I have it in my huge backlog now. Looking forward to playing it. Thank you for your recommendation. Definitely went up my list now. As others have mentioned I recommend The Stanley Parable and The Beginner's Guide (both by the same creator).

I know there's a story. Just like there is a story behind Joe #52. That has nothing to do with my original point. If there are people that don't subscribe to your idea of "we do things just for survival" then what do you make of those situations and doesn't that contradict your initial point of everything being about survival?

So if I actively make my life goal to make the world a worse place, that also fits under that perspective? Or people that wake up ready to kill for "fun". Certainly there are people that wake up with that goal? You're also forgetting that when people are born they have to act. Nearly anything good for me, good for my progeny, good for "society" can be shaped to look like "it's for survival". That's a really strange and unnecessary view point in my opinion.

Every generation has been fooled to a degree. That is the nature of hierarchy, and most invite, even endorse that structure. When haven't a small minority controlled society?

Also, you seem to call many counter traditional thoughts as "being fooled", which just seems a bit close-minded to me. Not to mention that you are criticizing small groups within society, none of those groups represent the majority of people, even if they are a bigger than they have been in the past.

"But, like, I really love coconuts and found them first!"-Thurston Howell III

We need to rely on evidence, not conspiracy theories The facts, which I have enumerated previously, do not support your view. There is no evidence that Dr. Ford's name was leaked by the Democrats. It is clear that her letter was never leaked. — Dfpolis

That isn't the argument. It is that the information was withheld to push back the confirmation. That all comes down to the "virtue" of Senator Feinstein vs political gamesmanship. I believe in the gamesmanship aspect because it is convenient. Your "virtue" argument is just as much of gut feeling. Whether her name was leaked or not is not my point. They could have held it with no intention of leaking and it would still benefit them. It's not like there was any chance this would have been released after the vote.

The schedule is completely in the control of the Republican administration and Senate. They have about 90 days at this point. The average time for confirmation is 67 days.

Let us hope that the truth becomes clear.

Yes. Especially if the candidate was nominated in July.

Yes. Let's hope! — Dfpolis

@Dfpolis

Yes, if Senator Feinstein put partisan advantage above honor, she could have violated Doctor Ford's request that her name not be used. Remember, the request was not that her name be kept "out of the press," it was that it not be used at all. While many may have violated Doctor Ford's confidence, Senator Feinstein chose not to. I find both their actions commendable. — Dfpolis

Everything @Rank Amateur said. I don't consider someones honor a worth argument most of the time. Especially when I doubt you'll give the same courtesy to many of the republicans. From a political perspective it is too convenient that her "virtue" lines up with waiting until the last second. Your argument could be right but I'm doubtful.

You seem not to understand the American electoral system.
1. The last time I looked, the Republicans had a 70% chance of retaining control of the Senate.
2. Even if they lost control of the Senate, the new Senate would not begin until January of 2019.
3. After the elections, there would be a lame duck session of congress giving the Republicans also two months to work their will. — Dfpolis

I think they are probably going to lose the seats necessary for pushing a candidate through. Good point on the lame duck session though. I wasn't aware they could push nominees through at that point. If they are able to it will make much of their "waiting for the last second" argument mute. This also depends on if they could get the nomination through in those 2 months.

1. As i explained above, there is no evidence that the Democrats leaked Ford's letter. So your premise is questionable at best.
2. As I also explained above, the motivation you offer makes no sense as the Republicans will maintain the majority in the senate until the end of 2018.
3. Could it not be that some Senators take their constitutional duty to advise and consent seriously and want to have the best available information? — Dfpolis

1. Yes, there is no evidence. More going with my political sense. Senator Feinstein seems honest but it doesn't mean all of her party members are. : )
2. Well said. Thanks for correcting me.
3. Yes, that is possible.

Hopefully the investigation helps clears up some of this mess.

Yes. I'm glad it's happening this way. We will see how it develops. Hope they bring in Mark Judge as well. Could help get closer to truth. Only when they voice a limited investigation can you hope they'll get it done in a reasonable time. Anything else and politics takes over.

They're delaying it a week for an investigation. No more, no less. Perfect. Hopefully we find out more and we can move on. Thank you Senator Flake.

Because there is no guarantee it would take that long. All you have is their word. Which in politics is useless (especially when you don't trust the other side). In the same way the democrats would not have held onto the information until the last second had they actually wanted the truth. They obviously wanted it to be about pushing it past midterms. What other reason would you hold it? If it passes midterms there is a 100% chance he isn't confirmed because the republicans will not have enough votes to get him there. It's all politics. The other alternative is that he is guilty and he knows it so they investigation would ruin him regardless and he is trying to sneak in.

See my comment on the investigation above. I know there isn't but there should be in this case. It's not a typical case. The fact that we hold so stringently to rules that weren't meant to deal with complex things like this is the problem. My suggestion would be the best of both worlds. Both sides would get something and if he's not guilty the republicans win outright. If he is guilty, well then he didn't deserve the nomination anyways. If there was a way around the 2/3rds majority in this case both sides wouldn't be able to just push politics to squeak out the result they want. Another instance of bureaucracy failing miserably and partisanship winning the day. Wonderful.

Another example just for affect. IF a supreme court judge was found of guilty of murder I feel I could about guarantee he wouldn't get 2/3rds of the vote for impeachment now, regardless of the political party. That's how toxic the climate is.

Maybe he doesn't want his nomination to be pushed back and then post midterms voted out? Maybe that's a concern? Both sides would agree to temporary recognition of the vote while setting up an FBI investigation, if they were interested in the truth. Both aren't. It's all politics. If the investigation shows he's guilty you just remove him without a vote. If he's innocent then just go on as normal. There. Fixed.

It would also be a psychological question. Children are immature and shortsighted. Even more so if they are intoxicated. If they made a mistake would it be okay to punish them considering they have been good citizens for the vast majority of their life and show no signs of it being an issue?

It's not silly. Confirmation only requires 51 votes in the Senate. Removal from office requires 67 votes. — Relativist

That's what I'm talking about. This is obviously a situation where those rules aren't meant to address. His removal or dismissal from the seat should depend on the investigation afterwards, not voting. It would be a healthy compromise for both sides and we be able to get to bottom of things. Instead of the usual stupid partisanship.

It has nothing at all to do with finding the truth. — Rank Amateur

I was fairly certain it might have been to find the truth at some point. But to me the biggest tell was the insistence on the delay of the vote and the holding of evidence. You don't do this if you are interested in truth entirely. If you wanted truth you would suggest something like @Michael suggested above or not held off for so long to start said investigation.

If the Republicans are so sure he's innocent then they can confirm him anyway, with the option to impeach after if the FBI (or state investigators) find sufficient evidence to charge him. — Michael

THIS. A million times over. Can someone explain to me why this cannot be an option for either side? Why in the world is that not being suggested by anyone on the committee? The only reasoning is that once nominated his seat is secured and no future investigations could remove him. Which seems silly, but maybe that's the case. Can't really understand why this idea isn't being put out there. It is a compromise for both sides. Republicans get the seat through to prevent post midterm shenanigans, and democrats the investigation. If he's guilty then you remove him. Easy. If not then things go as they should have.

Again, you are only considering a narrow neighborhood of Homo sapiens when judging what is necessary to fulfill a broad requirement. This is a myopic view, as demonstrated by the great variety of adaptations and numerous convergencies that can be seen in life on Earth. Besides, as I said, you are underestimating the potential for variety within a lineage; this is why I brought up birds, some of whom, by the way, move about over much wider ranges than humans ever did for most of their existence - without the benefit of sweat glands. Fish didn't have sweat glands either, and yet here we are. — SophistiCat

And of all of that variety we only see one species with extremely high adaptability and cognition like humans. I wasn't denying the ability for variation, I was just disputing how they would become intelligent enough to create a human like civilization. I highly doubt it's possible unless they have specific adaptations. My evidence is the very specific requirements of a human brain. I feel like it is much more specific, otherwise we have a lot more species evolving these traits. (or at least ones that also lead to high levels of cognition) Both birds and fish have many difficulties to developing human level brains, whether those things are dietary or structural (anatomical). It took animals evolving away from those groups to get to the great apes. For the travel distance part of your response I was only talking about terrestrial land animals. I don't believe civilizations and brains like ours could evolve/exist in non-terrestrial land animals. (trees/sky and oceans are a pain to build stuff on/in haha)

Two things. First, your mistake here is that you are considering a tiny counterfactual neighborhood of human evolutionary history. It is unreasonable to suggest that sweat glands or arboreal habitat are a sine qua non for evolving human-like intelligence in any species, just because these factors (allegedly) played an important role the evolution of human intelligence. — SophistiCat

Organisms need ways to deal with overheating. Humans have that while also being able to move during peak hunting periods. Humans are also the best long distance runners because of their ability to cool down through their glands. This is critical for our survival vs other organisms, and hence our ability to survive anywhere. That trait allows us to move great distances and change our environments, instead of being beholden to it, not to mention the hunting benefits. Humans then had access to various forms of nutritious flora and fauna. Being able to move about unhindered by temperatures relative to your competition is a massive advantage. This is absolutely necessary for the evolution of human like intelligence. It allows humans to move, protect their very very soft (basically premature offspring), hunt for meat (critical to making sure the caloric intake is high enough), among many other things, at a much higher rate than other species. Tree living isn't necessary though.

Second, dinosaurs are not extinct. Look out the window and you'll likely see some. When you think of dinosaurs, you might have a picture of comic-book giant reptiles in your imagination; if so, you are seriously underestimating the potential for variety in that lineage. Also, what Bitter Crank said: if you didn't know better, would you expect fish to evolve into something like us? — SophistiCat

I assumed we were talking about the group that got killed off by the ice age. Those are extinct. Saying they aren't extinct because birds exist would make the word extinct useless, as practically nothing would technically be extinct then. Yes. I could because they did. But to suggest it could go down the line and avoid a similar path to Homo sapiens sapiens is a completely different story.

Or maybe we'd all look like ET and there'd be flying bicycles. — Hanover

THIS. NOW! :grin:

Also that our ancestors came out of the trees. I don't know that the Velociraptor line would have gone to the trees for long enough to develop the kind of hands we have. — Marchesk

Many things (like that) make the question fun to think about (at least for a bit), but not very useful or that feasible. What pH level though? I want to be able to melt my worst adversaries at least! :halo:

I find it very unlikely something like Humans would have evolved without the extinctions of the dinosaurs. What type of reptilians do they even suggest would have led to humans evolving? Two of the biggest adaptations that led humans to evolving the way they did was the brain and the stamina humans have. (our ability to generate a thin layer of sweat) I don't see how these would develop in a world dominated by massive reptiles.

@Harry Hindu

So the debate is between two groups in the same culture having different feelings about gender. Whose feelings win out? Whose feelings are more important to console? What about the feelings of those believe in the cultural norm to be upheld?

This is an unaswerable question - just like every ethical question. This is why we should just rely on the simple truths of what a man and woman really are as a product of their physiology. — Harry Hindu

Hmmm... Well, there are a lot of benefits to giving up the standard conventions. Much of the interplay between the sexes and the advantages/disadvantages could be mitigated. It's more flexible and we are most likely heading towards an androgynous future anyways. (can't imagine AI caring much about their gender roles haha) People that want to abide by those natural ways still can, and they will find mates that also think the same and favor the norms simplicity. As a critic of gender though, I find it difficult to support the transgender movement when I see it is also indirectly holding up/feeding into the cultural norms. They seem to support the establishment of gender as much as the average person, for they have to have a gender to become. Still, I feel like the positives outweigh the negatives, not to mention I am somewhat of a social libertarian, so I could always argue that angle if I wanted.

What do you think? I've had many friends resist this movement because it takes a simple idea and makes it more confusing (at least to them). But sometimes things have to be that way in order to make social/cultural progress.

:cool:

Although I disagree with @Terran Imperium and find them a lot less open then they claim to be, I don't think calling them those things will change anything. The same goes with @Harry Hindu. It just breeds more toxicity and doesn't change their minds. Some just want things to stay the "natural" way, even though I, as well as you it seems, see a lot of incredible good that can be had by tossing those conventions to the side.

I agree with what you are saying with regard to sex and am actually someone that thinks the idea of gender should be done away with. We are not at that place however, so until then differentiating the two is what we have to do. Sex does not change, gender does. People that are transgender want to take on the roles of the opposite sex and the easiest way to do that is to actually try and be that gender. This is impossible on the sexual front (may change with technology), so they go for the gender roles/norms we have and follow those.

The problem is that people do not want to accept them for following those norms. IF they did, then this wouldn't be an issue (as much). People are extremely uncomfortable with others doing that, hence the issue. Let alone that transgender people also try and undergo sexual changes to complete the process.

Human beings are known for their wide range of adaptable behaviors. But they are still limited by one's body and shape. A man can never bring an infant to term. A woman cannot fertilize herself. You're confusing the range of things we can do with what we can't based on our size and shape.

Sure, cultures can vary in what women and men wear, or the jobs that they can do, but they can never change the way we procreate and the specific jobs each sex has in procreation. That is what sex is about. Any other behavior isn't related to sex and therefore would not fall under your definition of "gender". — Harry Hindu

But gender is not sex so it would not relate to the biological side of things. Gender is about the "performance", the gender roles we take on, not about the things that we cannot change (easily). The range of freedom we have to perform is what shows that our gender is not fixed. Our sex is (relatively), but not gender.

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. I use that definition of gender, so it seems like it does cover it, it is not about sex, it is everything else.

Also, please reference @Baden comment (below) on the first page where he implied the same thing. If they aren't necessary then we might be in a lot of trouble. The first to get to wide scale automation/robotics, CRISPR bio-genetics wins. The Chinese are historically (and currently) very very liberal when it comes to applying those technologies. Just listening to some of the scientists scoff at possible moral dilemmas makes me very queasy about the possible arms race.

Oh, and according to the above index the world as a whole has become less not more democratic since 2006 when the index first reported. If capitalism has figured out it doesn't need democracy as much as it thought it did (after Singapore, China etc.) it may indeed simply die out. There are no guarantees. — Baden

Apologizes in advance for pulling you into this @Baden. Just thought it was relevant and you were the only one to mention something like that in this thread.

@Posty McPostface@Maw@Banno

Choose your criteria with care. — Banno

Certainly. It would be the positive sides of one person rule with the exception being of course that the leader looks out for his citizens! Everyone's happy! :smile:

You know what the CPC does with "competing sides", right? — Maw

They disappear magically? haha Anyways, my point was that their system might win it comes to state building, causing more countries to have to emulate it to keep pace. Whatever they do to dissidents is part of the system, but if it leads to economic/military success it would be a template for many countries.

This is a sad post on so many levels. — Posty McPostface

I was just trying to say that democracies are slow to change (also a good thing in many ways), and China's mix of authoritarian rule combined with capitalistic economy might allow them to progress more without the democracy (people) getting in their way. Some of the negative sides of China's authoritarianism is mitigated by leaving capitalism to its own accord. In the meantime, we can just enjoy our gridlock, as more and more money slips into our "representative democracy".



Look at that. Another democracy left in the dust. : /

You brought up China. I think the one big flaw that democracy has in continuing as an ideology is the threat countries like China bring. Democracy makes change very difficult to actuate. China doesn't have this issue. They just chug along, not having to deal with the competing sides, while continuing to grow and increase standards for their people. And so far it has worked very well. They took the ideas of capitalism and integrated it into their authoritative structure. Perhaps the homogeneity of the Chinese has made this possible, but I'm afraid it is quickly showing that China's system is the way to go. Perhaps it is true that the best form of government is "the benevolent dictator".

@Harry Hindu

That is just another name for "fear of the unknown". Religious people experience this and is part of the reason they just accept their beliefs based on faith because NOT knowing is scary.

I feel that the truth is more important than one's feelings. Who is to say that they won't feel better when they realize the reality of their condition and can then take action to address it instead of lying to themselves (humans are capable of lying to themselves and being misinformed of their bodily and mental states) and allowing others to propagate that lie?

Why don't we think of a schizophrenic's feelings when we diagnose their condition correctly and tell them that their hallucinations aren't real? — Harry Hindu

Yes, that is true, but them not understanding their condition doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong in what they experience.

Fair enough. Since I believe gender to be a social construct I could see that. Humans are incredible at self-deception. I am open to that possibility.

Probably because culture and the things they want to be are more tangible than the obvious delusions no one else can account for in schizophrenia. As an interesting side note... The friend I mentioned was diagnosed as being very likely to develop schizophrenia going through their adulthood. He has mentioned hearing auditory hallucinations and is being treated for it alongside other issues. I see what you are saying. More research is necessary, and it might not happen if we just assume this a social issue rather than a psychological one.

@Terran Imperium

It is because they depend on each other, still. The distinction between sex and gender differentiates a person's biological sex (the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system) from that person's gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own and secondary sex characteristics. Which is your overall physical appearance. That is the definition of gender and that is the definition of sex as we know it. Do you understand what I mean, now? Gender depends on sex but sex doesn't depend on gender. Sex is a biological reality.

Feminist literature as it apparently exists doesn't get to change the meaning of words when they feel like it. — Terran Imperium

What do you mean do I understand now? I gave the definitions. haha Sex is the biological and gender is everything else outside of that realm. Secondary sex characteristics are biological, they are not part of gender. No, gender doesn't depend on sex. If I was born a male (biologically), but wore women's clothing and acted like a women I would be the male sex, but female in gender. The second part I can agree with, sex doesn't depend on gender, as no matter how you act you cannot change your sex.

They are the ones that created the differences in the two words, so I have no clue what you are implying.

You still have not explained the cultural aspect of sex (aka gender). You just described different types of physiology that influence behavior. But humans have the same physiology (roughly) but their behavior changes. A man does not have act like a prototypical man, nor does a women. A seahorse does, therefore their sex greatly influences their behaviors. Humans have a wide variety of ways they act, that has changed between cultures. Sex does not cover that at all, which is why gender was/is used to separate it.

True enough... That reflects my feelings towards asking him. I'm concerned he'll think I'm invalidating him. What if they don't know the answers? That would be troublesome for their psyche and could cause the volatile reaction I'm so worried about.

It definitely does drastically effect the roles we play/played but those roles are much more fungible at this point. They may not have been before, but they are definitely more fluid now.

It makes it more confusing but at the same time more precise. It lets us explain discrepancies in individuals roles or behavior. What other way would you differentiate sexuality (physical), from everything else (cultural/social)? Without that extra dimension you don't have a way to describe discrepancies in different cultures that also share the same biological sexes.

Again (I need to repeat myself because you seem a bit thick-headed) I am not questioning their rights. I am questioning their claims. — Harry Hindu

I have a good friend that considers himself transgender. I was always wondering how to ask him about those feelings without it coming off as derogatory. It feels like it would be taboo to question this, as it seems any questioning about their "feelings" (for lack of better word) is a step towards non-acceptance (bigotry).

I am sorry but I don't understand the point you are laying out here. Gender is based as much on your behavior and clothes as it is on your physical appearance. In fact, the brain process first the physical appearance to determine whenever or not you can call the person in front of you she or he. Then the rest comes after. — Terran Imperium

Gender: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
Sex: either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.

Again, look over literature regarding gender. They are different things, shown by the bolded text. The brain processing physical appearances first doesn't mean they are the same thing. It is how I can be a male (sexually) and dress/act like a women (gender). So I am taking on the physical role of a man, while taking on the social/cultural role of a women. This cannot be that confusing.

Please review feminist literature and then form your opinion on the idea of gender. Gender is not being "redefined", it is/was already defined but you don't want to accept the common definition. How is that being open minded? Physicality is not necessarily male any more than being prim and proper is intrinsically female. That is the core of many of the movements that define the norms we see as gender(s). Throughout most of history sex and gender have fit like a glove, but by definition they do not have to, and we have hit that moment in history. It is no longer as necessary to be physically fit and able to lift 100 kg as a man to survive, and it is no longer necessary to hold onto certain stereotypical ways women acted, as the end all be all. That is why the idea of gender exists, to delineate between what is physical (sex), and what is not (gender).

Your point about language is very interesting but that doesn't disprove the validity of their claims. It will be interesting to see a possible work around for this. In many other languages, my native tongue, Serbo-Croatian, we would have similar issues. But many others, English, the Sino group of languages, (among others) , don't have this issue.

I agree that it would be ludicrous to punish people for not referring to you in a specific way and would fight that. BUT, I would not fight someone kindly asking for me to refer to them a specific way. Then it is up to me to validate their request or not. Just like how I could refuse to call you the male pronouns (I'm assuming your male XD).

Transgender individuals making claims about what the differences between gender and sex are doesn't make their opinion any more or less valid/correct. They are not the same. If they were they would not have different names to describe the exact same thing.

I am aspiring to be a doctor and my view is set upon reality, upon science. To me, transgender people are delusional, not everyone will agree with me, of course, but objectively with the behavior that I saw with my eyes, the numerous ones in social media. They are delusional. — Terran Imperium

A few questions: Are you calling them delusional in their transgender-ism or in their support of the concept of gender through their transgender-ism? Sex and gender are not the same thing. When they reference their preferred pronouns they are asking (not enforcing) that you pay attention to their gender not their sex. That is why they are transgender, not transsexual.

Petty political squabbling, shitposting, memes, emojis, etc — John Doe

What is wrong with emojis? :cool:

I fail to understand how something being a Complex adaptive system takes it away from being a cause and effect system. The reasoning still seems to stand that if we knew all the components and their interplay, that we could determine (with a certain degree of certainty) the chance of agents acting a particular way. Heck, we don't know close to everything about the mind, sociologically, economics, psychology, et cetera, yet we still notice patterns and use them to predict many forms of behavior. We will only grow in that capacity (predicting) in the future. And even if we never are able to do the above, it won't be proof of our "free will". Whether we actually make choices or have them pre-chosen by the machine, we will still feel like it was the "I" doing it.

Hello and welcome to The Philosophy Forum! Hope you like it here! If you have any questions feel free to ask! : )

Well, it's always carrot AND stick isn't it? :) — gurugeorge

:cool: haha So true! :up: