Which websites for example offer this truly "one page" browsing in entirety?

Where you visit example.com and every action or section never changes the URL regardless of the intricacy or specificity of the action?

Most all I've seen redirect to certain URLs (say example.com/billing or example.com/billing/pay) but load (presumably blank) templates for each URL section that are then filled with the specific information via JS or "SPA" if I understand the term correctly. At the very least a /terms or /about page. I can't recall a single website that operates as you describe, unless I'm misunderstanding the concept.

With SPAs, different views are rendered (and actions completed) in the browser without loading a new page or refreshing, using JavaScript to invisibly communicate with the server. Often, all the necessary HTML, JavaScript, and stuff are downloaded once, when you log in. — Jamal

I abhorred these things when they first came out. If your internet is not good or perhaps is throttled due to reaching an allotted usage level, nothing would ever load and worse never told you it didn't. They seemed to have improved it by forcing a manual redirect/better fail-safes in more robust frameworks but there was nothing like clicking a link or performing an action and the browser itself telling you "hey it failed" right when it did so you knew to refresh or try again later. Just my 2 cents.

Sure it was nice if say you had a website that served another function other than a forum and the user can dynamically load the latest forum posts if they wanted to without having to pull double queries from the site and the forum database for efficiency or a site like Twitter or stocks that benefit from instant updates or things that change from one second to the next.

edit: On an active forum makes sense, so any new posts/threads just pop up a few seconds after they're posted. But for a niche blog site, especially authored by just one or two people where the only new content is posted every other day or few days is really not needed imo. but people like knowing they have all the latest shiny bells and whistles, even if seldom used.

Do they really? It is so normalized to drink during social occasions. Why would you want to cause an illusionary state whenever you socialize, how does that make any sense? — Skalidris

That's the point mate, for a responsible drinker being less pissed off and more jovial is not an "illusionary" state. Now it can easily and arguably inevitably lead to such. But that's a complete reversal of the word responsible.

Okay, so let's imagine you have to choose between spending some fun time doing something you only like when you drink, or doing something you like when you're sober, would you consider them both as valuable in your life? — Skalidris

Sure. That's a far cry from your original premise to jump from having to specify a "fun time doing something [one] only enjoys when drink[ing]" but we can roll with that if you like. Naturally that's a personal choice and my random answer doesn't seem to touch on any philosophical or logical aspect but, if I may rephrase your question to what I believe is your intended or rather more widely beneficial "purpose" as: "Would I wish to enjoy something I only enjoy whilst drinking and never did before over something I previously enjoyed and no longer can (this is the main stipulation) unless sober?

I would consider results valuable. Yes if a person has a more enjoyable time, and they place enjoyment over productivity it would indeed be more valuable in my life. Perhaps I enjoy productivity more and am (like many) unable to be as productive whilst drinking. In such a case it would absolutely be the opposite. That's my point. Everybody is different. Having half a beer versus drinking half a bottle of hard liquor counts as "drinking" just the same, arguable. So yours is a loaded question with undefined variables as is.

I didn't get the point of your story. — Skalidris

And exactly why I told it. Different strokes for different folks.

To circle back to the primary question, if not cheaply, why are enjoyable experiences enjoyable? Because they are.

This can't be a serious question. Though, I once met an Uber driver once who, when the conversational topic of alcohol randomly came up, informed me he couldn't drink it, as in his body couldn't tolerate or process it correctly. Hiding my deepest sympathies I lightheartedly replied, good for him and mentioned the dangers and potential lethality. Boy was I relieved to arrive at my destination and escape being in the mire of such a grim fate bestowed upon someone.

Whenever I tried it, it just felt like a dream where I wasn’t fully in control of my thoughts, and I never liked it. — Skalidris

It simply wasn't for you then. Just not something you need or should be consuming.

Why do humans want to escape their mind and avoid reality? How is it an advantage? — Skalidris

Kind of asking two completely different albeit vaguely and circumstantially related questions here. Your experience is exactly, that. Your experience. Completely unique from 8 billion others. Sure many are like you, and if a thing is a hindrance, which it is to many, then cast it away.

For the majority of responsible consumers of alcohol who can handle it, it's a welcome reprieve. For some a distraction, for others a way to focus. A "social lubricant" it is called by many. It puts the majority of, again responsible consumers who can process it correctly, in a "good mood" of sorts. Certainly there's an argument for your disposition as though it does seem to make problems disappear, responsible drinkers know this is an illusion and temporary state, and know they cannot simply avoid them or avoid work toward resolution of said problems. In short, it allows the majority of people to have a quick and cheap good time even in hard times.

It is easy to fall into complacence and avoid one's responsibilities however, yes. Abuse can be harrowing and indeed fatal. One can indeed lose everything. This happens quite often. For many, especially the less intellectually inclined, it is in fact best avoided. At least, habitually.

Even when reality triggers negative feelings, it’s more efficient to be sober and think about a solution rather than choosing denial by getting drunk — Skalidris

Just because you're sober or awake, as you think, doesn't mean you're any more coherent or in touch with the absolute nature of things than someone who is perhaps a bit less than sober. Not automatically, that is. Sure plenty of habitual consumers of alcohol ie. "drunks" are in fact dregs of society, but for many, this remains true whether sober or not.

Again, your experience is your own, and if that experience is fact for you, I would continue and have no argument whatsoever. As far as you and your individual, private choices that can be shared, if one asks.

why do 99% of humans long for that state at least once in their life? — Skalidris

Oh come now. I doubt you've even met 0.0001% of humans. These inane generalizations are textbook characteristics of exactly the kind of person who should not be drinking, save for a special occasion under supervision by fellow citizens (friends) and supervisors (bartenders) perhaps? :smile:

Why haven’t we evolved out of this? — Skalidris

Why not ask why aren't we all the stereotypical, imagined grey alien, content with standing around with nary an emotion, whim, or desire for any amount of time? Because life is about change. You become aware. You can learn to walk, learn to run, learn to ride a bike. It goes on.

Understood, in your purported, limited experience it creates an uncontrollable state of mind. Understand this is not the norm. Not when reasonable care and moderation is taken.

But if the question boils down or becomes tangential to "why do people like to feel pleasure and ignore pain", well. It becomes quite moot and elementary at that point. Wouldn't you say?

people tell themselves all sort of things to stay in their denial to avoid facing their problems. I don’t believe this is just a random trait that stayed within us while having no advantages, so what could it be? Maybe if we weren’t driven to choose denial whenever something is too horrible, we would be totally insane and couldn’t deal with reality — Skalidris

You seem to be entranced by the word or concept of 'denial' so let me tell you a story based on the truths and falsehoods of what people commonly prescribe to be a case or "unchangeable situation" of such.

Two brothers became trapped in a cave once. A seemingly inescapable situation where the mouth of the cave collapsed thus sending their rappelling gear and ropes down and making the opening impossible to reach. The men quickly resorted to their primitive state, after consuming all their rations, eating bugs and each waking up early to gather the liberal stream of leaking water nearby. They fought once, nearly killing one another, but in the end decided if they were trapped without any hope of rescue, any one killing the other would do little but prolong the inevitable, and curse the lone survivor to perish under the burden of a needless murder that ultimately changed naught. So they explored what little they could. Their sources of illumination (flashlights, matches, a lighter) soon expired and became inoperable except for the emergency flashlight each one possessed. As they explored one noticed the other's flashlight was running low and such ascertained his might soon as well thus dooming them both so as they explored they would often do so without using either. The man who's flashlight was running low happened to have become injured in the dark and blamed the other for "setting him up" and so on their return from the darkness became immovable from the location of the cave where they had originally fallen to remain in the light of the crevice where he could keep watch on his immediate surroundings, leaving the other to explore by his lonesome. Several days passed, each mind becoming more ravenous, paranoid, and untrusting. The man with the fully charged flashlight would depart into the darkness, each journey becoming longer and - according to his accounts - more hopeful, returning with plenty of insects and moss which he would always split with his sole, now-immovable companion. His flashlight soon grew dim too, barely functional, hardly able to light up a few feet in front of him. However, the next day he, the traverser of the seemingly endless abyss that trapped them both returned, manic, unable to control himself. He informed the other he discovered a crevice about a mile or 20 minutes in from which he was able to spot a fisherman or person on the river and would signal to him with his flashlight that the man returned in response. "I need your flashlight, brother!" he exclaimed. The man who would not budge looked at his clearly manic, near-insane brother and instantly imagined another "perceived trap" or simple descent into madness. He grabbed him with what little strength he had left and threw him against a rock brandishing a sharp hunting knife he was unaware the other possessed and said "I tell you now, flee from me, or I promise you, this next trick will be your last" and cut him shallowly on his forearm, breaking his flashlight as he fell backward. His swears, promises, assurances were no good at this point. He realized that. So, he departed. That night, while the immovable man slept, the brother swiped his flashlight and swapped it with his own.

As it turned out, the explorer's word was true. He did in fact signal a young fisherman who brought his family out to the river and was able to signal to them "SOS" using his sleeping brother's flashlight. That night the nearby town organized a search and rescue party, bringing in equipment to the awake brother's position. As the entire town on riverboats and buggies broke through the crevice freeing the flashlight signaling man, now delirious with hunger and fever, as he cried "My brother, my brother is still trapped, you have to save him!" a loud noise was heard as the cave which had confined him collapsed behind. The flashlight signaling man was rescued and taken to the local pub for a meal and hard ale. The rescue team immediately sought out for the still trapped brother, going by the location given by the now rescued man.

Epiphenomenalism — petrichor

Oh come now that can't be a word.

On a broader point, your current premises of "feeling pain" being different than "responding to stimuli" is lacking in merit. And that's a charitable view at best.

Surely you mean, accessing a former state of non "pain" and thus mentally calculating a situation, act, or moment is "wrong" and needs to be immediately corrected by further action. This is a huge difference between your current premise as-is. This requires both retainable and accessible knowledge of A,) past B.) present and C.) future (that is to say ability to formulate or postulate a future action or state by applying something from either (A) or (B).

Does science not sometimes contradict other science? Does religion not always contradict other religion? This is your starting point. Your journey is yours and yours alone.

Presuming this thread is locked and unlocked for a set period implying discussion is encouraged if not warranted or vaguely allowed for purposes of vanity..

What made you draw such a definitive conclusion? Surely you've heard the popular phrase oh I like/dislike "X" because "X reminds me of Y" and so on...

It is physically possible for a collective society to breed out intelligence and perhaps even things such as pain sensitively (physical or emotional) ie. are emotionally blunted or as some would say "just dumb" and as a result things such as consideration, empathy, or emotional intelligence are socially of low importance where any who happen to consider them important reproduce substantially less - if at all - resulting in a genetic tendency to more likely be what people consider and associate with or as "evil" ie. prone to violence, lack of empathy, or enjoyment from the unwarranted suffering of others.

In addition to genetic mental conditions that affect things such as impulsivity, lack of long term planning and consequences, emotional cognition and recognition, etc, etc. Along the lines of medical research implying some people can be "born" or otherwise prone to psychopathy or sociopathic tendencies.

There's also something known as the crucial development phase (1-5 years or so) or otherwise where the person's "comfort zone" is strife, conflict, and what an otherwise "normal" person would call unease. In simple terms they don't feel normal or "at home" unless people are fighting. It's normal for them. So it can go both ways. See the movie (Cycle?) or History of Violence, one of the two or something along those lines I forget.

Why do you think this happens? — Vera Mont

Why do people pay more for celebrity endorsed products. Because someone "important" or socially valuable did it. Or even just because the next random guy did it. It just feels right. We are natural followers.

Is it confined to a related group of cultures or is it world-wide? — Vera Mont

Yes. Very simple division that is frowned upon here to discuss. Two camps. The "all that you ever did or can experience is between your first breathe and last" and those who think a bit more freely. Or unrealistically, some will say.

Do you do this yourself - follow the procession on screen, or leave flowers and messages at the site? — Vera Mont

No. I would if I thought it would alleviate some burden for someone worthwhile. But I don't currently, no.

What do you think about the practice? — Vera Mont

It is beneficial. No harm can come about. Unless a certain variety of plant life ceremonially used happens to be endangered or a major road closure happens to disrupt a local or regional economy to a significant degree.

How do you feel about it? — Vera Mont

Depends. Good, I suppose? Art is unnecessary. It serves no utilitarian purpose in the most scrutinizing definition of the word. And yet it often does more so than things that inherently do.

A problem with the simulation argument is that it is unclear to me why an entire civilization would choose to dedicate its resources to ancestor simulations. Not only would doing so be highly unethical and a complete waste of resources, (not to mention it would take a lot of time and resources to build this simulation) it would also be entirely pointless, given that everything that will happen in the simulation is already known, given that the simulation world is deterministic. — NotAristotle

The problem with your argument is simple.

When you were a child, say 6 years old, are whatever your earliest memory was. You thought it was the ultimate reality. Everything you knew was all there was to know. Everything you did was the wisest or at minimum most reasonable course of action at the time of doing it. But you got older. Some humans die at a young age and this was their ultimate reality. Surely even you must acknowledge some adults die in a similar stage, that is to say ignorant of a greater reality, way of life, or series of talents that could have brought upon a greater experience and as a result existence?

Surely you cannot be so naive as to think the ultimate reality that could ever be experienced was from the first opening of your eyes to your last breathe nor even that of the smartest most wisest and accomplished person to ever life? Surely not..

I thought this thread was titled 'All things Cannibal' and became intrigued. Alas.

It was fun growing up and remains a fine way to pass or enhance the time if you really needed to I suppose. Whether due to the brain fog, racing or unusual thoughts, or the fact they check to make sure, it's fallen out of favor with me personally in recent years.

As a matter of fact, there are several.

But why philosophy anyway ? If a person is happy who needs it ? — simplyG

You can be happy and bored or otherwise acknowledging there's more to discover or enrich one's life or understanding with. That is to say just because you're satisfactorily entertained or otherwise occupied and largely content doesn't mean you're "happy". In fact, you could even venture as far to say philosophy is far from the pursuit of happiness despite the nomenclature of "love for wisdom". We associate love with happiness, but as I'm sure we can all attest to, this is not always so.

It’s often recognised that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between? — simplyG

They're musings that seem to have stood the test of time, at least to the majority of persons. If you were born into 18th century royalty, your life would be far from suffering. If you're born in a dangerous jungle without knowledge to survive and avoid predators, ignorance is quite the opposite of bliss. People just tend to go with things that seem to work more often than not and call it truth. After all, it must be at minimum closer to truth than fiction. Right?

Please include more direct questions in your OP. While your musings are appreciated, they - at least for myself - become difficult to "unpack and attack" as they say in the world of intellectual debate.

A spark of inspiration that is either the start of a story or the outline of one and then I just write. It's best that I write as much as possible before proof reading or even reading it back. If I do that I run the risk of disrupting the flow and then it can take a very long while before I get back into it. — Benkei

Basically this for me. Well, often there's one (or if I'm lucky several) "perfect"/"ultimate" scene(s), idea(s), or moment(s) I visualize in my head and think "wow that'd be an awesome book/movie/what have you..." and work backwards from there.

You got to "transport" the viewer into an entirely new world... so to speak. Describe things in painfully vivid detail without becoming clumsy or too cumbersome in your wordage. As if you were describing something to a blind person, for example.

The simple sentence "John sat down at the table and had a glass of tea" could be expanded into an entire chapter with the right nuance, subtleties, visual descriptions, and inner dialog. Whether or not it would be a good idea depends on the context and intent of that particular work.

Freedom and socialism don't work. Because then you just sit there and let "someone else take care of it". How do you think the other person gets paid or is otherwise rewarded/compensated for their "taking care of things" ie. farming/planting/waste disposal/parcel delivery/law enforcement literally any work you can imagine. By having a higher position than you. They can lie to the position above them (FAR above you) and you will face the consequences without a single jury or trial simply because they outrank you ie. are your social better.

Iron-fisted authoritarianism and socialism works wonderfully. You do what you're told when you're told ie. farm this, build this, do this etc, etc, and say if something goes wrong ie. bad harvest due to bad weather, someone steals what you've built (and if you are found to be complicit in this 'theft' you will be punished severely), the powers that be sigh, and give you enough food, water, and resources to survive regardless.

There's definitely pros and cons to both. Unfortunately in one system injustices are known to rarely ever see the light of day...

Math and little more. At least in respect to generally or widely accepted notions and definitions of numeric constants and operations.

I suppose in a more philosophical area, the idea that questions exist and answers can be formulated, proven, and disproven. Albeit not to every individual's particular satisfaction or standard of burden of proof or level of scrutiny.

In short, "I think, therefore I am." .. or are you? Therein lies the proof there is at least some truth or falsehood and the ability to ascertain whether or not a statement or concept is closer or further away to each, respectively. If not at least by widely accepted standards, practices, and definitions.

Edit: That's amazing. I didn't even read @flannel jesus's post under after. lol

Great minds think alike I suppose :smile:

A man is a male.

Masculinity is whatever the current social trends are. I believe now the relative social norm is being relatively athletic if not outright strong and having a quality of what can be called "assertive" or "dominant".

Sigh. Imagine me yelling at you the following phrases:

You don't ASK for directions, you GIVE directions. You're NEVER lost. You're just somewhere you never had the care to visit before.

You don't ASK for help, you GIVE help. Whether fools want it or not.

You don't ASK for a solution. You BECOME the solution.

You don't INVITE people to a party. You ARE the party.

It just gets more and more illegal as you continue on. Crabs in a bucket? Definition of insanity? Perhaps. But you don't care! You're the MAN, man.

In this day and age of ignorance, just being as loud and annoying as possible as well as prone to violence will probably define what your looking for. Essentially being an adult child but with the distinct quality of being able to incapacitate anyone who calls you out for being such so as to emulate the quality of a god ie. omnipotence.

Or being of or having the quality of being able to "take it like a man" ie. pain tolerance. I suppose to defend that which instead solely nurtures and attack in response.

In contrast to femininity which is essentially to nurture.

I banned introbert for being mostly unintelligible. — Jamal

From his profile: "Invited By Jamal"

Hmm. :chin:

Definitely makes one wonder who was out of line or otherwise in an unclear mindset first.

Understanding of time, memory, and decision making as a result of real or imagined past, present, and future states of another biologic being.

Edit: Absent of programmed nature. Which is argued that the human brain is little more than a sponge that retains and in a sense "obeys" what is generally thought of as "mindless" programming of past experiences and education albeit with a degree of randomness.

I'd imagine it depends heavily on whether you're the observer of the afflicted or the afflicted themself.

To most introverts the sheer experience of being alive is enough to circumvent boredom. Though even the holders of the most vivid of imaginations would probably get bored in a padded cell in physical restraints. From there sadness may follow. However sadness is often a reflective or passive emotion as opposed to say anguish or rage which is often active or "kinetic" so to speak.

I suppose one could say sadness is the smoldering ember of anger. Is it not?

Sadness itself is part of the human experience, though the overarching reality or set of circumstances behind the event or circumstance is what one becomes troubled by, often surpassing the superficial tapestry of sadness into the bottomless abyss that is despair.

So while the two are related, many instances of either are often transient, despite our fervent belief otherwise.

I could look at the world as a benevolent person whose duty is to prevent harm despite having limited resources and influence to do, just about anything worthwhile or everlasting.. Looking in the right places I could easily become sad. I could look at the world as a self-centered individual whose only concern is me, myself, and I and having all basic and reasonable needs and desires met, become quite bored. Perhaps even more so as a theist who believes anything and everything in this life is basically "part of a ride" that is essentially to be avoided. So it can go both ways.

I made a thread about skepticism and said that we cannot coherently deny that language transmits meaning because by understanding this sentence you have proven that language transmits meaning. — Andrew4Handel

In a way. Language is more of a placeholder for concepts and meaning than a reliable transmitter of it. If I say "No, don't throw it away" without proper enunciation or linguistic pauses one could easily hear "No, don't. Throw it away." For example. Famous example being "Pardon Impossible. To be sent to Siberia." A legal aspect of this is "the Letter of the Law versus the Spirit of it".

We simply have societal constructs and "common sense" contexts to determine what the meaning of words (or lack thereof) are.

That said, people value that which is useful. Even if said usefulness is but a myopic illusion. False dilemmas control society and individuals wholesale. "You're a bad person" = "you can never become a better person". Or the inverse "you're a good person" = "you can never commit an atrocity".

This exists regardless of personal sexual identity, in fact most 'bully' situations I witnessed or heard about during my time as a child or during my career as a teacher, had nothing to do with sexual identity, some did, but very few, by comparison. — universeness

I never said they did. I said trauma and being ostracized leads to pain, confusion, and wanting "to be different" or being forced to believe you are. Why does someone 'bully' someone? Because they can. Meaning, they're either larger or otherwise have something to hold over the victim the victim does not. Hence, makes one think they're less than themself. Or if you do not go along with my will and desire for you, you're a "scared little girl". Illusory truth effect or bias by repetition. Get it?

the imagery you are pushing — universeness

I literally started with 'the disconnect is' and ended with 'this is the mindset a conservative individual would hold' in the context of the 'pills and scalpel' statement. There is no reasonable reason to assume I sympathize with those who do or are pushing anything other than, once again, no person not a legal and mental adult should be suggested they have gender dysphoria.

I appreciate your defense of the vulnerable. But there's no need to attack the messenger.

Furthermore, please do not accuse me of being 'irresponsible' and 'pushing [intolerant] imagery' again when I have in fact taken great pains to avoid doing so and know I have avoided such perfectly.

Despite my desires for this thread to cool off some.

I'm what you would call 'ignorant' of the true science behind transgenderism. So are the scientists who study it. It's new. No one knows anything yet. This is what you would call an average, rational mindset or "take" on the subject. And as such, I happen to know sometimes certain males - either physically, mentally or both - can be described as 'feminine' more so than others. Just as certain females can be described as 'mannish' more so than others.

If my male child happens to be watching public television, sees an all-female ballerina performance, is mesmerized, and wants to put on a pink tutu and spin around, That's fine. If my female child sees a war movie and likes "killing the bad guys"/justice and wants to start dressing like G.I. Joe or otherwise becomes a tomboy. That's fine as well.

The disconnect is, and this is not meant to be extreme, but in either case I don't want the State or someone representative of the State to start running at them with a bottle of pills in one hand and a scalpel in the other telling a small child "there's something wrong with them" and as their parent I'm either morally, or if some have their way, perhaps even legally, abusive if I stand in the way of such. This is basically the most prominent argument or attitude a conservative individual would hold.

A significant majority of females become tomboys due to ostracization/alienation from the "popular girls". We are social creatures. Numerous studies from reputable and well-respected scientific institutions show, lack of "fitting in" can lead to severe distress, confusion, and quite often death. If you're not one of the popular girls or boys you're somehow less of a girl or boy. This is an observable psychological phenomenon. Where insults such as "coward", "loser", or "freak" come from.

If you don't fit in or are shunned from what you intrinsically and biologically are inclined to want to be part of, it makes you - especially if you have a young, developing mind - think you might be "something else".

I'm not saying transgenderism is not a real thing. I'm saying due to the infancy of the field of study and research gathered, along with the myriad of other physiological possibilities and conditions that very well could be transient or otherwise unrelated to true gender dysphoria, one should not be so "gung-ho" about assessing if the gender of a male or female under the age of 18 is, wrong basically. So as to avoid a misdiagnosis and as a result unnecessary series of life-changing medical procedures that only worsen or perhaps even create a condition that could otherwise be remedied or very well never existed in the first place.

I don't think that's an unreasonable or inconsiderate position to hold. Do you?

Also: This doesn't happen (too) often, but in some divorces sometimes one parent acts with malice toward the other to the point of psychologically damaging the child, typically indirectly. Sometimes directly. See Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), Malicious Parent Syndrome (MPS). That's more than enough to fuel the fire of confusion of worth and esteem and as a result identity. Just saying.

But they can't all be right. — Pantagruel

Can't they? In a pit of lava, the next stepping stone is as valuable as the last, be it sunk or not.

In any case, (3) isn’t rhetorical: where do the profits go? — Mikie

Hookers and blow? /shrugs

Being wealthy is stressful. You can't just go anywhere and do anything anymore, despite most believing the opposite. Unless you're an idiot, your life as a normal citizen is over, including that of anyone you care about.

I know of people who have been held for ransom for as little as a few thousand dollars. Imagine making twice that in the time it takes to take a breath. It's scary.

The answer is the same of what any person anywhere would spend their money (or even in an a society devoid of money, time) on. Maintaining and improving their livelihood (in this case the business) and keeping oneself sane enough to actually wish to continue doing so (leisure).

All I know is you can make a human mind believe anything under the right conditions, including identity.

No human study of the same would ever see the light of day but, for reference. Leanrned helplessness along with Stockholm syndrome prove a rational mind can be made to believe irrational things (or anything) under the right conditions.

Otherwise "parental issues" or childhood trauma simply would not exist. 90% of a child's brain develops by age 5 and has been proven to have lifelong effects. If you're told you're worthless from birth or abused your entire childhood, you will harbor that identity - at least to some degree - until you die.

None of this means anything automatically as far as the gender identity theory model goes. But, the science to back the counterargument is certainly there.

Which is why I hate jackasses and wholeheartedly believe, in the best interest of civilized society, Constitutional rights can and should be suspended in certain scenarios under the right pretext and conditions.

Got a good one.

What question would you ask any historic philosopher? Who would it be, and why? Multiple choices are allowed.

(may or may not have been inspired by the previous questioner)

broadly it is through the appropriation of the means of production in the hands of groups of individuals whose united objectives cause them to act as a monopoly. — Isaac

So basically "damned if you do, damned if you don't" seeing as both are present in each system. We're not progressing here, at least from that generalization.

A communist system is, in essence, saying that it is stakeholders, not owners who should dictate how a resource is used. — Isaac

What is a stakeholder? Any citizen? Which includes some pothead college dropout with no understanding of the world who after reading the outlines of economics thinks he's suddenly Adam Smith? Gee, what could go wrong there.

Good intentions pave the road to hell, it is said. Perhaps rightfully so, perhaps not. We live in a world of free, unrestrained thinking and upbringing. You got religious types who think the world is basically dead or going to be destroyed, you got people who are too nice, and much more who are too cruel, and you got those who are anarchistic and in their words "just want to watch the world burn". Now seriously in all judgement, is that the demographic you would have in charge over goods and services over those raised from birth to study and perform efficiently in economics? One would hope not.

At the end of the day the average person is a "go getter", a "risk taker". People barely think about where or what they'll be doing in 15 minutes let alone 15 years. And that's the point of civilized society. So the average person doesn't have to think about war, death, famine, slavery, abuse 24/7 and pursue their own personal desires, be they beneficial to others and society or not. That's literally the definition of freedom. It's a recipe for disaster, plain and simple.

It's not hard to create social movements by manipulating media outputs, possibly even easier than government's trying to do it. — Isaac

This I would agree with. Difference is sometimes you need to break a few eggs to make an omelette. Meaning, sometimes a little rain must fall in order to prevent a drought. Short term inconvenience is always worth it to prevent long term fatalities, neither of which the average person does or is expected to understand. As Star Wars puts it "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Interestingly enough, in a broader sense absent of time, it's speaking about future generations, not whatever majority may be present at the time of speaking. Some "psychology" is good. This is leadership. "A leader is a dealer in hope". Some of it is bad. This is propaganda. Everybody thinks they're way of life (a normal function of the brain, what worked before will work again) is right. Until it's not. But by then it's often far too late.

They might pay out, but it is inevitably less than the profit they make. so they continue to harm people, and pay less than they make in compensation. — Isaac

Okay then that's justice. Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be? You can't pay out more than you have now can you? Believe me, people will harm other people plenty enough especially without laws, order, and strict governance. The devil is in the mirror. Metaphorically, I mean. Nothing personal. You seem cool.

To summarize: the average reasonable person will want as much as possible with as little as possible as quickly as possible. there's nothing wrong with this. it's efficiency. how the brain works and how we managed to survive and come so far. however, there is much more to consider than instant gains to avoid bleeding an economy dry to the point of non-sustainability. ignorance may be bliss, and myopia, it's own heaven. but it never lasts long.

Makes sense, but as I've been discussing above, there's more than one way to restrict freedom and government-type actions aren't even top of the list. — Isaac

Please produce this list for us, in your own words.

This "freedom of ability to produce or not produce what you want when you want" is easily constrained by total monopoly over the means of production. Which is what you get in a capitalist state. — Isaac

"Total" is where I would question your sentiments. People die. Spoiled kids make poor choices. Things grow anew. Is this not so? Sure, wealthy families often remain wealthy and can often avoid legal actions or repercussions the average citizen cannot. Potential competitors can be neutralized through a variety of means both legal and extrajudicial. See it all the time. However the difference is one can get "caught" and social outrage justified whereas in state-controlled production one who criticizes is metaphorically "in bed with the enemy" and against the well being and future of the children ie. a traitor. At least, that's the principle argument put forth.

As well as if my sole household provider dies of a food allergy from a negligent menu omitting ingredients, I can't do or get anything from a dude on the side of the road selling seafood. What do I get his cart? Some minute three figure amount from his savings? Gee, that's nice. Whereas if I'm eating at a large corporate chain you better believe I'll be living the rest of my life waking up when I please not knowing if it's 7 AM or PM and loving it. Slippery slope. At least, that's the argument.

I'll start with my favorite.

"Did you hear about the cannibal who showed up late to dinner?"

Jacques accused me and pretty much my entire social group of supporting a ruthless war criminal responsible for the massacre at Bucha. Can you explain in what way that's a "friendly potshot"? — Isaac

Okay, see I missed that. You have the blood of what you perceive to be innocents fueling your dogma. I understand that. And apologize. We could talk endlessly about such topics but in the interest of remaining on the intended subject focus of the poster, I digress. Perhaps, it was even the interlocutor who derailed and, perhaps I don't know, baited you. Either way.

Let's use this alleged massacre as a stepping stone back to the original topic. "The State" or those employed by it killed citizens. You're saying they were innocent, non-treasonous, and unarmed. This can happen regardless of any economic model a given society operates under. So where do we go from here? It is an association (possibly an indirect one) that communism removes an individual of personal responsibility and ownership of property, seeing as such property must be maintained and used responsibly or else penalties and negative outcomes, be they enforced by men or happen organically will occur (example, if you own a machine gun to defend your farm and family from riots, some unhinged and suicidal person could steal it and enter a mall with the intent to kill as many as possible). Correct?

That's an extreme example of course. Let's use the shell game metaphor. Say the item under the shell is the innocent man and, per example, the player is an immoral man who wishes to do harm. The favored and popular argument seems to be, under communism, you have one shell. You compromise that, all under it are subject to your malevolence. If you have multiple, hence the idea of goods and services being privately owned, you get what you compromised, perhaps, though the idea is you really didn't or at least your malevolence was isolated and contained later to be neutralized by others, yet others have a chance. How do you respond to that?

Edit: That is to say, one man - unscrupulous in nature - could occupy the sole position of government and all duty bound to it, and cause it to be used for what is socially deemed negative, controlling, or destructive. Now all goods and services are subject to this maligned pursuit. But if you have freedom of ability to produce or not produce what you want when you want, it now requires greater effort and coordination to ensure the average citizen is now subject to said pursuit. Make sense? That's the argument at least.

Ah, I see. Much the same way as you support racism then? — Isaac

Whoa! Everyone's here taking friendly potshots at one another, soft jabs to the midsection and you come in with a spiked bat to the face! What is up with that my man?

Those are fightin' words and legal slander because even if anybody in earshot couldn't care less, it can still get the man killed later down the road.

I grant you, you should always call a spade a spade. Kettle me black. But where are you getting this information from? Surely a moderator not remiss would have dealt with such long ago.

Is communism realistic/feasible? — jorndoe

Far too often philosophers as well as ordinary men fail to ask the right question. Of course it is. So is torturing people in castle dungeons and hanging them upside down. I could do that now. The real question is, should it be done? Is the chase worth the prize? Are the known risks and guaranteed difficulties worth the indeterminate reward or is it but like so many of man's endeavors, merely mirage? These are the questions men fail to ask themselves before far, far too late.

There is a difference between a legitimate and an illegitimate authority. — NOS4A2

Surely. Through valiant and democratic means won through wars, civil and various other action both civilized and not. However. Much like the child who believes the parent disappears into oblivion in a simple game of "peek a boo", men can be fooled or perhaps incorrect, can they not?

One's status as an official, or employment within a bureaucracy, is not good enough to justify the legitimacy of their own authority. — NOS4A2

I want to dissect and unpack what this word "bureaucracy" means to you in intimate detail. Just to make sure we're on the same page here. There are no "unelected" officials absent of judges and magistrates. Perhaps a few others I fail to recollect. Police officers too. It's a bit complicated. Let me give you a principle example.

Say a man murders another man for believing he slept with his wife, when no such thing ever occurred. The judge sentences him to life in prison for murder. That murderer, is still a citizen. And in the off chance he has friends who are perhaps unhinged and want to run amok like animals, in enough numbers, they could perhaps vote to "un-elect" him by simply voting "for the other guy" thus defeating the democratic process of voting for someone for merit or desire but simply to "get rid of" someone you don't like. Do you see what I mean? Some positions in government are truly, as my old man would say "damn if you do, damn if you don't". You can't make everybody happy. Nor do some deserve to be. Can we agree on that?

This is the point of long term appointments to positions. Otherwise it just turns into a revolving door of inexperienced novices too afraid to lose their job/livelihood by dealing a difficult but necessary rulings, and before you know it, criminals walk the streets with impunity. Is that what you want? I thought you were on the side of necessary justice.

Beyond that, your own statement of "legitimate and [...] illegitimate authority" seems to substantiate this.

Society should be vigilant but delegating that vigilance to some job-holding bureaucrat, subject to the whims of a political class, is to be the opposite of vigilant. — NOS4A2

I want to play a little metaphor game with you, if you don't mind. Not so much a game but rather a direct analogy. Say a man or someone he cares about has a heart attack or serious physical injury. Now what if, right in the middle of being wheeled into a qualified and licensed brain surgeons operating room, I just jump in the way and start saying "Hey, surgery should not be monopolized by the medically educated class!" You'd throw me out the damn window. So think about that. We need qualified people for positions that effect life and society as a whole. How could you disagree with that?

Nobody likes being told what to do. Even when it would save their life, either literally in a biological sense or fundamentally in a purpose and potential sense. It's a thankless job. One often rewarded with disdain or alienation and sometimes even death. But it has to be done.

What people don't get, especially good or at least moderately decent people, is the level of depravity some hold and will perform on others, individuals and wholesale, without the slightest care. With glee, even. As a normal, sane person in a well-structured and productive society, we often forget the horrors that occurred in its formation, horrors that can and most likely certainly will occur again without due vigilance. That's the point of society. Freedom of the body is simple. Freedom of mind however, especially with intellect and care for others, that's what even the grandest of utopias cannot guarantee. It's an ever shifting pendulum. One you do not want to be caught on the opposite end of.

What I will agree to that we are heading for truly unprecedented times in a lot of aspects... — ChatteringMonkey

You realize literally every person, intelligent and not, said this exact same thing, in complete sincerity and absolute truth, since the beginning of language. Correct?

Man discovers fire. Same thing. Man discovers cooking. Same thing. Man discovers ChatGPT. Same thing.. there truly is nothing new under the sun.

The problem is semantics. We already live in a society. By nature it is a commune and we share and help one another. Problem is, people like the idea of not having to pull their own weight, at the very least, when absolutely necessary. The real problem is, when you get right down to it, you could be the last or first and only person on a planet... you still have to work. There's no getting around that. Newton's laws of physics. Unless you befriend a benevolent deity, you're going to have to cultivate crop, build and maintain shelter, and unless you're some sort of robot provide a continual and dynamic source of entertainment and leisure. These things aren't going to do it themselves. So who does it? "Somebody else" is the go-to answer which is what was responsible for wars, slavery, and suffering unfathomable due to the codification of the simple fact, if you don't work, you will die.

Back in the days of Ancient Israel, you were married by 12, a seasoned combat veteran by 20, a grandfather by 30, and dead by 40. No one complained. You know not always but that was a typical pattern.

The mainstay about capitalism is, after taxes, its all your money. You can spend it on blow and hookers or donate whatever you don't need to not starve to death and keep a roof over your head to charity or random people or causes if you so choose. People like choice. It's a very powerful dynamic in modern society.

This is absolutely amazing. Potentially enough to pull me out of my month long depression.

Cannot wait!! :party:

I only wish members here do not politicize or economize the wisdom which may be revealed, substantiated, or put into question. Though perhaps such things are unavoidable these days.

If only there were more people here. @Jamal is this not a reasonably rare and substantial event to consider opening new and self-initiated registrations for new members wishing to participate?

There's not many socially-enthralled living philosophers these days.

So, "the breads gone stale", you would say. You view modern philosophy as akin to a terminally ill patient whose caretakers have long left the building, now forced to perform self-care in vain. Would you label that assessment as accurate?

Too many chefs spoil the stew I suppose.

“A corpse is meat gone bad. Well and what's cheese? Corpse of milk. ”
― James Joyce

Oh don't you worry. People hear you're raised from birth to be a trusting, kind, charitable person. And that you basically have to be. And have something to take or benefit others from (ie. looks or wealth). You'll have all the opportunities to question your beliefs in the world. Believe me I know.