I don't disagree with your observations, but having legally competent, but computationally suboptimal citizens excluded from a voice in how they're governed is essentially an oligarchy. And the slope sliding from meritocracy to plutocracy is an exceedingly slippery one.

Oh you don't need to explain Britain Trump to me, I get it. But the goal, in my opinion, when determining voter eligibility policy isn't to try to exclude legally competent simpletons, rather to include all competent adults and separately cultivate a robust education system and media. Which worked well... until the Interweb put any ol' crackpot on the same visibility as professional journalism. That plus algorithms that forward incrementally more extreme sites to generate clicks.

Voting should be restricted to legally competent adults.

Why? Because, the vast majority of the population has committed no murders nor rapes. You know this. Your theory is that a majority of folks would murder and rape except that they're afraid of the legal system. Personally I'm not interested in murder and rape regardless of whether I could get away with it or not. In my experience you're underestimating the number of folks who DON'T use the illegality of murder and rape as the primary reason they don't perform those acts.

We could have been having this discussion in Washington state in 2011, at the time 9% of folks there smoked weed, one could suppose that lots feared the illegality of Marijuana, however currently only 30% of Washingtonians smoke weed, so about 21% wanted to smoke weed AND were not doing so because it was illegal. 70% just aren't interested in Marijuana. I'm not interested in murder and rape.

Well your scenario is that the perception of retribution is lost. So for the portion of society that 1) is prone to do "bad" things on a regular basis AND 2) only doesn't currently do that because of the risk of societal retribution, the answer is: yes, having lost their reason for holding back on doing bad things routinely, they'll do them repetitively. The question is, how many people fit both criteria? You're supposing that's at least 51% of all people. That's not my read of the situation.

From my perspective, you're making an error by declaring that performing a (single) "bad" action makes someone a "bad" person. In my experience, all humans perform bad actions, thus the difference between folks is the quantity and quality of those bad choices.

By definition, no. If almost everyone does something, that makes them "average", not "bad" on a spectrum from "good" to "bad".

I'm not detecting answers to my questions, so I guess we can't converse.

So many details left out of the OP. Do you believe (as I do) that "good" and "evil" are subjective descriptors? If not, whose definition of the terms is the objectively correct one? In your experience, do most acts of "evil" occur because someone had a warped set of moral codes, say believing that murder is okay, or because of a failure to follow a standard set of moral codes, that is believing murder is wrong, but performing it anyway because of desiring the payoff if they did?

The human condition only makes people depressed!

Exactly. The numerous negative events that can and do occur contribute to great feelings of sadness and grief. While some can deal with these events and avoid these sad feelings, that is atypical and many and likely most will experience them. That's a normal reaction and while this normal reaction can be addressed philosophically, for example by focusing on it's normality, to great benefit, having clinical depression in the absence of negative events probably will reap fewer philosophical insights.

I would like to find out philosophy and ideas to face depression. I don't want to know why we experience depression in our lives. I already accepted that this comes and goes sooner or later. I believe it is key to try to live with this mental condition

Let me put it this way. Do you consider it "normal" to experience depressive symptoms when addressing numerous events in one's life which are very "depressing" (in lay terms)? I do. What is evidence of an "illness" (as opposed to a natural reaction) is experiencing depressive symptoms in the absence of any significant negative experiences.

Well, no one knows the exact mechanism of Clinical Depression (what I understand you're talking about). But clearly brain neurotransmitter levels play a significant role. However, my guess is you're not referring to the "philosophical perspectives" on serotonin levels. OTOH, essentially everyone has experience with intense sadness and grief (as opposed to the 8-9% who battle Clinical Depression), which are a direct response to life experiences. Philosophy seems to have more to say about these universal entities.

Yes, but the diagnosis of depression gets its sense form a set of grounding psychological hyptheses, and one can then delve into the philosophical underpinnings of the psychological theory

True. Though psychological theory is not limited to the specific diagnosis of depression, which the OP clearly wants to focus upon. Hence my comment addressing depression (not psychological theory).

Not an expert but my understanding is that sympathy is feeling sorry for someone else's pain intellectually, whereas empathy is feeling someone else's pain emotionally.

Two things: first the diagnosis of depression is separate from the emotion of sadness and therefore the OP is akin to asking about the philosophical perspectives on diabetes.

Previously, folks commonly described themselves as "socially liberal, but fiscally conservative".

Probably the largest of the numerous issues with the OP is the reference to "philosophy", as if it is a single entity. Obviously there are numerous schools of philosophical thought that propose radically differing optimal behavior characteristics. Most folks I know who consider philosophy cherry pick various strong points of numerous Philosophies, while glossing over the weak bits to "justify" their behavior. Essentially we all have custom made personal codes of conduct shaped by a balance of what we aspire to be and what drives us, psychologically.

How do I unite everyone to achieve the objectives together

You can't. That's the job for someone with global influence. Keep your goals within your capacity to complete them. Be proud of what you've done. If 10% of folks tried what you've done, the world would be a better place.

Huh? Sounds like you're achieving your goals... at a scale appropriate for your level of influence. Kudos to you. Job well done.

No worries. Think of trying for the best as Offense and avoiding the worst as Defense. It's just a question of knowing when to defend (typically when you're nervous or uncertain) and when to go for the win (typically when you are on familiar territory and are confident).

Naturally one's appreciation of "confidence" can be skewed by a bipolar condition, so adjust for that.

I struggle to make choices. I constantly second-guess myself. I often wish I had made different choices than the ones I made. What is the best way to make choices?

I hear ya bro. Most folks try to make the "best" choice, but those who have a significant fear of the "worst" outcome from making choices (typically manifested by second guessing) are best served by making choices that eliminate the worst outcome, even if it also makes the best outcome unlikely, settling for a likely "pretty good" outcome. Obviously you know yourself best, so you're in the position to determine what is driving you to second guess, but this is a very common situation.

Good luck.

I don't disagree. But in my experience, sympathy is essentially an intellectual response generated when one determines that someone is in distress. This response can be embellished or diminished or even withheld etc depending on specific circumstances and unrelated goals. Whereas empathy starts as an emotional response with a significant personal aspect. Naturally one can intervene intellectually and modulate one's response, but in the Real World, I find that uncommonly practiced.

An excellent topic, one that I have spent a moderately significant amount of time addressing historically. I agree with your summary of the standard distiction between the two, but in my experience the practical difference between them is less about what the speaker says and more easily demonstrated by how the communication impacts the recipient of the communication. Namely, sympathy is felt as an acknowledgement of one's plight (commonly from an acquaintance) and thus is a positive, though a minor one. Whereas empathy is typically from a close friend or family member and is "a shoulder to cry on" and is appreciated as a significant positive.

Of course this doesn't mean that we can't make use of rules at all in our explanations, only that we be willing to revise them

Well, in my experience the issue in (real or concocted) Philosophically problematic situations aren't violations of pre-set rules directly, rather situations where rule #1 plays against rule #2 (classically a conflict of legitimate interests). Thus the "philosopher" must choose which of his rules should be violated. Viola, the pre-set rules are not universally applicable.

I too dislike "analytic and synthetic". I also agree that attempting to find a static set of rules that will apply correctly in all Real World situations is a fool's errand. To my eye the binary approach that I observe in the threads is between theoretical and practical. Myself being a follower of the latter.

Google "how out of date are dictionaries?"

Well, what was said in reference to post surgical trans women, was: "A man with his penis removed does not have a vagina".

Interesting. So noting you have little understanding of a surgical procedure is now an "insult". Okay, I guess I apologize for "insulting" you. While you're right that few trans folks get surgery, that doesn't address my opinion on the status of those who do.

Well yes and mostly no. True a minority of trans women have "bottom surgery", but of those who do, which was the subject matter being discussed, almost noone has their penis removed without the creation of a vagina. Which was the claim I was addressing.

A man with his penis removed does not have a vagina. A woman with a beard and a deep voice is still a woman.

There will be no gender inspection at the entrance to toilets etc so if a man passes for a woman because they have had extensive work then no one will be any the wiser. Most trans women look like men. If a trans man wishes to use the men’s facilities no man will object. If they wish to use the women’s facilities they have every right to do as they are a woman

We are in complete agreement on your bolded statement. In fact that's my point. Your declaration of what "most" trans women look like inspires no confidence considering creation of a neo vagina is standard transition surgery so you're clearly out of your depth.

Your argument makes no sense. Who is likely to disrupt a women's exclusive place more, a person with breasts and a vagina who happens to be XY or a short person with a beard and a deep voice who happens to be XX?

Well in my experience, outside of online pontificating, everyone I know uses external genital appearance as the final practical arbiter of an individual's gender, thus fully transitioned trans folks pass that test. Perhaps your experience is different. I'm not speaking of athletic competition, rather the "exclusive places" argument.

I don't disagree. I guess I took your comment on: "There is the social aspect of competing in leagues with darts snooker etc. access to facilities etc that mean it makes sense to have female only pursuits. Darts is a very social and male dominated pursuit. If women want to pursue it then a women’s only league seems reasonable", as side stepping my addressing the physical unfairness of M2F transexuals competing as women.

So you agree there isn't much of a physical advantage in transwomen competing in darts?

If so then we're reverting to the "exclusive spaces" argument (which I've addressed, and you've not commented on in reply).

So you're unfamiliar with the height and muscle development advantage in sports that male-to-female transexuals possess? Okay, then let me introduce the issue to you (even though it was a hotly debated concept within this very thread).

I was responding to the physical prowess argument, so your reply misses my point. Though as I said before, on the "exclusive space" topic, IMO if someone has had the surgery, they deserve to enter the exclusive space.

Not in sport and not in society when it comes to social norms around women’s right to certain exclusive places.
What about social, emotional and mental sex are different? I just see these as outmoded sexist tropes. Men tend toward traditional masculine pursuits but those that don’t are still men. Women who tend toward masculine pursuits are still women. There still needs to be a distinction for sport and changing/toilet/shelters. For fairness, for safety and for dignity. I don’t see this as controversial

I don't disagree in strength and speed sports. Billiards, darts and poker, not so much. As to exclusive places, if someone has had surgery, IMO they're entitled.

I don't disagree with the idea that genetic, genital, hormonal and gonadal sex are 1) almost always in agreement and 2) have definite medical importance. However, social, emotional and mental sex can differ from the above which also has it's importance.

No, I've never personally delivered a case of ambiguous genetalia. I had a close call once, but it ended up being a clerical error (of some importance). Long story...

To illustrate how times have changed, in med school we were advised that if we delivered a baby with ambiguous genitalia, to announce to the parents that they had a girl because 1) it's easier for the peds surgeons to create female organs than male and 2) if we hesitated in declaring a gender, that would intefere with parental bonding. Of course in Modern medicine it is recommended to state that the baby seems perfectly healthy but that further testing will be required to determine the gender.

Good for you. Retired Ob/GYN here.

Do they? :lol:

Uummm... yes we do. What do you think happens at delivery? "congratulations you had a baby, we'll get back to you when the labs get back on whether it's a girl or a boy."