For all that time there was little change in human culture. But over the last three or four hundred years - much less than one percent of the time we have been around - change has been extraordinary. — Banno

Civilization and agriculture started 7,000ish years ago. That started an exponential increase in human population, which is now slowing and expected to slow more. Writing started 3,500ish years ago, which also started history. Historically, advances in human well-being are primarily due to improvements in nutrition.

None of that contradicts the value of science, but I think it indicates that giving science the credit for improvements is over-simplification. Seems to me that science is one of the things that comes along with population growth and population density growth. That traces back to agriculture.

The threads were held together with the glue of a community and that is not present as of late. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I agree. I miss it.

wasting my time arguing with someone if they are under 23 years old — Maw

Ha! So, It’s OK wasting your time arguing with someone if they’re over 23 years old. You are so cute, I just want to pinch your cheek.

reserve the forum for those who have graduated from the agōgē. — Banno

My goodness, don’t you flatter yourself.

Titling this discussion "FDrake" makes it seem like you are making a direct personal attack on @fdrake. I think it's inappropriate. It also doesn't accurately describe the contents of your OP as is required by the Site Guidelines.

what did you think of the idea of a trans league? — DingoJones

Why would anyone possibly watch? Why watch former "mediocre male league fighters?"

The data just doesn’t support that research, it’s politically driven research. — DingoJones

It came from women athletes supportive of women's sports trying to find a compromise. I don't see a political agenda beyond trying to figure out the best thing to do. As for the scientific answer to the question, I don't know and I don't intend to spend more time figuring it out. It appears that there is a possible compromise, whether or not this is exactly the one.

So, asking questions is "provocative" around here, after all. — Apollodorus

Asking provocative questions is provocative.

If you think biological males do not have a tremendous physical advantage that compromises a women’s sport and any integrity or honour of the women in that sport then I’m sorry to tell you that you’ve lost your fucking mind. — DingoJones

My initial response to this issue was to agree with you, but I was surprised to see that the issue was contested even within the Republican Party. To me, that means it isn't necessarily a knee-jerk issue. This is from a recent Washington Post article:

Before 2010, few college or high school athletic associations had policies on transgender athletes, according to a report published that year by the Women’s Sports Foundation and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Noting that “an increasing number of high school and college-aged young people are identifying as transgender,” the report proposed a set of policies: In college sports, transgender women should undergo one year of hormone therapy before competing against other women, a rule rooted in scientific research that suggested such an approach would mitigate any athletic benefits. The NCAA quickly adopted the policy.

For high schools, the report recommended letting transgender girls compete in sports as soon as they transition socially and begin dressing and acting in accordance with their gender identity. Requiring hormone therapy for adolescents is potentially harmful

This makes a lot of sense to me.

Caitlyn is a gold medalist olympian, And a trans woman who went all the way and had surgery. Regardless, cancel culture rears its ugly head and seeks to end Caitlyn. — Edy

I remember the 1976 Olympic Games vividly, how much I admired Jenner. I always saw her, he then, as the epitome of what a good athlete should be. My beef with her is not her transition, it's that she has commodified it, celebritized it, and used it as an opportunity for self-aggrandizement. She's a fucking Kardashian for God's sake.

You mean accountable for asking a question? And what exactly did I ask in your opinion that makes it imperative for me "to be held accountable"? — Apollodorus

I didn't say it was imperative, I said I wanted to. You asked provocative questions intended to raise a ruckus among us loony lefties. I'm just joining in the ruckus.

My sentiments as well. Has there ever been an occassion, in the everyday course of your private rational machinations generally, you ever said to and for yourself alone, “I think.....”?

I’m guessing.....never. — Mww

Once I remember saying to myself "I tawt I taw a puddytat."

But I forgot we aren't allowed to ask questions on this forum. Especially not in the Questions section. So, you're probably right. — Apollodorus

Of course you're allowed to ask questions. And of course I'm allowed to respond. I don't want you to stop commenting, I only want to hold you accountable for what you say.

1. No justice no peace. — Apollodorus

Stop beating around the bush. If you want those nasty colored people to shut up and stop causing trouble, just say so.

2. If you are not with us, you are against us. — Apollodorus

Wikipedia says this is from the Bible. That violent revolutionary Jesus said it.

Ah, so this whole spiel about Gandhi and whether or not truely "peaceful" protest is possible was just some cover for you soapboxing about how BLM is bad and not actually interested in equality. — Echarmion

I agree. Sometimes the questions someone asks tell us more than the statements they make or the answers they give.

I think I heard the song. And it was famous. — Sir2u

I remember it vividly. Driving down the lane to my grandfather's farm on a dirt road with the windows down in the summer of 1965. Listening on WCAO from Baltimore - Top 20 radio. It was very short. I loved it. I heard it so many times in the first two weeks after it came out that I couldn't listen again for 20 years. Those were the days before FM radio and album rock format.

Yep. What we really need is a real, separate shoutbox in a little box at the side, as in the old forum and a few alternative forum platforms. We can't implement that here and my feeling is we just wait till the time comes to make the move to Discourse or whatever. — jamalrob

As I said, I understand why you did it, but it hurt. It would be great if you could figure out a way to bring it back.

Popul Vuh — thewonder

Are you native American or just romantic visionary.

In no unclear or uncertain terms, Meta-Anarchism is a nonviolent gradualist political philosophy that advocates for the eventual creation of a loosely affiliated set of freely associated communes effectuated by a syncretic participatory and representative democracy through a diverse set of tactics. There are no required readings and it is open to all. — thewonder

I believe Pol Pot wrote something similar after a night of drinking in a Paris cafe in the 1940s.

While I do recognize that, in order to secure their place in the sun, people assume that they should only ever so slightly consign themselves to the project of evil, is not really the source of evil itself, that it is what does continue the facilitation of every cult of personality or totalitarian project, there is a way of seeing things to where it is just the whole problem. Your only so complicit Anarchist or manipulative hipster didn't create the political project of Neo-Fascism, but that it just simply is they who are why it still exists is grounds for that the rest of us have become completely fixated upon how to render their various machinations inoperative. — thewonder

So. What's the plan then?

I just wanted to hear people's opinion on the ongoing trend of tech becoming more and more difficult to repair and also the whole topic of planned obsolescence. I feel like now more than ever, we need to be very informed consumers, however, in some instances it feels like choosing between bad and worse. I'm against many things, but I also enjoy the convenience of having things like a smartphone. Anyone have a proposition to shopping more responsibly and also efficiently because it shouldn't be something that takes up a whole lot of time and research. — journeytoknowledge

The instances where I've heard "right to repair," are in relation to an expensive piece of equipment e.g. a car or tractor. The manufacturer won't allow the purchaser to make changes in the software running the machine in order to fix glitches or change the way it works.

I've heard "planned obsolescence" in relation to equipment that is expected to be out-of-date within a relatively brief period after purchase either because it is not made to last or supporting technology and infrastructure will change. We had a refrigerator for 35 years before we had to replace it. Now we've had two in the past 15 years. The guy at the appliance store says that's just the way things are now. We recently replaced an old clothes dryer. We were going to repair it, but it cost less to replace it.

When I was a kid, if our TV broke, a guy would come and test the glass vacuum tubes inside and replace any that weren't working correctly. That usually did the trick. Now, if there are problems and the device is out of warrantee, you just buy a new one.

What do I think of it? Seems wasteful, but then TV sets and other electronic equipment are incredibly cheap these days. Cheap to build, cheap to buy, impossible to fix.

My question is why is Lacan a post- structuralist (especially according to the purloined letter analysis)? My linguistic professor said, he definitely is one and i need to find out why by reading this text. i just don´t get it. i know he is a psychoanalyst and he says the subconscious structured like language. also are the letter AND the characters all signifiers? (is the letter a character aswell?) can anyone help me on why this whole analysis is proof for lacan being post- structuralist and not structuralist? MANY thanks, i´m so confused! greetings — besserlernen

I had never read either "The Purloined Letter" or any analysis of it. I just read the writeup in Wikipedia, including a plot summary and discussion of disagreements related to Lacun's interpretation. To summarize - Someone steals a letter from the Queen which came from one of her lovers and is blackmailing her. The letter clearly signifies cutting off the King's penis. (No, I'm not kidding.) The hero gets the letter back and they live happily ever after. Not the guy who stole the letter.

Besserlernen - Did you read the story before you read the interpretation? What did you think of it? What was your experience of it? Did you like it? Was it interesting? Were you moved? How did that change after you read the interpretation? What value did the interpretation give you? Did you need to be told what Poe really meant? Wasn't your experience enough?

I'm not sure if what I'm writing is what you want to talk about.

For the whiches of which there is no possible understanding. Instead it's a game - and under criticism shrinks have been known to make up the rules as they go along, for their own benefit. And it sounds like your professor may be playing his own game too, maybe his excuse being pedantic purpose. — tim wood

Come on Tim. Answer the question he asked instead of jumping on your own little bete noir.

@besserlernen

Welcome to the forum. Sorry I don't have anything substantive to add.

we understand what thoughts are, but it is ... the language that gets in the way. — No One

Hey. No fair. You didn't like that answer when I gave it for the question "what is our true nature."

Lesser known Star Trek quotes

• “Oy, vey, it’s the Romulans.” – from Star Trek the Next Generation (STNG) Season 5, Episode 4 – “Data Converts to Judaism.”
  
• “Tribble stew, that is a very logical solution.” – from original Star Trek (OST) Season 2, Episode 5 – “The Trouble with Tribbles.”
  
• “Q, you asshole, it’s been 350 years. No, Trump didn’t win.” – from Star Trek Deep Space 9 (DS9), Season 1, Episode 5 – “Q-less.”
  
• “No, Captain, are ye daft? We can’t go ‘warp bazillion.’” – from OST Season 3, Episode 4 – “Kirk Goes to Rehab.”
  
• “Shit, I can never remember. Am I Six or Seven of Nine?” – Star Trek Voyager (STV), Season 6, Episode 4 – “Borg, Schmorg.”
  
• “Since 1775 there have been 24 valiant ships with the ‘Enterprise’ name, not counting the one fucking Kirk lost to the fucking Klingons in a fucking card game.” – from STNG, Season 5, Episode 22 – “Imaginary Friend.”
  
• “God damn it, of course you ‘sense great pain, great anger.’ I just got my dick caught in my zipper.” – from STNG, Season 3, Episode 19 – “Captain’s Holiday.”

I really enjoy chatting with different folks but not with people who believe that they know and it's their job to spread the word. That gets old really quickly (which is my main beef with people on the left). Ideology aside, leftists really believe they are right! — synthesis

Am I one of those people who "believe that they know and it's their job to spread the word?" You're the one who started this thread. You're the one spreading the word. You're the one who seems to know you are right. I have only responded to question some of the things you wrote. I gave very specific examples. I think I expressed my thoughts clearly. What's your beef?

words don't show up to give that feeling a verbal dress. — No One

I said you wouldn't like it.

haha , why is that? come on , a short answer maybe? — No One

Ow, ow, stop twisting my arm. Ok, ok, but you're not going to like it. What is my true nature? I know it when I see it.

Why is it when a fair number of people on this forum disagree in a conversation, they assume that it must be the other person's fault? — synthesis

In my last post, I tried to be careful not to place the fault on either of us.

What are True Natures — No One

Good question, but there's no way you can make me answer it.

I think you and I are talking around in circles. Talking about words. We've probably taken this as far as we can for now.

Underlying purposes of all goals of all humans is to achieve happiness. So according to Lao Tzu this is the best way to achieve happiness. — No One

Lao Tzu is kind of down on achievement of any sort. For me, happiness, to the extent that it is anything, is acting in accordance with our true natures.

Maybe I'm heading in a direction that is not where you had in mind. I don't want to distract from your goal in this discussion.

I am glad that you have raised the topic of the subconscious because I do feel that many discussions about consciousness don't go into enough focus on the subconscious. — Jack Cummins

On the other hand, I don't think things going on in the subconscious or unconscious become thoughts until they rise into consciousness. Now, after our previous discussions, I'm realizing I have to be careful to use the right word. The definition of consciousness I'm using is "non-verbal sentience or awareness of internal and external existence." Oh, no! Then what does it become when I put it into words? I don't want to start that conversation over again.

So, I am asking what does thought tell us about the nature of personal identity and about the underlying source of consciousness? Do thoughts help to explain the nature of consciousness? — Jack Cummins

"Thoughts" is the name we give to our inner experience when we have to put it into words to communicate with another person. Turns out when we do that, we also start communicating with ourselves, which is probably one of the definitions of consciousness or self-awareness we have recently discussed. To meet the requirements of language, we have to take something which is amorphous and non-linear and break it into defined pieces placed some sort of linear order.

Do you agree that , there are some goals that are good for you than some other goals.... — No One

The best goal is no goal. Act from your heart and go where that takes you. Lao Tzu says:

The Master, by residing in the Tao,
sets an example for all beings.
Because he doesn't display himself,
people can see his light.
Because he has nothing to prove,
people can trust his words.
Because he doesn't know who he is,
people recognize themselves in him.
Because he has no goal in mind,
everything he does succeeds.

Lao Tzu is my man.

The constant social change didn't begin till the industrial age really. Where it will end up no one knows (or so I flatter myself who hasn't figured it out yet). — EricL

Welcome to the forum. You write well and have interesting things to say. I hope you'll hang around for a while.

As an example, there were many "peaceful" protesters that saw fit to destroy other people's person and property last summer. — synthesis

It bothered me that violent vandals and looters were not held legally accountable for their actions. We agree on that, but it doesn't have anything to do with rights.

If you are exercising your rights, you must do it in a fashion where you are not infringing on others' rights. This is a fairly basic concept. — synthesis

It's impossible for us to live our lives without sometimes coming into conflict with other people doing the same thing. Yes, we should behave responsibly, fairly. Again, that doesn't have anything to do with rights.

Where some see coincidence others see consequence. Seriously though, they probably helped to simulate interesting and good quality topics. — praxis

I've generally tried to be supportive of moderator's decisions, with a couple of exceptions. All and all, I think they do a pretty good job. Also, as I noted, the moderators often have interesting things to say in their own right. It seems like they've backed off from that some.

Yes, pragmatism; good thing. — Bitter Crank

Turns out I can read "The Metaphysical Club" free on Kindle Unlimited. Yay.

From "I don't like Mondays" by the Boomtown Rats.

The silicon chip inside her head
Gets switched to overload
And nobody's gonna go to school today
She's gonna make them stay at home
And daddy doesn't understand it
He always said she was good as gold
And he can see no reasons
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to be shown?

Also makes a philosophical case against the Principle of Sufficient Reason.