think of art as not just something "I myself am unable to do" and/or "any observable physical human expression (be it a painting or modeling of clay or man on a stage in a stationary dramatic pose for 11 1/2 minutes)" but, actually, that's exactly what I think of it as. Part of me wants to consider AI a hybrid artistic competition and documentary, similar to how if instead of singing it was painting. The subject matter would be art, but the TV show would remain exactly that, a TV show.

It's a good question. That's my take on the subject at least. :confused:

Sure. Of course, those who spend their time and efforts doing so often tend to find themselves with both significantly less time and resulting means of resource or ability to do very much at all in comparison to those who may be a bit more... shrewd in their daily activities and manner of conduct. Alas, 'tis the way of the world. For a time. :naughty:

All true. Didn't mean to oversimplify, I do have a habit of doing so, not intentionally, mind you. Still, I'd argue much of our core "driving factors" remain the same. Fears, desires, motivations, and whatnot. More refined, tailored to the specific going-ons and happenings of the modern world, existential anxieties and concerns of not seeing a tomorrow all but corralled to the back of one's subconscious, of course. But in essence, much of the same.

Certainly agree with earlier society, those fortunate enough to have such, being more connected with one another out of necessity of proximity to life-sustaining goods and services and other "tight-knit" circumstance contributing to the resiliency and defense of said society's existence, in contrast to the modern world and it's "just text me" or "add me on Facebook" norms of interaction.