I have found that all men and women do not fit the stereotypical. It is impossible for me to say that I feel like a man or a woman inside because I do not know how other people feel. Because of this, I am often skeptical when someone claims that they know how any particular gender feels or is supposed to feel.

One of the oldest philosophical maxims is the "Know thyself." "Who are we?" and "What are we?" are of the highest level of philosophical inquiry. To those who believe they have solved these inquiries to the extent of adding or removing body parts, the philosophical audacity is beyond me.

I have formed a reasonable belief of my reproductive abilities and societal role. My belief is not only based on a subject feeling that I have, but upon an objective analysis of my observations garnered from my senses. If a person "feels" like one gender, but their organs look and feel like that of another gender, they can't be certain of their identity. Changing organs surgically and dressing like a particular gender will not clarify the issue. If a person has a sex change operation and dresses like a particular gender, it is primarily to make society believe that they were born with the reproductive organs of the gender they are emulating. This isn't fair to society at large which has vested interest in quickly identifying as many characteristics of its members as possible.

You could however argue that if the animal is well-cared for and humanely killed there is no cruelty involved — Tim3003

My preference would be that the animal was well cared for and died of old age. I'm not a rancher, so I don't have access to animals that died of old age. As I understand it, older animal meat is not as tender as younger animal meat. Some people also say that younger animal meat tastes better. I'm willing to try eating only older animal meat if I could find a good source. But its kinda rough that out pallets crave not just meat, but younger meat: Veal, lamb, and baby back pork ribs. Lobsters are theorized to be immortal, but we kill them regularly.

But we can also take a step back and say that what we think is morality is just a social construct- but maybe it is more than that

Apparently I didn't choose to come into existence then I have to decide how I feel about endorsing existence and it's continuation. — Andrew4Handel

This world has good and bad. If you find enough good, it is worth a little bad.
When I die, I will become plant food, and the plant will become animal food. But the fact that we have the time to bullshit with each other in this forum is proof that its not all bad: and this existence is better than nothing.

Play the cards you're dealt as well as you're able until you have to fold 'em. — 180 Proof

- well put.

Maybe the Universe possessed a latent urge to experience things, which is what gave rise to 'thinking beings'. If this were the case - not saying it is - then it's possible that thinking beings are still latently part of the Big Picture, fulfilling the latent urge that was felt long before there was anyone to actually feel it. — Wayfarer

Some scientists opine that before the Big Bang the Universe was a single point smaller than the size of an atom. The smaller than an atom part is hard to fathom. But the Universe could have been a single point in space that expanded because it wanted to experience things, and not realizing that nothing else existed. If such an urge existed, then the Universe would have some level of consciousness early on. The Universe itself would be a thinking being. It seems far-fetched to lowly humans, but certainly possible.

If that were the case, then some level of Consciousness characterized by a purpose to experience things either appeared spontaneously or always existed. But if the Universe cannot be conscious unless components of it are organized in a certain way (such as the way atoms are organized in living organisms), then a purpose to the Universe did not exist until thinking beings emerged.

But that is a great point - is consciousness a fundamental property of the Universe? - the same as gravity, electromagnetic radiation, and the other laws of physics. I think it is.

For truth and math, maybe. Does 1 + 1 = 2 have a reason? Does it need a reason to always equal "2"? — Cobra

1+1=2 has a reason to me. I've found the equation useful in my daily endeavors to obtain resources. I obtain resources and consume things because it gives me pleasure for some reason. I may be compelled to do so, but the question of the degree of free will I have is a different subject. For this discussion about the reason for things in general, I'm not saying that a purpose or reason for things doesn't exist. A reason for things will always exist as long as there are thinking beings in the Universe that find things useful for their own reasons. But what about before there were thinking beings? Was there any purpose or reason then? I would say no. How could there be?

In a discussion about it Free Will, determinism has the upper hand. This is because proofs need determinism to be valid. For example, for a debater to create a convincing argument, he must be able to predict the reaction of the audience to what is being said. Moreover, if someone is going to be convinced of anything, it's going to be because something has compelled the convincing. For many, this "something" can be logic. Being a slave to logic is one of those constraints on free will. Luckily for the Free Will cause, no one is logical all the time and I'm not sure that I would recognize logic in every circumstance.

One of the exercises of logic that people endeavor is engaging in experiments using the Scientific Method. But no experiment predicts thoughts perfectly.

Given that there are clear restraints on pure Free Will, I think the focus of the debate is between Compatibilism and Determinism. And since we can't prove determinism in every situation, logic compels us to accept compatibilism since that is the only theory which can explain all the things we observe.

I wrote this song and made this video:

Dwayne the Rock Johnson had criticized Joe Rogan yesterday for racism and It turns out the Rock's got a racially charged video of his own (anti-Asian). https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2022/02/dwayne-the-rock-johnson-faces-massive-backlash-over-resurfaced-pedo-tranny-asian-hate-content-videos/.

I think I smell what the Rock was cooking.

There's no reason & There's a reason that I haven't figured it out are identical twins. — Agent Smith

I would call them dizygotic (non-identical) twins. I don't know the reason for most things I observe, but I understand how a cause could exist for these things. But for the existence of anything at all, it is not possible for a Cause to exist. Otherwise a separate initial Cause for Existence would have to exist and we would inquire about what caused that. The infinite regression of causes leaves us with only 2 options: a spontaneous event or an eternal cause(s).

The Nazis were racist, but they used the term in a somewhat different way than it is used contemporarily. Up to the earlier part of the 20th century, some people still used race the way we use 'ethnicity', so the race of Frenchmen, the race of jews, the race of Englishmen, the race of Slavs. — Bitter Crank

Well put. I think you are right about that. If there was a blonde haired blue eyed ethnic German who was adopted and raised by Jews since infancy, and refused to convert from Judaism, my bet is that the Nazis would not let him slide and would have killed him.

I think the requirements to possess a firearm should be increased in the US, In Texas right now, there is no requirement to ask even the most basic questions and there isn't even any legislation on the table to change that. Any moves to introduce legislation to add requirements to gun ownership is often reacted to with outrage of Constitutional violations. On the other hand, sometimes the legislation introduced is seeking immediate major changes to current gun ownership laws. I think there can be a set of the most basic questions that at the very least should be required.

I know that an accomplished lawyer will be nominated, but I wish her race was not identified before her actual nomination. It creates the impression that a more qualified candidate of a different race exists,but may have been passed up to make a point about racial discrimination. Maybe it is worth it to make the point, and maybe there is no such thing as a "better" nominee. But I think the point that a black female Judge is just as good as a white male judge is better made by making the nomination without any reference to the person's gender or race.

"The homicide rate in the US was 7.5 times higher than the homicide rate in the other high-income countries combined, which was largely attributable to a firearm homicide rate that was 24.9 times higher." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30817955/#:~:text=The%20homicide%20rate%20in%20the%20US%20was%207.5,in%20the%20US%20than%20in%20other%20high-income%20countries..

What do you think outlawing guns (like the UK does) would do to the US murder rate?
— Down The Rabbit Hole

I think the murder rate would go down. However, if I was not allowed to own a gun, I think my personal chances of being murdered by a bear or a person increases. So outlawing gun possession is not a solution for me. I would prefer a questionnaire requirement to own a gun with at least one question: "Do you want to buy this gun to shoot some people who disagree with your beliefs?" If someone is crazy enough to answer yes to that question, they should not own a gun.

Is it possible that people can be less intelligent now because we can rely more on machines? Can we afford to remember less because we have the internet at our fingertips all the time?

Art is anything which is designed to evoke an emotion. Good art evokes good emotions, and vice-versa. It is possible that the original work was indeed art and the graffiti on it also art. To the artist and the owner of the original art, the graffiti is probably considered bad art. I wonder what he would get if he tried to sell the painting with the graffiti.

The Ukrainians and the Russians have got to work out their issues on their own.

A Black woman on the Supreme Court is fine by me. I only wish she would be nominated without including the criteria that she is being nominated because she is a black woman.

Ultimately, the law has to be perceived as being objectively fair. If there is more than one law restraining or addressing a subject of action, one of them must be objectively wrong if there is an objective standard. However, some cultures have successfully implemented dual codes. For example, here in the US, there are separate laws that effect members of native American tribes. If a defendant is a member of a native American tribe he has the option of being tried under US law or his native American tribal law which may be governed by a separate tribal council.

Yes, we can decide on a definition and courts do it all the time. For an actor to be held responsible for something he or she negligently "causes," they must be what is called the proximate or foreseeable cause. Who defines proximate cause? most of the time a jury has to decide if something was reasonably foreseeable. From a strictly logical point of view, if there are no other intervening factors and if B has no free will, then A caused C because A caused B.

the principle of least action i — Agent Smith

is proof that at times humans can exercise free will. Of course every now and then, people do take the most efficient path and the path is predictable. When a human takes a predicted path, that is when they aren't exercising free will. Determinism requires predictability. Without predictability, we can only surmise that an actor disobeying the consistent laws of physics is doing so of their own volition as we cannot identify any other source which is plainly pulling the strings. Ironically, logic compels this result.

When Descartes exclaimed "I think therefore I am, he proved the existence of his mind," not his body. His body could be a figment of his thoughts. There is no doubt that one's consciousness exists. At the same time, it is perfectly reasonable to believe in the existence of one's body. You only have to stub your toe or fall asleep involuntarily for your body to make its existence plain. Whether one's consciousness can exist outside the body, is something else that has yet to be plainly demonstrated.

Thanks for looking into this. I posted a discussion thread opening post on January 22, 2022. Sophisticat and Wayfarer were among the 9 responses to the discussion, but I couldn't read what they said before the discussion was removed. I can repost the discussion; but if it was taken down because of a mistake I made, I don't want to repeat the mistake. Let me know if you find it.

Libet demonstrated that he could predict a behavior before a subject decided consciously to perform that behavior. His predications were generally correct and the experiment has been replicated. It should the conscious being making choices following his subconscious or matter. This does not negate free will, it only show that the subconscious mind or brain matter itself is the source of free will during that experiment. There are many other behavior humans engage in that may not repeat the pattern Libet found. More research is need with these types of experiments - until then we live in a compatible universe.

"Does Existence have any objective/universal meaning?".
For me the answer is clearly no because meaning itself is created by thinking beings like humans (and Animals or a possible god if you want).What do you think about the topic? — SmartIdiot

Yeah, it sure looks that way. But that can be good and bad. Here's a video I recommend that talks about this subject. It concludes that there can not be an objective universal meaning. However, the absence of such a meaning creates the circumstance wherein thinking beings therefore have the right to define a purpose of existence because there isn't a universal objective meaning.

I predict that if you are reading this you will now think of a red tomato. — Bartricks

Indeed, I and most people will think of a red tomato. This does prove that there is a limit to my free will. Zebra. You have no choice. Once you read something, you must think of it. However, this does not mean that that you have no free will- only limited free will. If the movement of matter in the brain makes one move, this does not negate Free Will. While a Will is not matter, matter may have a Will.

Even if the vast majority of our behaviors are otherwise predictable, it would be an error to now conclude that there is no Free Will. This is not the current state of the science. We are not able to predict all behaviors in a placebo controlled double-blind experiment, or any experiment. Until all behaviors are accurately predictable, I cannot surmise that there is no Free Will.

My empirical analysis of scientific study on the issue of Free Will, shows that there is a great degree of determinism, but Free Will has not been eliminated. There is a good article on this at http://philosophersunion.org/