The origins of humanity is a more challenging question to answer, but as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:22, every person born in the lineage of Adam has sinned, hence falling under judgment and needs the salvation which Christ offered. Hebrews 11 explains this very well. It is by faith that those before Christ received redemption. As for taking this amount of time, we must acknowledge the course of events in the Scriptures. There had to be something to set Christ apart from the masses, which comes in one way of the many prophecies. Mostly, I think this can be because our ways are not God's ways. — Waya

I see. I was more wondering why it took so long for God to realize things were going down the wrong path. Since, as you mentioned, every person born under Adam's lineage already sinned. Corroborating man's knowledge of the humanity's origins and Genesis's account makes this all very difficult/incompatible it seems. Either Genesis is correct or not. If it isn't, then why did it take so long? Pre-history was a lot longer than the current era of Homo sapiens sapiens.

Accepting grace means to repent of wrongdoing and allow the death of Christ to pay for our sins, and believe that He rose from the dead on the third day, conquering death and sin. — Waya

I see. : )

Apologizes for the late response.

Fascism too (which was admired by many "progressives") was another example of the same sort of general idea. Huxley's Brave New World is a much more accurate depiction of the dystopia we've been in danger of getting into than Orwell's book (though of course Orwell's ideas are relevant too.) — gurugeorge

THANK YOU. haha Finally someone mentions that. After reading both I always felt the same way. The power of our weakness for pleasure is much more controllable than humanity's weakness for fear, instilled by the same authoritarians in Orwell's 1984. Instead of lumping everyone into one lower class controlled by a big state, it is much easier to use multiple classes as buffers to each other and possible uprising. To me the middle class has always represented that. In the face of revolution they will be the least eager to revolt, just like the inhabitants in Brave New World couldn't leave their soma behind.

Anyways, thank you to everyone in this thread. Some really cool observations from many angles. It's terrifying but somewhat hopeful at the same time! I wonder how far humanity will go... Not feeling that optimistic seeing so many enjoying the "wave" so much. But maybe that's the point... Schopenhauer's "will to power" seems really on point about now.

frank I will reply here because I don't want to pull Agu's thread out too thin.

Forgiveness:
Often the Christian God is thought of as a God of love and forgiveness, but just as often it is forgotten that He is the God of justice and holiness as well.
Hence, when I consider forgiveness, Christ's work comes to mind. By no means was it necessary for God to offer a solution to the law that cannot be kept, but He did so anyway by the sacrifice of Christ. He died that we may have life, yet refusing this grace brings death. As does refusing antivenom after a toxic snake bite. — Waya

Does that forgiveness extend to the hundreds of thousands of years prior to Christ's birth (as far as Homo sapiens has existed) or is it only afterwards? If so, why did it take so long? Or am I misunderstanding? What does accepting this grace mean?

Yeah, I think I see your point now. I was referencing extreme versions. — Waya

Ah, I see. : )

I define theocracy as rule by a god. Humans are far too corrupted to act in place of God, so they are not really accurate in demonstrating what God wants.

True capitalism has never existed except in theory, being that it is the complete absence of governmental restrictions on trade. — Waya

Well... That is a peculiar way to define it in my opinion. Theocracy is meant to refer to the forms of government that existed like the definition I gave because those have actually existed. A god run government never has and likely never will so I don't know why you would be referencing that. More importantly, the types of governments that I described have existed and still do, whether or not you call them theocracies or not.

I don't think it mentions the absence of governmental restrictions on trade in the definition. But you are right that the form you are describing hasn't existed.

But why do they have a military? It is a prisoner's dilemma, a rat race, a constant fight to one-up each other out of fear and masculine pride.

How do we stop this? How do we convince the members of the militaries of the world to stop listening to their superiors and lay down their arms? — darthbarracuda

Yes, it is a prisoner's dilemma, which makes it difficult to go for an armistice even with the most rational agents on both sides. I don't think that has much to do with pride let alone why it is masculine. It is just necessary. It's beyond disappointing but humans were not created to understand out groups. There is way too much to lose to be the one caught trusting a little bit too much.

Either we make it that fighting a war is much worse than not doing it (which we have gotten closer to with nuclear arms) or we develop telepathy. Who knows, we might evolve in some way that allows us to tap into our more sympathetic prefrontal cortex. Even with these disappointing parts of human nature I always try and live by one motto, a motto I wish more would take seriously: "If you are courageous enough to fight in a war, perhaps you can muster the same courage to not engage in one." War has always seemed like the easy way out for me.

Yes, it is a necessarily evil. If you don't have one then the other sides that do take you out. So basically the prisoner's dilemma. The death penalties instituted within the military are mainly done to keep morale and to prevent desertion within the ranks.

Theocracy belongs in the same category as capitalism and communism; none of these have truly been executed in the absolute sense in the real world, nonetheless, the theory exists. Theocracy is rule by a god, not by the religion's leaders. Lots of superstitious people are easily manipulated into thinking that they are serving a god, but in reality, they serve another person. So until they can prove the existence and authority of their god, then they don't serve any god, but man. — Waya

Theocracy is defined as the rule of government by priests that act as a conduit for God or a god. That form of government has existed and still does. Whether or not they actually have God/god's authority is another thing. Also, Capitalism has been achieved in a sense. The capital is owned and controlled by private citizens, communism has never been achieved on any large scale.

Yes, they could "define" it as such, but as many disagree on who or what makes a god real, then they can't be true theocracies. I see most nations that claim to be ruled by a god as just a human government manipulating a superstitious people. — Waya

Then there would be no use for the word, as no governments has ever been able to meet that specification for a theocracy. A theocracy is a government run by the church leaders. Those countries are theocracy by that definition. Most? Don't you mean all? You can't even have the rule by clergy without people willing enough to listen to the "god given" mandates.

Human rights are necessary because all people are created equal. No one today lives in a theocracy. The rights are not evil, nor do they set good and evil on the same basis, rather, it demonstrates that humans have free will, as it is declared in Genesis. — Waya

Many African and Middle eastern countries could be defined as theocracies. It demonstrates that people have choices. Also, freedom of choice is not freedom of will.

Reading books may contribute to re-forming your character, your intelligence, knowledge and understanding, emotional and ethical responses, and your creative capacities in positive ways. Can gaming do this? If it can, then it would not necessarily be mere entertainment, killing time or distraction. — Janus

They most certainly can, as can any medium. It's just that the more popular games are the game described by the opening poster, @gurugeorge. There is an entire section of games that focus on role playing, or just tell stories with few "gameplay" elements. Some are basically interactive movies. The same criticism can be applied to all media to some degree. I do understand the concern though. You should ideally be using books, movies, visual novels, video games, really any form of art as inspiration for your creations or life, not just for pure entertainment.

Why can't I eat the yolk? if the egg is unfertillized there is no embryo, but there is still yolk. Perhaps study egg anatomy abit more if you assumed that the yolk was the embryo. — Tomseltje

You are going to tell me to study egg anatomy more even though you don't know why yolk is off limits? It is a gamete that is why. The white is not.

Sure, however, humans need to consume about 20 different amino acids their bodies can't make, it's very hard to consume the right quantities of these by merely eating plants. Though technically not entirely impossible. However it would include eating seeds wich means eating plant embryos. — Tomseltje

Supplemental/synthesized proteins would solve this. So you mean there is a chance? XD How do you think Jains survive? Many of them are fruitarians and even try and avoid harming bacteria/fungi if they can.

Na, you are off, its about 1500 kcal for women and 2000 kcal for men a day, however that is on average where most people don't live in extreme cold climates nor do intense physical labor. However, those guys at oil platforms easily burn about 8000 kcal a day some even up to 10000 kcal a day, a man living in the arctic with outdoor activities burns 5000 kcal a day with a body mass of 100 kg.
However, if you are going to set ethical goals for all humans, you should include them.
Besides, not many edible plants grow in the arctic, and its quite expensive to import them. So how are those people going to survive if they start following your ethics? — Tomseltje

It was a rough estimate going off the daily value recommended. For those people they can follow the high calorie diets or if they can't then we can make an exception for cases like that. They don't constitute a massive part of the population anyways. Moral systems should be flexible but adherable. No system is perfect or should be dogmatic in it's ways. We minimize suffering, not completely eliminate it. But for the average person it should be attainable. : )

In many cases it's unavoidable, Pollen are the gametes of plants, you are saying we can't eat them either? Going down that line means we can't eat honey either. Many gametes will die soon anyhow if they don't succeed finding the complementary gamete in time, so why can't we eat them? If a fish jumps on dry ground, with no possibility to get into the water again on its own, it sounds alot like you are arguing it's more moral to let it suffocate rather than killing it and eating it. Contrary to a morality derrived from the idea of minimizing suffering. — Tomseltje

I like the thoughts you put here. They are interesting questions but I don't really want to define my moral system as absolute or anything like that. Like I said in my last few sentences. The fish would be the same as the deer (or put it back in the ocean if you're close to it at that time). As long as you're not intentionally pulling fish you can eat it. XD Why can't we kill the gamete in that situation? Do we kill fish or anything knowing it will die eventually too? lol These interesting but narrow scenarios do not disprove or change anything about the core of my argument. In much the same way the "trolley problem" thought experiment doesn't invalidate other ethical codes. Extremely specific scenarios warrant extremely specific retorts. The overall ethic is still there. If it lives, do not kill it.

You don't plant gametes, you plant seeds. plant gametes are the male pollen and the female ova (eggcell). once a male gamete fertillized egg cell, a seed will develop. — Tomseltje

It was a figure of speech. I meant that gametes do not all have the right to be "planted". In plants, animals, or anything that reproduced. Not specifically in the ground. Planted like "right to become living diploid organisms". Sorry about that.

What do you mean suspended state? they may not be living as the plant only having half the genotype, but why assume their lives are inferior to their diploid counterparts? In some species the haploid part is the dominant mode of being. — Tomseltje

I assumed it because it makes my argument easier. LOL XD I'm not particularly sure where I would stand on this. They are technically as living as their other forms but giving them the same status makes things a bit more complicated in certain situations. I mainly wanted to get across the point that seeds don't deserve the right to always become their diploid form. So when you cut out the seeds of an apple you aren't expected to plant them all, only some. Thanks for your thoughts on this stuff by the way! : )

Following this logic it would also be ok to eat eggs, especially when unfertillized. Most fruits hardly contain any fat or protein apart from the seeds. And we should just let young childred die or what are they supposed to eat? Any idea how much fruit one has to eat in order to get to those 5000 kcal a day? 1 kg of apples has about 540 kcal. So one needs to eat almost 5 kg of apples a day to just get the calories needed. However 1kg of apples only has 4 gram protein, so even when eat 5 kg, you only consumed 20 gram protein, where you need at least 50 gram a day in a 1500 kcal diet.
Humans need about 2,2 gram protein per kg fatfree bodymass a day. So a 110 kg guy with 10% fat tissue needs about 220 gram protein a day. If only eat apples he needs to consume about 50 kg apples a day. but then one would have 10 times the calory intake needed. So what fruit diet are you suggesting? — Tomseltje

You can eat the egg white, which is equivalent to the endosperm in seeds, but not the egg yolk. Not to mention we can synthesis to supplement those proteins/lipids at this point in history. Plus there are several fruits that have fats/proteins in them (avacado, coconut, dates et cetera). 5000 kcal? Really? Last I checked the average human needed about 2000-3000 kcal. Anyone else can supplement the calories by other means or eat more. Plenty of those fruits have enough of those nutrients and most people don't hit those recommended numbers anyways and are fine.

Sponges and coral are sessile, however they still are multicelled organisms. I was talking about single celled sessile animals like the Vorticellidae.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorticella),
Gametes are living too, they just happen to be the haploid lifephase of a haplo/diplont organism. The 'if it lives, you shouldn't kill it to eat it" applies to eating fruit as well if you don't take out all the seeds and plant them. One can only prevent killing for food when scavenging, wich just means you let someone/something else do the killing for you, quite likely more brutal to the killed individue than had you killed it yourself. — Tomseltje

I see. Well, if their destruction is avoidable we should try to avoid them, but if not they fall under the same category as fungi and bacteria. Yes, gametes are living. So you just avoid eating them. That does not mean you have to plant every one. Just some. Gametes do not have the right to always be planted and some will die of old age anyways. They are in a suspended state, not living as the plant, animal was that produced them, so their rights are different in this case.

My main point is you still eat (part of) the plant, so it's not possible to survive without eating plants as you previously stated. It may be possible to live on fruit alone for a while, but not for a full human life. especially not if living in colder climates or doing hard labor requiring over 5000 kcal a day.
Besides, when is the last time you picked off all seeds of a strawberry and planted them? It may be possible, but even for most vegans too unpractical to be practicing all the time. — Tomseltje

It is not considered part of the plant. That is why it is called a fruit, as it does no harm to the plant if picked properly. It is not advisable for teenagers and younger children to have strictly adhere to a fruit diet, but it is definitely doable and sustainable for everyone else. Fruits contain enough sugar and fats to survive. Why would I need to plant all of them? All I need to do is ensure the survival of some of the seeds and the plants lineage is unharmed. Not all plants are guaranteed reproduction now and every seed doesn't need to germinate. Just as not every human gamete is protected or guaranteed reproductive success.

Glad we can at least agree on that part. So it's not wether the act of eating meat that is immoral but it's about wether the act of killing an animal in order to eat it is immoral. Seeing you are sensible about this one, perhaps you can come up with an answer on where to draw the line between wich animals are okay kill for food and wich aren't. Assuming you have no problem with killing single celled sessile animals that is. They don't provide meat, but they can still be quite nutricious, and will be killed in the process of digesting. (if you do have a problem with digesting single celled animals, I wonder how you prevent yourself from doing so, since they can't be seen without using a microscope) — Tomseltje

None of them are okay to kill for food. They have a right to live. Accidents are accidents. (see deer example), that is not intentional killing, which is the moral dilemma here. By sessile I assume you mean like sponges and coral? If that is the case then I would say they fit into the same category as other animals. If it lives, you shouldn't kill it to eat it, unless it is unavoidable (see bacterium/fungi).

Yeah. I should of quoted the section and it would have been clearer. I was referring to dual aspect theory. It is even more convoluted than the dualism and materialism.

I feel like my criticism was off and not worded properly. I meant to say that the current world is housed within the materialism of the 20th century. Which was influenced by the idealism you mentioned and those aforementioned philosophers in the 18/19th centuries. Mainly I was just try to say that while Materialism has been harmful in some ways, so has dualism. Thank you for correcting me about the history though. I should have been clearer. : ) An entire field, namely quantum mechanics, has started to venture into the realm of speculation in order to put together the parts and rectify some of the inconsistencies currently preventing a grand unifying theory from being formed. I have looked at that skeptically as well and wonder if it, similarly to topic we are discussing, has been slowed because the same people are looking at the same issues whilst trying to fit it into their pre-ordered templates. We need to challenge our conceptions to make headway. I think that's true of both questions of the mind and quantum mechanics.

That theory definitely seems to be violating any form of Occam's razor at the very least. I wouldn't throw it in the recycling bin but it's even harder to rationalize than any of the ideas we've discussed (as you mentioned). Thank you for answering. I know it can be tough to put together responses for all of these comments. XD But I appreciate it!

Perhaps he is decrying the fact that the future developments in the understanding of the mind is ASSUMED to fit within a materialist structure. There may in fact be a third 3rd substance that helps explains things or dualism may have something to say about it. The danger may lie in the forceful completion of this "puzzle". It's like having a puzzle and you're on the last piece. You're trying to figure out why it won't fit and are incessant on it fitting in that specific puzzle. When in fact it may fit better in another puzzle/paradigm.

With that said I agree with what you've said so far. Especially with regard to consciousness as a emergent state. There are several hypothesis that back up that claim. I would just caution anyone from taking such a hard line approach to this topic. That goes also to @George Cobau. Just because materialism doesn't solve everything now, does not mean that dualism is the complete answer. It is just another possibility.

This is an interesting topic and I thank your for your thoughts but I feel one of your criticisms for materialism is a little off. While I won't argue that materialism is free from blame in our current world, I wouldn't necessarily call dualism a healthier alternative. Within the materialist mindset the world of science was formed. So while both seem to be somewhat correct, in my opinion, they are both off, but on the right track. So to me Dualism has been harmful as well, and for most people the results of materialistic thought are available all around you. For Dualism it is not so evident.

Also, I would like to hear your thoughts on why you think Dual aspect theory is self-defeating. Thank you.

If you eat fruit you eat plant. You may not be killing the plant for it (though you are 'killing' the plants offspring in the fruit). Even if it were possible for humans to survive on eating fruit alone. — Tomseltje

Not if you plant the seeds. It is possible to survive on fruit alone, it is just more difficult ( and not advisable for young people ).

Why is eating the deer wrong if it doesn't cause any additional suffering for the deer? I should let the flies eat it instead because that's the moral thing to do? why is letting the flies eat it more moral than eating it myself?

If i eat fruit the eating of it is intentional as well, following that logic, eating fruit is just as immoral. — Tomseltje

Huh. Thought about this for a while. Consulted vegan friends and they, including myself, couldn't find anything wrong with eating an animal that died of natural causes or was killed unintentionally. I guess it's okay, you would just be hard pressed to find a lot of meat this way, not to mention that eating animals at old age is pretty unappetizing (from what I've heard).

What's the difference between euthanasia + cremation and euthanasia + consumption? — VagabondSpectre

Well, if you look at human and ask that question it should be clear what the difference is.

For the other parts of your comment I would suggest we just not raise animals then? I think that would be the proper thing if we really didn't want them to be killed by our hands. You can just let them go. : )

Indeed?... — Posty McPostface

XD By being I meant... What does being a murderer or gay person or anything have to do with the arguments you make? haha That was terrible on my end.

That's true here too. The arguments speak for themselves. Racists and murderers can make good arguments too. — T Clark

Really well put. I was thinking something similar. Why does being anything have to do with the arguments you make?

In response to @Posty McPostface. I don't know if you can know anything truly. I'm sure it's dangerous to just assume they are by their arguments. Perhaps the finger pointing derives from that feeling of antagonism. Everyone seems to be so willing to assume the worst in the other these days. Or maybe the people that do that are more vocal now? I don't know. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So, if i accidently run over a deer with my car and then eat it, and since the killing wasn't intentional it's ok?
I doubt humans can survive on eating funghi and bacteria solely as you seem to be claiming, while not accidently eating plants and/or animals. — Tomseltje

No, because eating the deer is intentional making it wrong. The killing was accidental, just like the insect flying in your mouth was.

I never claimed that. I said humans can survive on fruit.

Not really, there are many single celled plants and animals that are undetectable with the naked human eye. Perhaps you meant to restrict it to plants and animals with a body mass over 100 gram orso. Otherwise how are you going to prevent a bug from flying in your mouth when you yawn while riding your bike? — Tomseltje

Well first of all, it would have to be intentional. So that example wouldn't be. XD But, yeah. I meant it in a general sense. You can avoid eating plants or animals but still survive if you wanted to. : )

Edit: Mmmmmmmm, bugs in my mouth. :razz:

You cannot prove that the plant "wants" either in the same way you can't prove that the animal "wants". You are adding on to it your human feelings to justify why animals deserve to live and plants do not. I said nothing about their pain. I don't care about that. What I care about is why you put their right to live at their sentience. I read your paragraph about why, but it stops in the same place. Why does sentience give you the right to live and not just the fact that you are living?

Rocks do not reproduce. Plants, fungi, bacteria, animals all do. They are different. Plant and animal destruction for our livelihood can be avoided. Fungi and bacteria are nearly impossible to avoid. I consider all of those organisms to be worthy of life. By their existence they affirm their wanting of life. That is how I judge their right to live. Not by their sentience. Not by the possible pain they exhibit. But by the fact that they are living beings. If we could avoid killing all of them that would be nice. But fungi and Bacteria are practically impossible to avoid in order to live, so their consideration is impossible to accommodate. Animals and plants are not. That was my point. It is not pseudoscience. It is philosophy. I based it on philosophy, not on their ability to feel pain relative to each other (science). Or their sentience, relative to one another ( again a scientific claim).

And contrary to what I'm typing I am not a fruitarian. I am, hypocritically enough, an omnivore who eats meat rarely, that argues for fruitarianism because it seems to be the proper conclusion to any argument about living beings having the right to live. Not the Vegan: All living things should be respected, EXCEPT plants. Or Pescetarian diets that also modify their definitions to their liking. The extreme of that is not eating anything, not doing anything. Obviously that isn't possible and no one can live that way. The next best is fruitarianism. Where all living organisms are respected as much as humanely possible while still allowing for a normal life. (sorry to the Fungi and Bacteria : /)

I said nothing about the positive ends of veganism because I thought they were self evident. I agree that people should practice it as I see it as part of the path towards a fruit based life style. I just don't see why plants get left out.

Plant- Living (can avoid)
Animal- Living (can avoid)
Fungi- Living (can't avoid killing if I want to live a normal life)
Bacteria- Living (can't avoid killing if I want to live a normal life)
Rock- Not living=irrelevant

If it lives, it's wrong to kill it. That's it. I don't care if it is sentient or feels pain.

As @Tomseltje, mentioned above, many animals don't "want" either or have the ability to do any of the things you mentioned. I want to know why you put the line at sentient beings rather than further down the line at plants. I assume most don't because 1) they haven't even considered plants and and/or 2) if they have they find it completely impractical and a cognitive dissonance forms in order to feel fine with eating plant life.

I don't put it on bacteria or mold because it is utterly impossible to avoid harming those organisms. Many are microscopic and their destruction cannot be avoided. Not just in eating, but in doing anything we normally do. That is why I don't include them. Many Jains try and include them as well but I find that impractical and very very limiting to human life. I would include them in my philosophy if I could but it is impossible to do so ( as of now ) . We don't base philosophies around completely impractical modes of acting. (or at least we shouldn't, in my opinion)

EDIT: I mainly want to know because I feel like "sentient beings are a no-no line of argument" to be very exclusive and does not respect life as much as it should. We are the arbiters of who lives and who dies. The plant says, "I'm alive too!" and gets shut down because it isn't "sentient" enough. Why does sentience only give you the right to live? Many philosophies saw this as a hypocrisy and choose not to ignore those organisms as well.

Because this is what immoral actions are based upon. Causing unnecessary harm. Causing harm to life implies that the life has the capability to perceive harm. If it cannot perceive harm, such as a plant or a rock, we do not have an obligation to it in the same way we would toward a sentient being that CAN perceive harm. — chatterbears

Plants are not rocks though. They reproduce. They function in all of the same ways as a meat based organism does, but without the nervous system. And judging by your response to my lab meat question, you think the same? To me avoiding harm is just avoiding the unnecessary end of your existence ( or genealogy). You move away from being butchered because you want to continue on living and reproduce. The plant wants the same as it is a living organism, except it can't moved (in most cases) . It may not scream in pain, but it presumably wants to avoid the same fate. Why do some living organisms get that benefit while others do not? A nervous system seems to be an arbitrary way to measure their right to life.

Many fruits still grow on trees, in which you still have the same affect on plants that Vegans would have. But again, you'd have to provide some data that Fruitarians cause less harm than Vegans. But even so, I don't think you can sufficiently benefit from a diet consisting entirely of fruits. You would need to include nuts, seeds and vegetables with every meal because they will provide the fat and protein you need. They will also help slow down any blood sugar spikes that come from eating only fruit. — chatterbears

Many Fruitatarians only eat fruit that has fallen naturally. From a scientific perspective fruits are allowed because you are benefiting the plant by eating the endosperm and not harming the plant at all. You are promoting their reproduction. Nuts, seeds are actually considered fruits so you would be fine on that end. If you don't consider them fruits then you will have a hard time meeting the nutritional needs otherwise (especially if you are younger). But I wasn't really arguing about the pragmatics of eating only fruits. I was just trying to follow the argument to its conclusion. The fruit is the only part of any organism that we can eat that won't interfere with their reproduction directly. Which I previously established as my basis for being. Since both plants and animals reproduce they are living and therefore should be treated the same, regardless of their nervous systems. : )

Such as lab meat? Yeah, I don't see a problem with that. Since no pain, suffering or killing was involved, I don't find it wrong. — chatterbears

:up:

It is to say the least unfortunate that so many millions had to die to demonstrate the pants-on-head-retarded fatuousness of the ideology. — gurugeorge

Of what ideology? The USSR and Communist China were state capitalist. None of their economic or social ends were communist ( as Marx described it), nor were they by anyone's definitions. They used propaganda to get their power ( a state that controls the means of production), and their complete control leading to a failed state.

I agree on the AI you mentioned above however. Humans are incapable of replicating leaders. A benevolent ruler has no guarantee of leaving behind wise/benevolent leadership in their passing. An AI would solve this issue. It would also most likely be in a world with huge amounts of surplus for all. Where maybe working really hard would be rewarded, but that hard work would not be the norm or necessitated. A far away place indeed.

and insults are less contaminating that a wad of moist fecal matter in hand. — Bitter Crank

Most of the time. haha

It still takes a lot for a person to be willing to engage with people you know will start throwing the second you challenge their suppositions. Especially when you wonder if it is even worth your time. You make a good point though. Millions of years of evolution and we still find that urge way too compelling, even among the more 'socialized' ones. We once had stones, now we have nuclear arms. :meh:

I just read your argument after typing mine. XD Apologizes if I echoed the last part of your comment. I agree with with your points though! : )

First of all, why does it matter that plants can't suffer? Why does that entail the forfeiture of their existence to us or other organisms? A few out there, mostly those that follow Jainism practice Fruitarianism. That seems to be the most rational form of following through any argument that pushes for avoiding destroying living organisms. Veganism seems to be not specific enough. Oh, meat producing organisms are protected, but not ones that produce plants for us to eat?

Second, if we were able to create an organism that had no nervous system and did not suffer but was made of meat. Would it be okay to eat that meat? Just wanted to see what others thought.

The denial that we have individuality is, in my opinion, a way of obscuring mortality and our freedom. It's inauthentic and doesn't solve the problem as much as it simply dismisses it. — darthbarracuda

What problem is there to be solved though? It is rather peculiar to me that our need for acceptance, remembrance, meaning also coincides with what is best for life to continue, more directly our genes. Is our meaning separate from that? An extension? Do we control our genes or do they control us? I am very much enthralled with the idea that we are simply just rationalizing everything in accordance to our genes. Because if we didn't have these "desires", "dreams", "teleologies" to chase we simply wouldn't have survived. It doesn't seem like our "individuality" matters at the end of the day. It still feels like a justification of our genes, not "our" actually wants and needs. Fittingly, I suppose I'll quote the namesake of the opening poster: "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills". I don't see where individuality fits in this template or what this problem actually is.

Also: +1000000000 for mentioning Becker. Love his work. : )

The fact that we don't give other humans the rights list above by above should tell you how "universal" they are. Humans have colonized other humans when it comes to getting what they want. Humanity is very hypocritical to put it bluntly. In an ideal world we might organize rights by the capacity to feel pain or something along those lines. But even that ideal is a bit iffy to say the least.

If we assign those deaths to capitalism, we still don't have quite a holocaust there, with a holocaust being a unit of mass death equalling about 6 million people. Those victims should be remembered, but they don't make it to the top of our list of human failures. Communism sits squarely in that position. This isn't controversial. — frank

But it was already determined that those examples of "communism" were far from what Engels and Marx described. So putting it on "communism" in the case of Mao and Stalin is actually putting it on state modulated capitalism, not communism as described by Marxism. The vast majority of the deaths in those regions was a combination of bad science (Lysenkoism) that spread to China, on top of droughts in those regions (especially China). The one very good thing about Pure Capitalism is the split responsibility inherent. If your crop fails, you still might not starve because others don't use the same methods, and thus don't have their crops failing. If everything is under state control (State Capitalist) and they all follow the same bad science then that leads to mass famine. This is what happened in those "communist" countries, which caused the starvation of millions. It is a warning against Authoritarianism, and not diversifying, not against the failure of "communism". As was mentioned by others, Marx and Engels would be appalled at the so called "communism" practiced by the USSR and ROC.

No.

Marx and Engles would have been horrified to have seen Stalin and Mao; how "communism" had been hijacked by a system of State Capitalism. — charleton

FINALLY. Someone mentions it. Thank you. It was State Capitalist, yet everyone says it was a failure of communism. Most of the confusion with the word ( and in debates about communism vs capitalism) is from a failure to define terms. When you do, it is clear that the systems in China, USSR were not like Marx and Engels described.

↪yatagarasu if it’s dense i doubt i’ll Have the time to read through it till after my exams but I will certainly come back to them. Can you summarize them? What field do you work in if you don’t mind me asking? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Yes. Whenever you have the time. : ) Good luck with your exams! : D

Unfortunately, I cannot. Mainly because it would we a long-winded summation by any account. And that I risk the chance of distorting the original studies by my personal "bias". So I usually let people just read it and see if they agree with me. I am currently working at Thermo Fisher as a researcher, but I specialize in neurobiology.

Presumably brain structure, as shown in this study. — Michael

Exactly. The same is true of homosexual individuals brain structure.

↪yatagarasu the sources which you have mentioned don’t seem to link to each other and each has a considerable amount of personal bias towards the “CIS gender” side. — Count Radetzky von Radetz

Don't link to each other? Biased towards the "cis" gender side? What does any of that mean? The last two studies are just reaffirmations of the first one and are not available. The comprehensive ones are the other ones. Personal bias? How do you get that from any of those studies? I'm serious. Please explain. : )-

What evidence is this if you don't mind me asking? It would be interesting to have a look over that. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

This is a twin study about trans twins that are dizygotic vs monozygotic twins.
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html

A study that compared human stria terminalis neuron count in trans individuals vs cis individuals. Chung, WC; De Vries, GJ; Swaab, DF (2002). "Sexual differentiation of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis in humans may extend into adulthood". Journal of Neuroscience. 22 (3): 1027–33.

Follow up study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X06001462?via%3Dihub

Another follow up study to the first https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09513590400018231

There are a bunch more. Interesting stuff. Pretty dense though. And that is from someone that is actually in the field. : / Which leads me to think that this makes conversation impossible because most can't be bothered to actual look through the material. Thankfully most of it isn't put behind a paywall... Let me know what you think. All I know is that hormones are a POWERFUL thing.

People are born with mental disorders. I also mentioned that it has to do with how they were raised. Is there a study on trans people and how they were raised, like how their parents treated them as they developed (cross-dressing them, etc.). And at what point does a child actually choose his gender as opposed to it being chosen for them by their parents in how they treat them and interact with them? — Harry Hindu

I believe I already addressed this. Gender is a social construct so it is the interplay of "being born" with the tendency towards being confused about your gender and the environment influencing them. It's a choice because they could choose let it bother them or not. I don't think most people consciously choose it anyways. Most just "go with it" based on the influences of their parents and those around them. So I'm not sure if there is a real distinction to be made. When you feel like a "women" but you are sexually a man that is when you see an issue. That feeling comes from looking at the gender expectations and feeling like you "fit" into to that better.