It's not a sign of intellectual rigor, broad-mindedness or virtuous humanity to empathize with career criminals; it's cowardice masquerading as such.

I can assure you none of you would be pleading for nuance if you had had a single experience of the pitiless malevolence with which such individuals operate.

These people ruin lives, communities, entire societies for petty monetary gain. They deserve no sympathy nor quarter. — Tzeentch

For the record, I largely agree with you. However I would like to offer the reminder that most people go through life fully, living and dying in a state of quasi-debilitation never really knowing or understanding the things some of us take for granted in life. Simply put, the lights are not all on upstairs.

"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity" seems to be the words of a fool in your eyes, no? :smile:

While most people will state they "don't care", the reality of the individual is they simply don't understand. It's like dealing with a dog. It hungers, so it eats. It is blameless until one tries to view it as anything but what it is—an equal—which is unfortunately what you seem to be doing for reasons I cannot imagine.

what I think of when I think of a chatbox is an ongoing text group conversation, where the comments are brief and move back and forth quickly. That does describe the Shoutbox as it currently exists, although the comments can become longer and more involved, sometimes being used as a place to test out discussions as opposed to starting a thread. It's the longer conversations I wonder if will get lost under a chatbox feature. — Hanover

:100: :up:

I also thought the layout from the old site was better in certain ways (although it had countless bugs and unreliability problems) because it showed the categories and the posts by recency by each category and not just everything at once. — Hanover

It definitely varies per individual, but generally speaking I'm fairly certain the majority of people prefer a (at least default) "dump" of ALL topics sorted by most recent activity. It just makes the place look more active and exciting (ie. not "dead"). Further customization on what topics are displayed or not displayed once a user signs up handles every possible concern IMO.

I bear responsibility for my own actions, and not for those of others. — Tzeentch

That's not the point. There would be no "you", period, were it not for immorality. Therefore you have no non-hypocritical position to hold as far as judging others for their own. Human history is a smorgasbord of cruelty, indifference, and suffering inflicted on those who bore no crime other than being not as strong as somebody else.

You're in a position to not be killed (ie. to survive) solely and exclusively by acts of immorality, because those before you did so so that you wouldn't have to. They're dead. They can't be "arrested" or judged. Whereas you, can. We ignore things that happened a long time ago for no other reason than it happened a long time ago. This is not a reliable foundation of morality.

There is nothing odd but your assumption as to what it is I believe seeing as I have said nothing about myself personally other than what applies to all living human beings.

It's not that serious. It's a discussion about facts and the philosophical nature of said facts. Don't take it so personally.

A man voluntarily chooses to spend his final days on earth destroying the lives of as many people as possible by getting them hooked on meth - what room for nuance is there in our judgement of such a person? — Tzeentch

The intent was to make money so as to gain resources necessary for survival. Let's not pretend your existence was not brought about by selfishness and immoral acts committed by those who came before you. You're literally the spawn of immorality, in a way, we all are. Nothing you do or say will ever change the reality of your existence. This world is not, especially back then, a black and white calm theater of two types of people: those who are decent and worthy of life, and those who are terrible people who inflict suffering for no other reason than to do so. That's a rose-colored glasses type of delusion.

If a government allows a subject to have a child without ensuring they are aware of all the reasonable dangers in this world, that government is at fault. But. They'll be called "tyrannical" or "authoritarian" just for trying to protect the well-being of human life by making the tough decision of who can reproduce and who should not right at the moment. If we say "oh freedom" and let people do whatever they want (as it is currently) we blame the parent for not educating the child as to how to avoid things that are dangerous. Some people have addictive tendencies. This is an indisputably and universally intrinsically negative and disfavored quality over those who can consume an otherwise addictive product that may lead to permanent harm if not used in moderation.

So, all relevant factors considered, what do you do? We have three options. Option 1 is to force government to ensure only those permitted and granted to reproduce do so while others are punished and ultimately disallowed from reproducing freely. Option 2 is to make examples out of parents who raise kids that end up not listening to rational and reasonable warnings and things to avoid that are hazardous. Option 3 is to commit eugenics and ensure people who are prone to addictive tendencies are not born and do not result in those like them being born. Take your pick. Whichever you choose, you'll have more people than you can take at once against you. So. Time to re-frame one's argument—and of course—approach.

I don't necessarily agree with the implied sentiments the average person making the hypothetical argument seriously and outside of the context of philosophy would most likely hold, of course. That said, I doubt anything conveyed is less than truthful as far as real world solutions and cause and effect is concerned.

How could a live chat not function as a "community posting room"? — Jamal

First and foremost, it's not that big a deal. Though I feel impassioned enough to make this reply, as I do think, as someone who is not advanced, that is to say, not intimately acquainted with the ins and outs of higher philosophy, the Shoutbox is a joy to visit, peruse, and respond to. Probably an easy second favorite part of my experience with this website, behind reading threads, of course.

In my experience a traditional Shoutbox or "live chat" is generally at the very top of the forum index (though this can—usually—be altered and even "collapsed" or outright hidden per user preference) and is roughly 5 - 10 lines of text "tall". Though it can be scrolled up. This discourages all but simple pleasantries and spontaneous "what's everybody up to" or perhaps the occasional "thoughts on today's topic of XYZ?", which is wholly sufficient, sure..

But what about @jorndoe's ever popular news updates? These take up a good amount of screen real estate in the context of a live chat that encourages more spontaneity thus encourages more "fun" or "social" or otherwise "unsubstantial" replies.

As it is now, sometimes the Shoutbox takes a few days to reach a new page (10 replies), sometimes it creates more than one page in 15 minutes. From my experience live chat permanently truncates a certain number of older replies based on however many new replies are made. It's nice to be able to go back and see what was said a day or two ago.

Again, it's not that big a deal. Just my 2 cents on the matter. Which a mod did agree with as far as making something of the sort, I might add. It seems like a 2 second thing you can make or not make at any time so again try and not read too far into it.

Existing members will have to sign up to join the new site [...] there will probably be a permanent announcement on the archive site. — Jamal

Does this mean there will be an entirely new domain name as well? Or something like a https://thephilosophyforum.com/archive link that will point to the soon-to-be-archived forum we're on now?

This is a good domain name. A private browser window Google search for "online philosophy forum" shows TPF as #1 result for me. 10+ years of search relevance is worth keeping /utilizing as the access point for the new forum, if you ask me.

There's no such time. Time came into existence along with the universe; the Big Bang is not an event in time but a boundary of time. — Banno

Huh. Interesting. I was not focally aware of that. There's no semi-equivalent (I get it's not a matter of simple terminology or verbatim but a truly transcendental concept altogether—somewhat)? There's no hypothetical future where humans have mastered time travel (and beyond?) that any matter currently in existence can be somehow "placed" or otherwise "end up" at such a point? Why is that? (It's honestly fascinating to ponder, is all)

This sort of speculative physics makes for poor threads. — Banno

Perhaps. That said, I don't need to remind anyone here that all generally-accepted theories as well as most if not all scientific facts began as mere speculation. I fail to see an intrinsic evil in the practice per se, though I can see how it can be a bit disfavored and come off as irrelevant.

Either way, I appreciate the newfound knowledge. :smile:

The big bang is as an explanation for, and from, what we see around us; the very opposite of what you are suggesting. — Banno

If you were to somehow—right now—go back in time to a few moments before the Big Bang—with no idea that it was about to create what we call "the known Universe"—yet retain your knowledge of the known Universe, such knowledge would technically be "beyond reality" since the known Universe hasn't been created at that point.

The "known Universe" doesn't exist in reality at that point in time, other than in your head. Yet a few moments later—unbeknownst to you—it would. This is an explicit example (albeit hypothetical and per current scientific knowledge, currently impossible) of not only a valid posit of something "beyond reality" but a (theoretically) factual occurrence of reality being extended to something it was not previously.

Trivially, maybe "Big Bangs" happen all the time (in an "eternal" sense or context of frequency/occurrence) and another might happen in the future, removing all traces of the current Universe (this one) in favor of a new Universe that currently does not exist in any form (which technically, may have been what happened and may very well be the origins of this Universe, one simply does not know). Run it through ChatGPT if for whatever reason I'm not communicating to you sufficiently.

I'm basically saying there was a time this Universe (rather everything that we consider part of this Universe) didn't exist in any sort of recognizable form like it is now (ie. "pre-Big Bang" reality). At that time, talking about the Universe would be referring to something "beyond reality", yet would eventually become reality. It's the only example I got, but one example is all it takes to turn something from "100% absolute every single time" to "well, in most cases..." Which is a crucial distinction in philosophy (and basically anything else).

I mention consciousness arising from simplex organisms in case you say something like "but this Universe DID always exist, it was just all inside of the Singularity!", which I would respond by saying "that would be like saying consciousness always existed inside the first single-celled organism it just 'became active' once organisms evolved highly-functioning brains and resulting intelligence", which would be patently false.

Why would you suppose that? Do you think the big bang is beyond comprehension? — Banno

My implication was, based on said theory, there was a point before what is commonly referred to as "the universe." A point (no pun intended) where "reality" or "all there is" was substantially different than what it is currently. So much so it can barely even be discussed and remains but a humble, albeit generally-accepted theorem.

If, hypothetically, one could place themself, as they are, prior to the "Big Bang", everything we know now, the entire Universe as we know it, would, in theory, be "outside" or "beyond" reality. Wouldn't it? It didn't exist at that point. Not in any conceivable or fathomable form. Not really. No different than saying consciousness existed before intelligent beings came about.

The current universe would be "beyond reality" at the time prior to the Big Bang. Just as consciousness would be "beyond reality" prior to the first intelligent being. Is this not correct?

Because reality is what there is.

To posit something "beyond reality" is to posit more of what there is. It is to extend reality. — Banno

"Beyond reality" is not a region; it is a grammatical error. — Banno

Are we to understand you reject the Big Bang hypothesis, then? What theory as to the origins of this universe might you favor, pray tell? :smile:

All of existence is a prison. The question is, what is outside that prison? — an-salad

This is unexpectedly profound, perhaps that was your intent, perhaps not. For the average person, even those who claim to have found the charms of love or who otherwise remain placated by the juvenile pleasures life has to offer (wealth, physicality ie. "the flesh" or "pleasure", feeling of esteem and respect from strangers, hollow as these things are, they remain the sole driving force behind most of life's actions and ambitions, and of course, naturally, most of life's suffering) all have the same thing in common. We inevitably want more. No, we delude ourselves, often passively with empty gratitude shared in public (ie. "I'm so grateful, I couldn't ask for more") so as to sell an image to an ultimately uncaring world. But this inevitability manifests in "mid life crises", peculiar hobbies, marital strife, microaggressions, and more if left unexamined and unaddressed. Not to mention those who have yet to find peace and purpose.

Regardless of our status in life—perceived, real, deluded or anything in between—we all have one sobering dynamic in common. We all hunger and thirst. Both physically and of course symbolically, for that which we do not have, and even that which we do have. This is clear as day and does not require any sort of explanation for someone living in abject poverty or afflicted with a debilitating condition or ailment, naturally. But what of an upperclassman with everything the average man (or woman) reasonably strives for in life? Stable, high-paying job, big house, loving partner, beautiful family, good friends, respect from his or her peers, an abundance of wealth (including time)—and above all—that ever so elusive feeling of true peace at the very last moments of one's day to be followed by true purpose and drive at the start of the following, only to repeat indefinitely until the last of one's days. What of that man? Is he simply deluded? Or are those who compare his life and status to imprisonment merely jealous and disappointed with their own (projection, perhaps)? Surely this must be the only relevant dynamic (a binary "one or the other") in relation to the aforementioned questions posed. Mustn't it?

Surely he (and anyone else with half a mind) would never attempt to equate such a charmed and privileged existence to that of a "prison", would they? No, not in a million years. Or so it seems. One argument—and not a particularly good one (without the right biases in my opinion)—would be to start by taking a page from the stereotypical "anti-materialism" playbook. Along the lines of "one doesn't own possessions, one's possessions own the person, requiring constant and daily vigilance and occasional villainy to ensure one continues from one day to the next living in the manner in which one has become accustomed, all the while knowing, deep down, he would be not only hopelessly lost but simply destroyed if he were to lose any one of these things many men live life without, for even the slave with golden shackles undoubtedly remains but a slave." No, it's not particularly great, but it has merit given the right context.

I notice you go one further by saying all existence is a prison, so even an enlightened anti-materialist who has given up all worldly desire is still "imprisoned" due to him being conscious of himself. No different than a historical wealthy monarch in charge of vast swathes of lands, armies, and treasure. This would seem to betray an almost "antinatalist" or "anti-human" sort of world view, along the lines of "all life is bad and the less of it, the better." Not a very popular position to hold, quite dangerous even, yet the philosophical validity is not lost entirely.

The brevity (or simplicity) or your remarks, while profound, do leave much to interpretation. "All of existence" is a very broad term. Perhaps a bit broader than one initially realizes. Logically speaking, if "all of existence" is a prison, that would mean, the only thing beyond "existence" and "not a prison" would be... non-existence? This makes your remark astonishingly less profound, or at the very least, less vast in terms of philosophical context. There would seem to be two possible dynamics that can follow from that point. A sort of spiritual or metaphysical reality that transcends (has existed before and will exist after) the life and death of the body. Or, as mentioned previously, a sort of, in my view rather myopic, "anti-life" or "antinatalist" view of the world.

Either of which are valid—if not somewhat tired and largely titular—positions to hold, sure. Life, particularly the majority of human existence before the modern age of science and technology that largely alleviated the prevalence and tenacity of human suffering, is seemingly skewed in disproportionate favor of opportunity of things like pain, injury, illness, suffering, death, etc. Simply put, there's more things that can go wrong than go right as far as the human experience goes in the context of existence as we know and define it. But what of it? Where do you make the leap from "I think, therefore I am" to "I think, therefore I am not?" Was this intended or merely an adverse side affect? :chin:

We’ll assume there is something beyond the reality we can experience that is not accessible and never will be. — T Clark

This, me thinks, is the arbitrarily-placed, obsequious stipulation that when removed makes the entire topic just a tad bit more open to conversation, no? :smile:

If the reality we experience is the only thing that we have experienced — an-salad

You don't dream? How do we know dreams are really just our mind "attempting to work out" problems and conundrums even in unconsciousness like the prevailing theory claims? Sure, it can be measured with an EEG, but all that proves is the mind is being stimulated by activity, not that the activity is a contained system.

I take this as a fun thread, which is refreshing every now and then. Conversely, however, how do we know there isn't a horrible swamp monster under our bed at all times that goes away once we look under it? We don't, now do we? Not really. Like the prevailing sentiment of the replies thus far suggests, it seems there are much more "relevant" affairs and states of matter to tend to. But never let someone tell you what and what not (or how) to think.

Identity is knowledge. You likely thought you knew all there was to know at six years old. Your entire set of knowledge and view of the world likely (or at least should have) changed significantly from then by age 12. As it did in comparison to when you became 18. And then again at 21. And 30. And so on and so on. Effectively, we become a new person with a new understanding of reality (effectively, a new reality altogether) every time we learn something. Can this not be said and argued as fact?

Jeez. And that guy knew how to write and read proofs.

I think I'll be staying in the Shoutbox for a while. Juust in case. :eyes:

So, you disagree with the aspects of existence, being and behaviour that I proposed - the aspect of increasing wealth? I propose that the increase in wealth is indeed an aspect of our existence, our being and our behaviour - it is an aspect that is indeed known to any and all man — Pieter R van Wyk

Not particularly, no. We're largely self-serving beings after all, sure. Otherwise, it's not likely we'd be here.

Another way of framing the topic, rather properly underscoring the dynamic, is to say it is technically possible in theory, but not applicable due to the nature of human manifestation. We don't have control of whether or not we are born healthy, enfeebled, prone to anger, really laid back, smart, dumb, poor memory, great memory, poor sight, great sight, etc. Neither do we have any control over the events and information that we go through or are exposed to, particularly at a young age. All these things contribute to the type of person, or rather what type and state of mind we will have or end up having. These things also define not only what our perceived "hand" that has been dealt in life is but also what we perceive as not only the best options and possible actions or outcomes but the only ones at that.

We are free to move about and navigate the maze that is our life, sure, but it remains a maze that has been created, or at least influenced, by just about every single person living or dead. Every person on Earth has shaped and continues to shape this maze for us, every single person except ourselves.

Perhaps the answer is, we do in some things, and we don't in others. As to which concepts or aspects of existence, being, and behavior belong to which category, that's not something any man would know.

But philosophy, if it is to remain a relevant and vibrant force in the world, needs to address modern day problems and issues much more than it does now. — Philosophim

Beautifully put. That said. You may be surprised just how many modern day problems are self-inflicted. People don't want to listen. They want to do things their way. Higher forms of thinking and logic be damned. Until they get into trouble (or what mostly happens is a less discernible, more insidious misfortune: they simply end up living lives that are a shell of what they could have been, and per the nature of the hedonic treadmill, their mind just adapts to the unfortunate circumstance as if it were the only outcome that could have occurred, living lesser lives and often producing more lives that will likely only follow suit).

In short, you can lead a horse to water but... well, you know the rest. :smile:

Unless it's carefully woven into an action movie with explosions and brutality, even the most pointed and crucial piece of wisdom meticulously crafted for one's situation will likely fall on deaf ears. Not always. But more so than not.

I've found the most effective method to improve the lives of the layperson and get them to make better decisions and ultimately avoid grave misfortune is unfortunately to scare them. The government knows it. That's why they force young drivers to look at gruesome traffic accident photos in traffic school. Why dentists show kids and teens and even adults pictures of rotted mouths. Why they have pretty extreme anti-smoking commercials. Why people warn others they care about (or even any young person around) about the prevalence and lifelong burden of STDs. Etc, etc, ad infinitum.

it's not immoral to transition. — Moliere

But it doesn't solve anything. "Transitioning" only became a thing in the past few decades. Humanity has existed for tens of thousands of years. Can't you see the lunacy in assuming a life-changing and often permanent and irreversible procedure that hasn't had the time for any actual lifelong studies to be done is the "first, best, and only option"?

Forget morality, it's just not a sound belief to be so "gung ho" about. Not yet. Unsound beliefs like yours turn vulnerable people into guinea pigs. How can you not see the immorality in that?

Just because humanity can do something doesn't mean they should.

Hmm.. hyperbole? Figure of speech? Assuredly. Let's just hope, in these days of increasing political violence, it's not a slow day down at whatever the equivalent of Secret Service is around those parts, though. :grimace:

Not trying to be a dill, just looking out..

Yes. (Right click on top site logo -> Open in new private window [you will be not logged in and so can see what non-members see]).

100% of people will believe anything given the right circumstance. Whether this "circumstance" is casual, in the form of simple popular opinion, or extreme, in the form of ingrained upbringing and lifelong psychological manipulation (invocation of fear or danger to one's life, either long-term by mental imagery of an agonizing future or short-term by indirect, implied, or actual violence -- or shame, which shares most of the previous traits) is not relevant to the larger fact.

Generally speaking, people are a frightened and weak species. We mask these truths by violence and oppression of others so as to offer one's mind the illusion of power thus distracting from the reality of our own futility and transience. We cause most of our own problems. Again, mankind must be ruled by a superior force lest it destroy itself.

Generally speaking—from the limited exposure I have to his content—I never found anything objectionable. A bit more casual (as opposed to formal) than most, I suppose. Seemed to know all the lingo, at least. More so than myself.

Still, what people need to remember is at the end of the day, this is somebody else's house. He can make the rules, fair or not, and he can enforce them, selectively or not. If you get too comfortable you forget the reality of the place you willingly choose to frequent, that's hardly anybody's fault but one's own.

I think it's $50 a month to get a PlushForums subscription and maybe under an hour of work total to get an identical setup to this forum of your own going. No one can stop you from doing so if you so desire. Not me, not Jamal, nor any other site or staff member.

At the risk of adding to what I suspect might simply be a bad day or week, I feel a question at least on a few member's minds might be: Are you just having a bad day, @Jamal? Or has this been brewing for some time? :chin:

To some of us, this is much more than a website to waste time or "shoot the shit" on. More than a casual hobby or past time but an active part of one's life and between some of us almost like a club of distant pen pals (I'm trying to avoid saying "like a family" because that's simply not accurate for the majority of posters). My point is, participation on this site is important to some people more so than you might think. We're all real people with real lives and real feelings. Please remember that @Jamal, and if you ever want someone to talk to, particularly a stranger you won't ever have to meet or talk to ever again (you'd be surprised how almost natural it is to open up to someone like that), private message me anytime. :smile:

Wokeness: — is to behave AS IF only white males ever did anything bad.

Is that right, chaps?
And from that place, — unenlightened

I think the rational response to that would be it's about ANY given "majority." Any given majority needs to be kept in check. Period. Doesn't matter if that majority is white, black, or a race of hyper-intelligent gerbils. If you're a majority, that means you have power, and power is should be fair game to be scrutinized. Any society where power cannot be scrutinized is totalitarian. It's always been that way, since the beginning of time, to right now in 2025. "Heavy hangs the head... (that wears the crown)."

It's literally what the whole Declaration of Independence was about, separation of powers to prevent abuse of power. It acknowledges that men are not strong enough to remain moral and faithful to the ideals that made life worth living and that have given us every invention and human work we use and hold dear—given enough time, opportunity, and/or lack of supervision. That's why I like it. It not only acknowledges but codifies a hard truth without blurting it out brashly and turning people off from it.

That said, this isn't a popular definition because the fringe of the majority (who actually wish to do harm to minorities—or otherwise treat them less than equally because "what are they gonna do"—simply for not being like they are) don't like being told the reality that they're nothing special without their numbers. Similarly, those that have legitimate grievances derived from their state of being a minority also don't like that definition because it's dismissive of the legitimacy of their personal sufferings and grievances (i.e. basically, it's easy to interpret that message incorrectly as: "well, if the situation was reversed, you would be no different so your plight really isn't all that big of a deal.")

I just went up to bat for you, dude. Come on, now. Don't attack your one and only wing man in this discussion. :wink:

The disrespect you treat me with is unwarranted and betrays low intelligence. — Dogbert

Accusing people of things that never happened is much worse, pal. All that and more.

"Ennea" is a prefix for the number "9." You can't use words outside of their meaning and expect people to read your mind. We can't. This is an English language forum, if it means something in another language, I apologize. That said, you should have offered some context first before expecting people to just know what you mean without having any ability to.

Once again, your theory is being ridiculed and discounted. Not you. I don't know you. You are not your theory. In philosophy, we attack ideas, not people. I don't know how you could have possibly arrived at the conclusion you have, but I'll keep it in mind that you're on a hair-trigger when engaging in discussions in which you're involved in the future.

It's just the Internet. Lighten up, friend. :smile:

By what standard are human beings not also commonplace matter? — T Clark

I *think* what he's saying is per law of conservation of matter (or whatever) since the beginning of the Universe, there was and remains the exact same number of atoms in existence. From the moment of the Big Bang to right now as you're reading this. There are no new atoms being made and no atoms currently in existence being destroyed (not sure about black holes). Basically saying, the atoms in each of our bodies (what he considers to be "him", his physical body, not a spiritual or metaphysical essence) are the exact same and have existed for billions of years.

It's... a novel concept. Something to chuckle at for a moment or two, I suppose. But nothing more.

Like, why didn't the atoms in my body end up becoming part of a mountain instead, or part of a star a billion light years away? Why are they exactly as they are, forming my physical body? (etc.)

You have achieved.. the number 9? Huh. Can't say I ever did that (at least not that I was aware of). So, neat, I suppose. Was it painful? :lol:

Existence comprises minds, ranging from singular particles to entire nervous systems. — Dogbert

Panpsychism is a theory. Have you proven it yourself conducting your own individual research you can share with us or do you just like the way it sounds? :chin:

A word of caution, if I may:

"You always admire what you really don't understand."
- Blaise Pascal

I like to call it "enchantment bias." (Dibs on full credit if I just coined that term right now, BTW.) :grin:

Yes, it appears to happen in all cases of genocide. The aggressor feels a moral duty to continue the genocide until the victim is extinguished. — Punshhh

The point you haven't addressed is OP's claim that he feels the concentration camps were unlike the many other historical gulags (prisoner work camps) but instead literally just erected to perform torture for torture's sake.

A rebuttal to that would be, no, minus the technological advancement that, if any other historical prisoner work camp was in a period of time that had the same technology and progress of science, would have done the same as well, if not worse (including the medical experiments, experimenting on prisoners can be traced back to the BC period).

I'm not intimately familiar with non-Christian ideology but it seems to be a common "Abrahamic" theme that "everything happens for a reason", which might work out to "if you're in a concentration camp, that's because I (God) want(s) you to be there." Which means, unlike non-religious folk who would either sabotage their equipment, kill the guard (or themselves) at the first opportunity, religious folk will work and toil as if it was any other job. What I am intimately familiar with is how the atheist mind works, and in this particular case, it works by seeing the theist as a delusional albeit "useful idiot" in the simplest of terms for the reasons I've just explained. This could explain why they valued their labor and sought to transport them (a lengthy, resource intensive process) as opposed to killing them with a bullet to the head (fast and cheap). That would logically eliminate the idea of not wanting them to tell their tale to the Allies since the latter option would have been preferred. Or perhaps, they didn't want "the world" to see the bodies. Dead soldiers are one thing. Dead civilians are another. So, transporting them (and not killing them) does not in and of itself justify an argument for "sadism."

Based on these facts, it (OP's claim) is not immediately conclusive that the perpetrators "derived sadistic pleasure" that "became a need for them", at least, not in a unique historical context contrasted to the dozens, if not hundreds, of historic cases where groups of people were enslaved and/or genocided by other groups. It's just more shocking since in the modern age we have photographs and the evidence was freshly uncovered not wiped away or degraded beyond recognition by the sands of time, not to mention the advancement of science and technology (and resulting medical experiments).

There's nothing wrong with spying. — Metaphysician Undercover

You've always been a man of mystery, MU! Thankfully one fact has been brought to light. You're clearly not a minor, one responsible for one, a female, or a minority.

Because otherwise, yeah. Spying is a form of harassment and mental assault on a person's human rights. It is akin to stalking, threatening without threatening. Restricting their movements, patterns, habits, and even thoughts. Presenting an unknown danger and essentially constantly tickling the "fight or flight" part of the brain with a feather. Or jagged piece of metal.

Those who have nothing to hide don't worry about the spies. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is also not true. You assume people who live lives of deceit are for some reason moral people who would never lie, commit sabotage, or plant evidence that would hinder people of another "team" or race or ethnic group or religion or what have you. That people wouldn't do things at the expense of another to get ahead or further either one's individual or collective interest(s). This is sheer ignorance of the global community and basic history (as well as human nature).

Come on, man, you're slipping! :razz:

I feel it worth mentioning that people generally consider "intent" to be a prerequisite for an act to be "evil."

Going to visit an isolated or uncontacted people because you want to give them money, yet end up introducing a modern bacteria that 99% of people are immune from that ends up reducing their population to a few dozen, and had no idea, probably wasn't evil, or at very least wasn't "as evil" as if you wanted to visit them to steal from them, or otherwise were fully aware of biology and had such intentions in mind, and ended up doing the same.

Reason I mention such, is it seems your flagship example of religion hinges on not only the idea that a god exists or does not exist, but whether or not the people who perform actions or inaction under the ideological mindset of such genuinely believe a god exists or not. Theoretically speaking, if they were right, and we were all wrong, they would be preventing us from eternal damnation (or whatever) and therefore, despite acts of violence that would normally be considered evil, are actually the greatest good one could ever perform. Theoretically speaking, of course.

In short, imagine an isolated, ultra-religious family believing their 6-year-old child is the devil incarnate and so they drown him to "save the world" or what have you. They'll sleep soundly at night, and never perform any other act of violence again. Take real actual examples of history. Botched exorcisms for example. Giving people the benefit of the doubt (things were much, much different back then, superstition wasn't the exclusive domain of fools and the mentally unwell as it is often considered today) that they actually believed they were doing the right thing and preventing evil, one should clearly be able to draw a line between unfortunate, misguided deeds and intentional misdeeds.

Say your child really wanted to go to summer camp by the lake, and you know he or she cannot swim, yet didn't have that item of knowledge in your mind at the time, and you permit him or her to go, and they drown, resulting in your entire family disliking you, calling for your arrest, and basically putting you on par with the likes of a murderer. Or more simply, falling asleep while your kid is swimming in your backyard pool and the same fate befalls him or her. Are you evil? Did you perform an evil act? Well, did you?

What does that mean? — praxis

He thinks this is, or rather, is used to, social media. DM stands for Direct Message, so the kids today say "DM me" which means "send me a private message."

This offer is likely so as to avoid claims or accusations of being "off topic" or "spamming."

He feels you are wrong and also feels he can easily prove it.

Kirk, and other culture warriors, profit from catering to such people. — praxis

A bigot like Kirk — AmadeusD

This is the part that I believe is liable to cause confusion. First sentence might suggest he's only doing it for the money i.e. doesn't really give a hoot let alone believe a word he's saying and is simply saying so to pander to a given audience for a strictly financial incentive. Second sentence would seem to suggest he genuinely espouses these views, and any profit made is simply icing on the cake or otherwise "just comes with the territory." That's probably what the poster whom you're replying to is a bit hung up on.

I'm very good at bridging the gaps between people. A bit too good, really. I was run out of the last town I tried to enlighten, Socrates-style. (Not really. Not yet, at least.)

I have changing views about the topic, really. I think people who identify as transgender (who have or are seriously considering permanent, irreversible surgical alteration) are vulnerable people, and vulnerable people should not be targeted. On the other hand, I can agree with the idea that the medical system (and others) are doing more harm than good, possibly, to echo your earlier frustration, strictly for the money without any genuine compassion or concern for the well-being of those they choose to involve themselves with.

Human (or human-like) beings have been around for tens of thousands of years. The first transgender surgery took place barely a century ago. I don't see how one can comport a recently-invented surgical procedure (and resulting movement) to something critical to humanity and human rights.

Perhaps that's what he meant was the "abomination": a greedy (and possibly nefarious) system that exploits vulnerable people. Hey, I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt once. :wink:

I believe I have clearly framed the topic "Are trans gender rights human rights?" Some are, some aren't. Do you agree or disagree with these assessments? — Philosophim

See, what I'm trying to say is, and forgive my brashness, perhaps you've gone gung-ho into a battle wielding what one believes to be a sword but is really a tuning fork. You're missing the forest for the trees, my good sir.

One is a term that hasn't existed in the zeitgeist of any human civilization (at least modern Western society) until recently. Whereas, "human" is a biological and absolute constant. In simple terms, one changes, basically came into existence recently, and otherwise has no consensus agreeing solid and strict definition. The other does. So the rights for something that is absolute and non-disputable, versus something that is not only a new concept to all things social and legal, something constantly changing and still not widely-agreed upon between those who deem said concept important, are like comparing apples and oranges.

Let me simplify that: One is a derivative of the other. The derivative is a social construct (relative). The derived from is a biological reality (absolute).

So, that's double the percent of alleged transgender persons so far. — Outlander


Alleged? — RogueAI

Assuming there is either a biological or medical reality behind the idea that a human being can be born into one of the binary sexes yet would fundamentally either:

A.) be more productive and natural in the opposite sex
[OR]
B. would live life in discomfort, potential mental illness, and overall failure to thrive.

If even one of the two prerequisites above are true, that would mean such an opinion should only be given by a well-educated and preferably-licensed medical or psychiatric professional, similar to legal advice online, which by penalty of law is forbidden by a layperson. If none of the above prerequisites are true, then it's literally a non-issue akin to a hobby or weird phase that only the individual themself can choose to cause detriment and negative effect.

To simplify: To err is human. People make mistakes. It's not an established science with immediate physical and visual confirmation like an X-ray or MRI. If one believes surgical and biological modification of one's self is a choice, that's a choice they made. If one believes there is a fundamental or otherwise "human-like" right that is being deprived from not being allowed to surgically and biologically modify one's body so as to please one's self, that's a science and medical reality that only those highly trained and certified should be legally allowed to determine or give opinions on.

So, let's try to get back on track here. And the best way to do so is with cold hard facts. Hypochondria, affects 5% of all persons. So, that's double the percent of alleged transgender persons so far.

Let's also bring into the discussion the idea of anxiety or panic attacks, which affect a great larger majority, about 40% of people will experience such or similar with related symptoms once in their life. This is enough to dial emergency services or visit the ER under the true and genuine belief there is a true medical emergency or condition. Difference is, untreated, general anxiety or benign malaise may be confused as something more severe, including mental illness if not diagnosed by a qualified professional, or worse, self-diagnosed (or pseudo-diagnosed by non-medically trained non-professionals who may be family or friends). Which is basically the driving force (90%+ of the so called transgender movement, which in reality is a political, economical act of warfare that only seeks to confuse and disorient, so as to give enemy troops an advantage) of this so called human rights campaign. People in general may be stupid. But the people who decide what bombs drop where, are not. So don't make yourself a target. You might regret it. Or those, what's left of those around you, that is, when it's all said and done, might curse your very being. So be careful.

It's like you're purposely trying to ignore reality by not understanding these facts thereof, OP.

Again, we haven't truly framed the topic here. We have your ignorant and silly understanding of what transgender is, which while may be shared by the world, remains silly and ignorant. Until you can admit that, OP. This topic, rather your contribution toward it, will remain little more than a circus. And a dull one at that.

Where do you get the idea I have seen anything like that in my life? "Oh! Gold chain, me stupid, i'll kill person with gold chain in alleyway because we alone and nobody catch me! Me shmeagal, i want ring!" — ProtagoranSocratist

I mean, to be fair, there's a reason horror movies are classified as horror and not fantasy. Meaning, these things do happen. All day, everyday. I can tell from your disposition as well as the dismissal of his meta-point, you clearly know where you're going to get your next meal from. Not everyone has that luxury. I strongly recommend you re-read up on the Socratic method so as to better understand (even flawed) arguments other people might make.

RogueAI, can we say on topic please? What do you think about the OP's claims on the trans gender rights listed? — Philosophim

Right but be fair. A person is a human and they have human rights. They don't suddenly vanish because they think or adopt a lifestyle or even a religion that fundamentally demands or in their own mind redefines what they are.

We all have the same laws. People invented false religions (cults) in an attempt to quash the ruling laws of a given society (in some instances they succeeded, temporarily) but in the end these so-called victories were only short-lived, doing nothing in the end but causing great and unneeded suffering unto those (and thankfully, usually, only those who perpetrated them) and everything pretty much returned back to normal, granted, sure, the same rights you always had to believe anything you want anyway, provided you work and conform and above all follow the law basically never went anyway.

In extreme relation to the topic, I could believe, and be convinced wholly I am a dog. But that doesn't give me a right to shit on your lawn, to assault and batter you by licking your face because I'm "happy to see you", to avoid a noise complaint or charge of disturbing the peace/public nuisance because I'm making loud noise or barking, or basically sexually assault you (or your leg), without facing the same legal consequence as LITERALLY ANYONE ELSE.

You can be whatever you want to be in your own head. But it needs to literally not affect any law-abiding citizen in any way whatsoever unless they desire it to. That is to say, you don't get a special set of legal rules because you want them. Only handicapped or differently-abled people get that right. Anything else is a travesty of justice.That's just not how anything works.

90%+ of people alive today would not be alive, nor have ever reproduced, were it not for violence (what mankind pitifully attempts to separate from severe mental illness, lack of worth to reproduce, specifically mass hysteria by giving it a word i.e. "war") and most importantly, enslavement and oppression of women.

You can't even begin to understand anything in regards to this topic or its tangents until you really process what that means and what we're dealing with. What's really going on. Once you do, it all makes sense. Including as to what the solution is.

It's a result of ostracism. In the animal kingdom, animals that do not fit in are ostracized, and often have a 90%+ mortality rate. You will notice the average guy of average height and appearance makes up about 0.1% of people who believe they are transgender enough to perform permanent and irreversible surgery. While ALL the rest are usually small, skinny, frail, awkward, maybe stutter, perhaps might be a minority in that specific community, don't fit in, were bullied, or were otherwise traumatized, often sexually.

It's literally a form of legal and state-sanctioned eugenics they're flashing in our face all while pretending they're doing the opposite and protecting the vulnerable.

It takes a deeper understanding before you can really see what's going on. Literally every great invention, every great movie, story, every great piece of art was created by intelligent people, who tend to be on the smaller/frailer side physically. All those who tend to be larger, generally aren't able to do anything a machine can't. They are easily replaceable, for they serve no unique function. The more humanity progresses the more one side sees themselves as pack mules and animals whose only purpose and possible contribution to society is to lift things for those who actually improve the quality of life for us all i.e. the intelligent. They've become mired in jealousy and hatred, but they do have one thing on their side. Primal lust, or simply put, fear and violence. And that's just powerful enough to find a hapless mate, prolonging their existence just ever so slightly and long enough to do the damage they're doing.

In short, yes, vulnerable people have every right you have, and much more. But that's a distraction. These people causing this must be found and given the highest form of justice available. All they had to do was go quietly. To live their last days in the utmost comfort and dignity (as provided by the intelligent people who they're so vindictively targeting), a quality of mercy they themselves never could offer and so ultimately don't even deserve. But a fool and a demi-human will always be exactly that. It was predictable, really. What a shame it's come to this.

Civilization has been around for over 10,000 years since the domestication of cattle and crop. The first sex reassignment surgery was (barely) able to be performed barely 100 years ago. You couldn't come up with a better example of a solution in search of a (non-existent) problem.

All war is based on deception. Remember that.

You asked for the truth. I only hope you can handle it.

This discussion is fascinating. The one thing that warrants the powerful to retain their power and the subservient to bask in the safety of their subservience. This... silly notion that, somehow, given the chance, given enough time, we wouldn't be worse than those we complain about. It's a timeless classic joke, between those who know the depths of human nature. Why, it never seems to get old. :smile:

For a bit of context.. no, no not at first. Everybody starts out as the noble savior. Here to vanquish those who have forgotten what it means to be human, blah blah blah. And they do so. For quite a time. Until... well, something happens, shall we put it for lack of better terms. Something changes within them. They start to think, perhaps, they were made to make decisions over others, be it by fate be it by the mere physical nature of this world, whatever their mind decides upon, the man or ego of the man calls it all the same: "destiny." And from there, rules, as we think we know them, no longer seem to apply. Consequence, merely an illusion. And so on and so forth. I won't be the one to spoil it. No, not here. Not now. :grin:

Kirk publicly claimed that trans people are an “abomination.” — praxis

This is the disconnect. That I find it strange you are unable to see.

There is no third sex in any organism that exists or has ever existed. There is, at best, "budding" or self-replication, and species that change genders due to established DNA coding that science can detect. But no mammals.

This is about "societal norms" and "gender roles" that can be forced upon any individual by a larger or prevalent enough person or majority.

It was scientifically impossible to alter one's body to conform to that of a different sex until 50 years ago due to surgical invention. Humans or human-like species have allegedly existed for hundreds of thousands of years.

Some people just want to watch the world burn. They'd gladly kill a person, perhaps who is famous, even if they end up in jail or shot. So, to kill a concept, such as man and female, and to keep oneself alive despite disfiguring oneself through mutilation or surgery, just seems like a better option.

No one has yet to explain why people who choose to surgically, permanently, and irreversibly alter their body were 90% of the time bullied, ostracized, abused, or otherwise treated differently, often at a young crucial age of development. Because it's self-evident. A mind, especially a vulnerable or young one can be led to believe anything. That's documented, scientific fact. Like I said before, No happy and accepted or appreciated man wakes up one day and says to himself "You know what, I should have been born with a vagina." Not one.

It's miserable people seeing how far they can push other people while getting away with it and not technically breaking any laws. No laws that currently exist, at least. Cowardice laws are the one thing missing from this world to make it utopia. I pray you don't find yourself on the wrong side of them when they arrive. And they will soon.

If some culture has a tradition of whale-hunting, should the global community allow that? — RogueAI

What is a culture? Cultures do change. How long has it been prevalent? What was it rooted in? There's a difference between killing for sustenance and killing for sport. Some societies and civilizations were forced to eat rats or dogs for survival after either over-hunting, natural changes in climate, or perhaps conflict and conquest. In some religions the lighting of a Menorah was to honor those before who had to make do with very little. Not quite a perfect analogy since nothing is being killed, but the concept behind remembering what those before us had to live like and the sacrifices they paid is fairly relevant to what considers a cultural practice, perhaps.

As to the "global community" (mob rule) that's a socio-political concept that has impossibly-divergent meanings to each and every individual.

Should people not care that a magnificent creature like a whale is being killed? — RogueAI

Why is it magnificent? Do you have any idea how advanced a microscopic "water bear" is? It can literally survive in space and in lava. How is that not magnificent? Oh, because we as physical beings have "size bias." It's where the word "king size" comes from (versus "fun size", because smaller people get taken advantage of i.e. are toyed with and are "abused for fun", get it yet?) Everyone wants a "big" house because it's safe. Everyone wants a "big" serving, because it's healthier and prevents you from starving. We like what is large because it reminds us simultaneously how small we are yet how allegedly superior we are in our own minds.

And what about ants? They can lift 27 times their own size. To my knowledge, a whale can barely tow its own weight, and quite slowly at that.

Whales are neat, yes. They should be (and are) protected.

I'm not losing sleep over it, but there are some who are incensed by it, and I understand why they would care. — RogueAI

Sure. Plenty of nations are going over generally established carbon output limits. What are they supposed to do, start killing civilians so there's less need to produce? People love to call one another out. I'm sure if something gets bad to the point of existential concern, it will be called out by all with a voice (and plenty without). :wink: