Notice how you've actually called me names? Attacked me personally, while supposedly being all for the precise opposite of that? — Wosret

Read again. I gave you two versions. From your reply I surmise you prefer the second option, which was my point.

Which is probably why women aren't going to be as interested in philosophy, the hard sciences, or political groups, because they're all about brutal attacks of ideology. They're intellectual blood sports. — Wosret

What nonsense. Women are interested in these things but they're not interested in discussing them in the format that testosterone fuelled apes like you dominate and equate rational arguments with "brutal attacks" and "blood sports". Bloody hell.

What nonsense. Women are interested in these things but they're not interested in discussing them in a format that tends towards aggression. The fact that you equate rational arguments with "brutal attacks" and "blood sports" is an indication to how you approach discussions as a fundamentally adversarial process, which isn't a necessity.

Which approach do you prefer?

Well, first off, as you indicate, the law of non-contradiction applies to propositions, not the world outside our heads. Not knowing the difference between those two is one of the primary mental, or at least intellectual, disorders displayed on this forum. — T Clark

Except that our theories and statements about reality include such intuitions, which are propositions itself. The law of non-contradiction also holds true in relativity theory provided they are statements made with regard to a single reference frame. A plane cannot move both forward and backward from me at the same time when it's travelling in a straight line from my point of view for instance.

I wasn't invited, and I would have enjoyed it (assuming he does it well). — Bitter Crank

But you're neither funny nor female. Zing... >:)

If you look at Franz de Waal's work on chimpanzees, for example, you'll see how closely chimp politics resembles our own. You seem to think you can reprogram human behaviour from the top down and somehow distill out desires that have a natural basis. You can't. You can only repress them. — Baden

Except that with chimpanzees it's acceptable to do what Harry Weinstein did and for humans it isn't. And women, all other things being unknown, do prefer strong winners. Humans are a bit more complex though. In a relationship a caring personality is far more valued. I've never seen a female chimp complain about sexual harrassment either. So Frans de Waal's work comes a way but then it doesn't.

Actually something like that happened to me once as well, although I'm not certain whether it was a girl or a guy as I was grabbed in the balls from behind.

Also had a gay guy come on to me rather strongly that made me feel uncomfortable by touching me and trying to hold my hand. When I said: "I'm sorry but I'm a heterosexual." His reply was: "That's what they all say the first time." Bloody annoying.

I just voted. I haven't been exploited nor have I exploited others. I have had a few female friends who disclosed to me they have been sexually harassed, threatened and/or hit. It's shockingly pervasive even in a relatively progressive society as the Netherlands. 45% of women in the Netherlands have been sexually assaulted, compared to 33% average in Europe. That difference is explained by a high participation of Dutch women in labour (more risk at work) and Dutch women being more vocal about it.

The good development I see is that women reporting this seem to be taken seriously more often than not as opposed to being suspected of having ulterior motives or having asked for it. Other than that it's often embarrassing to be associated with men.

The truth is that I was just being frank, and the way that I chose to do so was a stylistic irrelevance. — Sapientia

Function over form. Here's Martin Luther King's speech in a frank way: racism should end.

Not very inspiring. Form is as important as content in communication.

I was a bit disappointed by how streetlightx, Baden and Thorongil were communicating with each other in the gun control thread and I hold moderators to a higher standard than posters. That was tone too. As a former moderator though I recognise how hard it is to manage tone towards someone you deeply disagree with and believe actually leads to suffering in the world.

Why would you think it would be worse with gun control? Have you ever considered that it would be better? If people can't get hold of guns (and ammo) then how can they use guns to commit crimes? — Michael

I think you missed the irony of his post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.944a791e15bb — Thorongil

So 79% uses a fire arm that doesn't belong to them but rather someone else who was a legal owner. But if there were no legal owners because guns would be prohibited, wouldn't that suggest this percentage would be much lower as well?

They literally just said they supported potential regulations on bump stocks. — Thorongil

And they're against a prohibition. Why "regulate" something that can only lead to ownership of illegal guns?

I just read that the NRA is against a prohibition of bump stocks. Bump stocks can convert semi-automatics to fully automatics, the latter are prohibited.

Why allow a product the sole purpose of which is to create something entirely illegal?

If foreign wire rod manufacturers produce cheaper because they are subsidised you have an actual problem. If they are producing cheaper because of economic circumstances, implementing anti-dumping duties only causes product prices to rise for consumers and would support an inefficient production sector which is a drain on resources that could be better allocated elsewhere.

Some people want words to mean what they mean. — John Days

Words mean how people use them. They're not static. Radical, for instance, used to mean going back to the root. Now it means extreme. So what you want isn't there and it will never be there. Move on.

And the "legal" was supposed to be logical, autocorrect. You know how it is.

Is a condition. If the condition is not met, you will say it is not unconditional. It makes no sense. — John Days

You're being obtuse. I've never said it isn't a condition I explained people aren't as literal as you're being when using the phrase. So rail against the world for being "illogical" or move on and accept that unconditional love means something else in the English language than its legal meaning.

By your standard a "sick joke" can't exist either.

So, does unconditional love mean what you say it means or how people use it?

This is a simple case of you being too literal.

Normal people when they talk about unconditional love mean that they give love without expecting something in return, e.g. it's non-transactional. We can debate whether that's an accurate use of language but should we care?

But then feminists say that a men's rights movement is not needed; men's rights activism is misogynistic; "There is no misandry"; etc. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Barring anecdotal circumstances to the contrary, a social movement for men's rights would indeed be Bullshit considering the amount of benefits already bestowed on men, at least in typical Western societies. It seems to me you're confusing the existence of some misandrists with misandry being a social problem. It really isn't and to suggest otherwise as a man is weak (see what I did there).

Do you think my point was to divine what she truly meant or to explore different interpretations? You missed my point and that makes it all the more likely you missed hers.

But, according to the aforementioned quote, men should be strong, men should sacrifice their bodies, men should be assertive, men can't be trusted with kids, a man should have a job and a woman should not have to support him, etc. are the result of our hate for women. In other words, condoning unfairness against men as natural is a sign of the oppression of women. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I don't agree with how she worded it but if I interpret it charitably I suppose her point is that it all boils down to gender stereotpying (instead of mysogyny) and that's a result of juxtaposing men and women. So when I say "women should be [x]" its corollary "men should be [y]" is probably implicit and vice versa. (Don't cry cuz you're a guy --> I'm a girl so I can cry).

If she didn't mean that, I'll have to disagree with her conclusion. On the other hand, it could be an exercise in purposefully interpreting these situations from an overt women centric point of view as an active rebellion against a society that is still mostly male centric.There's also some sense to it if we accept most social power still resides with men and as such all gender expectations are by and large imposed by men as a result of how they view women; the expectations on men resulting from this would then be entirely our own doing. It's not insensible to me but if that's her point it wasn't clear.

I wonder if you've considered a related issue. As I see it, people are largely attached to gender and racial identity. Many women (including my wife) take a certain pleasure in being non-male. It's part of their identity. I think it's the same with race. So on the one hand we have this fantasy of the individual without gender and color and on the other hand we have identities constructed in terms of positive stereotypes. — 0af

I suppose the difference is between asserting one's identity freely and having it imposed by society through subtle and not so subtle expectations and (moral) norms. Only when we're capable of letting go of harmful expectations can a person be free to have their own identity.

It does make me wonder if and to what extent many people would then feel lost? Do we need some level of gender stereotyping to socially function?

You're right of course. I was imagining it more along the lines of the most votes buy the representative and then he should stay the course to do what I bought him to do. If he doesn't, I'll buy someone else next round and thus he's sold again (shipped out of parliament). A bit obscure and remote from how we usually imagine buying and selling of politicians. (Y)

Thanks for the compliment by the way. I always feel my English is idiosyncratic. Recently I was working closely with an English QC and we were saying the same thing but he was so much more eloquent. It's amazing how big the gap is when it comes to how a person lives his native language and when it's learned from abroad.

Well, first of all, I would suggest we get there by getting rid of democracy, which has become, and will continue to be ruled by politicians who are bought and sold by corporations. — Agustino

Politicians should be bought and sold; that's their role. Except the currency should be votes not money. I agree with your issue about corporatism, which is a perversion of capitalism. I'd personally start with ending limited liability for all for profit corporations. If something is sufficiently beneficial for society as a whole and not run for profit, it can receive the gift of limited liability. Solves useless daytrading (or HFT nowadays) at the same time.

I'd like to keep democracy though, thank you.

If, indeed, culture imprints these classifications and if we become aware of the subconscious and rationally correct ourselves, does it also become our duty to enable others access to this awareness? Such cultural phenomenon is a product of our learned behaviour and social interaction and communication develops these classifications that in turn transmit these perceptions. It would seem that tolerance to such behaviour would make one just as culpable. — TimeLine

I'll have to respectfully disagree for the simple fact that it is so omnipresent that a certain tolerance is requirement to function in society. It's in everything; why do we dress the way we dress? Why do we have make up, botox, facelifts, breast implants? Plus, why not adhere to all these gender stereotypes when it works for a significant part of society (beautiful women, rich white men, powerful athletes, popular movie stars, etc. etc.)? You cannot expect people to wage that uphill battle all the time.

Nope. The complex psychological processing that configures and influences cognition is enabled with perceptual plasticity and provides us with the capacity to transcend the limitations of cultural transmissions. We can help it.

People are or for a moment become aware that there is something deeply wrong with their environment, but they continue following anyway until eventually they go into some auto-pilot mindlessness and completely forget that they have a mind. That is a choice. That can be helped. And that is why you can think again when considering that princess sweater. — TimeLine

I think we agree. When I say we cannot blame them; I refer to the subconscious judgments and classifications we render as a result of such cultural imprint. Once we're made aware of the subconscious we do have a duty to rationally correct ourselves. If we then don't there is culpability indeed.

EDIT: I have the impression that quite a few people also blame (white) men for having those subconscious judgments and classifications in the first place, which is why I raised the point.

Said Proudhon wrongly. Without property, there can be no theft, because what's there to steal? So quite the contrary, property itself cannot be theft, but rather it is the opposite of theft. — Agustino

Private property is theft. There. I fixed it.

Well what would economic power equate with then? Economic power means the power to decide how capital is allocated and to what uses it is allocated. — Agustino

Whose capital? Surely only your own? But we see economic power expands itself and coerces other actors to accept the burden of costs that should reasonably not be borne by them.

Take for example Exxon Mobil's standard terms and conditions for contractors who supply and administer additives to increase the yield of oil fields. If the contractor discovers a better compound or a better method that increases the yield, the IP to that is owned by Exxon Mobil. If you don't accept the general terms and conditions, they'll go to another contractor. Not exactly fair or reasonable since its the contractors work and knowledge that is leveraged to develop the new compound or method but if you have sufficient economic power, fair and reasonable don't play a role any more.

Being bright and successful isn't sufficient to make you influential. For example, I think I am not that stupid of a person, but I generally don't have the patience to cultivate the long-term relationships and make the necessary compromises that are often required to be influential quickly. Influence is much more a factor of having the right connections - OR - having a lot of capital (economic power). That's why many people who enter politics end up corrupt for example, even if they start out honest. Gaining the right connections often requires compromise. — Agustino

I suppose my choice of words that it's "natural" was bad. I mean to say that I would consider it far more appropriate that a bright and successful person has influence in his area of expertise because of his being bright and successful than because of the money he has (or the connections he might have). On a personal level, where money doesn't matter, this is precisely how it works: if I have a question about houses I ask my friend who's an architect not the one that's a DJ (not even if he was David Guetta). Money has become the measure for all things but it's a bad one for most things that matter.

I'm pro-rich in the sense that people should have the opportunity to be rich and be economically powerful if they earn it fairly. — Agustino

Why should being rich equate with (economic) power? Bigger corporations use that power to externalise costs to smaller suppliers or customers which is an expression of economic power but has nothing to do with a fair and equitable distributions of risks and profits.

I consider it natural that a bright and successful person has influence due to the fact that he's bright and seems to know what he's doing business wise. I'm not sure whether that should automatically translate to influence in fields where his knowledge and expertise are not a given. In a society where the "economic reality" trumps reality, economic power is too much to be awarded for the simple status of being rich (which, btw, more often than not is a matter of luck).

Also, I'd like to add that this isn't something you can blame people for as this is how culture imprints on our minds. We can't really help it. We can blame people when they are aware to choose not to take it into account. So maybe we should think again when considering that "princess" sweater or another book that has a white hero in it for your kids.

Fortunately there are many, many women out there who don't buy into all this conspiracy theory man-hate disguised as the endless war on misogyny. — 0af

Interestingly enough I don't read a conspiracy in it if you refer to the type of article that the OP referred to. It seems pretty obvious white men in Western countries have had it very comfortable for quite some time historically speaking. And although many men are aware of that historical inequality and try to remedy existing inequality, a lot of how we treat each other is so automatic and ingrained; implicit association tests reveal this time and again. Even when we rationally pursue equality we are confronted with media that perpetuates gender stereotypes (and racist stereotypes).

So women can't be strong, should look pretty, should let men talk but may be interrupted themselves, should take care of kids more than men, and still get paid less etc. etc. I don't think we should be defining it as mysogyny but it's definitely socially harmful as it condones a lot of unfairness as "natural".

And you can test this in your surroundings. Invariably, if you talk about successful women at some point their looks will be discussed. Last month I wanted to talk about Dafne Schippers (a successful Dutch athlete) and one of the first things one of my female colleagues said: "Yeah, she looks pretty good". Really? That comes before being the world champion for the 200 m sprint this year? I consider that pretty telling as it's not just an anekdote but happens constantly in various ways. The message to our kids is: it doesn't matter what you do if you're a girl as long as you look pretty. As a father of one, I find that highly worrying.

I agree, but are current programs the most cost-effective way to get people healthy? I agree that health is absolutely necessary, but we have to determine the most efficient way to provide it. We shouldn't just squander money because it goes to health. — Agustino

I agree we should preferably go about it as efficient as possible. I'll also note that sometimes principles cost money. How about accessibility for all, for instance? From an insurance perspective not very efficient... but then should a person with a prior condition be left out to dry?

That is true, but relative to their income I suppose they'd be about the same. A poor person currently manages with say $1300/month. So a growth of $100 in that $1300 would be appreciated, it might just make the difference between being capable to afford enough for monthly expenses. — Agustino

Uhmmm... that's 8.35 USD per month not 100 USD per month.

Now a rich person would probably not appreciate a growth of 20K that much, because well - what is 200K? Probably affords another vacation, or something of that nature. I agree that the rich don't "need it" as much, but that isn't to say that it should forcefully be taken from them. Again, I think the rich have a duty to give back to society, and they should decide how to do this themselves.

Likewise, it's yearly sums. And the forceful taking... of course it's enforced but there's good reason for him to pay taxes; he uses a lot of government funded assets and services. As a community we tend to agree that those worse off should be helped and government is much more effective at helping the community (it's supposed to serve) than a multitude of charitable organisations with narrow themes may manage. Additionaly, a government can be held accountable and can be influenced by those actually receiving benefits - instead of things being dictated by the person giving money.

So by and large, it's much more likely to have just and fair results. Of course inefficiencies arise due to all sorts of processes.

Finally, I'll note that a lot of research on inequality shows that it's unhealthy for a community to have too large discrepancies between its members. There's also plenty of literature on how GPD growth results in wealth increase for a limited number of people. It's not apparent to me why CEOs nowadays should earn 271 times as much as the least paid employee, especially when put in a historical perspective. See for instance:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/opinion/leonhardt-income-inequality.html?_

I'd probably care a lot less about how these tax brackets were made up if the starting point of income inequality is not already this large. I mean, people talk about the entitlement generation when it's people looking up to the government for benefits but if I look at salary expectations of CEOs nowadays I think we've got it backwards.

Of course you need to cut inefficient spending on Medicare, Health & Unemployment/Labour - that's more than half the budget! — Agustino

It's not a given its inefficient. Healthy people are productive people.

Did you not read that 26.9% of the richest 20% will actually see their taxes go up?
Did you not read that 22% of the next bracket of rich will see their taxes go up? — Agustino

We did and the converse is still true; the majority of the rich get a tax break and that break is significantly bigger than that for poorer people while the rich need it the least. The 380 USD increase for poor people is comparatively tougher on them as they are already on a tight budget.

In addition, poorer people use more of the programs that are being cut to fund these tax cuts so they are confronted with increased spending to make up for the disappearance of those programs as well and those 100 USD for the 64.5% will not offset that in the least.

In short, poor people are shafted even if their income taxes might be lower as they lose access to several programs, while rich people by and large will get richer. Compared to a poor person who gets 100 USD every rich person gets 200 times as much without working any harder. I don't see the fairness in this.

I'm sure the word "solidarity" isn't really in the average US citizens' vocabulary but we tax richer people at higher rates because they can carry the burden. These tax breaks and defunding of projects is hurting poor people and it's not doing much for rich people (anything earned above 75,000 USD has very little effect on happiness). Meanwhile, I'm not sure what defunding EPA is supposed to accomplish. In the short term I suppose it could fuel some growth due to lax regulations but in the long run you're going to have to clean up the mess you make. It's only so much pollution the environment can absorb before we suffer the consequences. It's all very clear there's no concern about the future and future generations.

Morally it's not fine, but they're free to do it. However, if you want to speak about homosexual marriage, now that would be a problem since religious institutions cannot be forced to marry homosexual people. — Agustino

Are you Catholic? If not, replace "Catholic" with whatever is the appropriate term:

What if the Catholic church approves of gay marriage at some point in time? How does that affect the morality of same sex marriage?

But is being on friendly terms with others what is required to get things done? I dare say that at the highest levels of politics, most people there can be manipulated based on their own selfish desires and greed, such that even if they don't like you, you can get them to do what you want so long as you dangle the carrot. — Agustino

Being on friendly terms to get things done is not a prerequisite, but its reverse, not being on bad terms with everyone is.

I think the system in the US invites that moneyd interest are better represented than others and as a result the system doesn't lead to fair and just results. This is a problem in most modern democracies to some extent but not an issue of democracy per se. I don't think it's a character flaw but a systemic one and those that "play" the game best will float to the top. So you have a system that rewards cronyism and nepotism but can you blame people for playing in accordance with the rules?

Precisely, democracy fails as a system, it's a bad political system. — Agustino

But that's not the conclusion I would reach. I said we have trouble with it but then it's an imperfect world and I'm not expecting perfect solutions. It's a constant (and should be a constant) debate where the balance between our obligations to society and our personal freedom is. For instance, one of the most important discussions to be had, politically speaking, is about positive and negative freedom. The US has a very strong emphasis on negative freedom; e.g. non-interference from the State (and others) in people's choices. I think it misses an important point that some people simply don't have choices; dead-poor people don't choose to starve. So what about the State's role to create opportunities for its members? We consider it natural that within the family unit we create opportunities for each other to flourish, friends too, maybe our neighbours but it pretty much ends there. It's pretty much normal to take care of each other at that level. Not so much at the state or national level, which is why we have so much trouble working together. One side is racist, the other are pansy leftists, one side are immoral conservatives, the other immoral progressives.

Now, if I look within my own family my brother is a bit of a xenophobe bordering on racist, my mum is conservative on cultural matters and I'm a pansy leftist progressive. We still get along and take care of each other because they're not only the failings I mentioned (and I'm not just the failings they might see either).

So democracy is complicated by abstraction away from natural relationships. You can compensate for that but it requires less elected positions and instead appointees from society (much like jury duty).

It is really beyond reason that a spiritual person can consider democracy - the rule of the stupid masses - where rulers are temporary, and not in fact rulers at all, but rather thieves and abusers - as an acceptable system of government. Democracy is a disease, which very likely is close to the root of the loss of spiritual values. Democracy - whatsoever is immoral is the product of democracy. Debauchery is a very democratic affair afterall - it is indeed somewhat difficult to imagine a non-democratic man in a night club. — Agustino

Just because the US democratic system doesn't work, doesn't mean democracy doesn't work. It's interesting how you insist on social conservatism and then disparage democracy totally. In my experience (local) democracy is almost the only method to ensure social cooperation at the local level. E.g. that it's not only the liberal "atoms" with their individual rights. But we are individuals and we do live in a society and we're having a hard time reconciling the two at a national level. To me, the abortion issue is ultimately a decision of the woman, because it's her body and her life that is most deeply affected. So if I'm going to write a law on this, I'll make sure the woman cannot be forced to keep the baby if she doesn't want to. Ethically, everybody involved should have a good long and hard think about what to do before any decision is made but I can't make that law.

Also, a lot of socialist thinkers have the same critique of liberalism as you do.

Since this is about Trump; from where I'm standing (in the Netherlands) he looks completely ineffectual. He's irritated and annoyed so many people everywhere, he won't be able to get anything done. Inept.

Reproduction is an act involving three people and only two of them have consented. — Andrew4Handel

Not unless it's a threesome and even then this sentence is logically circumspect.

This. I work in the financial industry and the energy cost along with the increased time it will take the more people make use of the same blockchain system, is why the blockchain has very serious issues. Miners aren't regulated either, so theoretically, if someone can resolve 50+% of the block, it's possible to corrupt that block.

It's basically overkill to have it fully distributed. Why not a ledger distributed among a few (3 is enough!) and the ability to check it publicly?

The Google video indicates that approximately 2.5 billion people don't have a Bank account and they have no way to transfer funds currently, which severely limits their chances for economic improvement. mobility and equality. — Cavacava

Check out Venmo. There's other payment methods out there that are similar.

Stuff you'd like to say but don't since this is a philosophy forum. "Worthless." — Noblosh

Maybe some fun can be had? I liked Pneumenon mention of Sapienta's name for instance. Had me chuckle.

On the previous forum I started a thread for funny nicknames of other members based on their handle. We had fun with that one too. Has nothing to do with philosophy of course, which is why it is in the off-topic section.

Thanks. I actually knew the difference in meaning but probably wasn't paying attention!