Okay that, too. That's a separate issue though. If there was a way to keep them regularly clean, then they should work.Apparently more like one of the greatest vectors of disease in the ancient world (well Rome at least), since they apparently were not cleaned and the water replaced often enough — Janus
The irony is that they built the most impressive architecture in the world -- water ducts, coliseum, palaces, government buildings, etc.Or to put it another way: they did not even understand what it means to be poorly serviced. — Janus
What, precisely, is wrong with masturbating in public that is not wrong in private? — Possibility
Most interesting! — Ms. Marple
Diogenes is Socrates gone mad. — Plato
But as you know I think I found a cosmology, which until now has withstand all critique (even my own!), apart from one detail to be fixed. So, now I know the fundamental makeup, there is only one means to give a reason for that material to exist and return the wonder to life and the universe which science had taken from it. — Hillary
I don't need them too. Not at all. They just offer closure and return the lost wonder. Universal life is just a temporary divine material version of the eternal heavenly life. And because they made it, we should be careful with nature (heaven kinda looks like the pristine state of nature, untouched by mankind). And yes, there it is: the moral! — Hillary
But how does he hurt people by doing that in public? What harm is done, apart maybe from cleaning up eventual sperm shot at public chairs in the doctor's waiting room. It might be entertaining in fact! Especially in a boring waiting room. Or pedagogical even — Hillary
YOUR gods really are 'fake plugs' for the parts of the origin story YOUR struggles with physics currently can't answer. You are merely a 'gods of the gaps' facilitator. — universeness
Most men will beat you up, some will beat you very badly if you act like that in front of those they feel protective towards. — universeness
I think you’re still missing the point. — Possibility
But this doesn’t settle the questions that Diogenes is presenting. What, precisely, is wrong with masturbating in public that is not wrong in private? I get that ‘society’ as a structure of civil order makes this distinction and is expected to reprimand him, but what is it that ‘disturbs our peace’? Why am I so keen to distinguish him from my ‘self’? It’s interesting how keenly we tend to align our ‘selves’ with ‘societal order’ on the behaviour of others — Possibility
The big question then: became, what's the reason for that material to be there? Where did it come from? — Hillary
Dunno. Why people have such difficulty with sex in public? I can remember kissing a girlfriend in a public swimming pool once. A lady was offended because of it. She asked us not to do it in public. It was that it was an elderly lady... I absolutely wouldn't mind it if people procreated in public. We're an animal species! Why are people offended by it? What's the big deal about sex? It's an expression of love — Hillary
The question is, why? How do I offend? — Hillary
So, as I said. Your physics fell short, so, in your frustration, you turned to the woo woo in your dreams. — universeness
Again, precisely the point that I do understand the physics makes me pose woowoo. That's the only last reason, the closure. So it's my knowledge, not a gap in it, that makes me see, and the dream, of course — Hillary
So if you were having a meal with your wife and some of her family, in a restaurant to celebrate her birthday and the next table of 6 men, right next to you all started masturbating loudly, perhaps even helping each other. Would that be a nice night out for you? — universeness
Then this is where we strongly disagree! I think your physics failed to provide you with your last reason — universeness
So based on what you have typed above, I didn't miss your point at all, I fully understand it.
The masturbation point is an example of many such behaviours that most people prefer to happen in private than in public. Its not a question of 'correct behavior' or 'incorrect behaviour' is a question of 'acceptable or unacceptable behavior within the scenario offered.'
From you having a loud chat on your mobile phone while others are trying to watch a show to someone peeing into an empty bottle at the dinner table.The behaviour Diogenes is suggesting is that of a self-indulgent pig. A human dog who will shit right in front of you in the street is just that, a human dog.
The dogs behaviour is not wrong just like masturbation is not wrong but human society is idiosyncratic and nuanced and employs rules of engagement and rules of decorum. — universeness
War crimes are based on bad behaviour, aren't they!
In war you kill your enemy, would Diogenes agree that rules like the Geneva conventions are valid or would he advocate for 'all extreme behaviour is fair in war?' — universeness
Self indulgent? Yes, I agree. But does that make him a ‘pig’ or a ‘dog’? Well, that’s your opinion. He’s still human - ‘human dog’ is a contradiction in terms. Which is it? — Possibility
And you’re still not addressing the difference between public and private except in terms of personal, affected preference. So, society’s rules of engagement and decorum are based on the majority’s affected relation to ‘behaviour within the scenario offered’. This is why homosexuality has been excluded as inhuman and ‘cancelled’ or forced into hiding for so long... but that’s perfectly acceptable, right? Homosexuality is not wrong, but human society has ‘rules of decorum’... — Possibility
’m just drawing attention to the societal process of determining what is ‘acceptable or unacceptable behaviour’, which Diogenes was questioning. It’s difficult enough to discuss these topics even now, but there were no opportunities for Diogenes to ask these questions in such a way as they could be understood - abstract discussions on reasoning such as Plato devised were insufficient - because it’s about acknowledging affect, feelings, and relation to quality or values as crucial aspects of reasoning. — Possibility
The point is that we judge the behaviour of others based on certain ‘rules of decorum’ that lack objective rationality - so how can we claim righteousness? How do we critique the accuracy of moral or aesthetic judgement? — Possibility
In Diogenes’ time, there was no such notion as ‘war crimes’ or ‘fairness in war’. I think he might question why certain behaviour such as killing your enemy is considered ‘fair’ in war but not in the marketplace. — Possibility
I have a final physical explanation. It doesn't need extra physics to explain it again! Now what? — Hillary
Well, if you would underdstand the string theory and the bounce and the reason for the MWI you would see that these are BS woowoo's and you fall for the bait. Probably because of the math involved. The DIMP guy doesn't even have his knowledge about simple quarks straight and woowoofs even more. Sounds interesting but his theory is BS all the same.I like it that he tries but his attempt fails, Im sorry to say. An eternal series of big bangs just needs the 7d quantum vacuum with wormhole structure to be created and the bangs follow naturally, exactly as the intention of the gods was and I'm greatful they showed me! — Hillary
No doubt the DIMP guy and the Mobius strip/Klein bottle guy and probably a whole army of other individuals who think they know the true T.o.E would have a similar opinion of your posit to the one you hold of theirs. The DIMP guy and the Mobius strip guy never posited a god to fill in any gaps in their physics however. — universeness
No doubt the DIMP guy and the Mobius strip/Klein bottle guy and probably a whole army of other individuals who think they know the true T.o.E would have a similar opinion of your posit to the one you hold of theirs — universeness
The DIMP guy and the Mobius strip guy never posited a god to fill in any gaps in their physics however. — universeness
No doubt the DIMP guy and the Mobius strip/Klein bottle guy and probably a whole army of other individuals who think they know the true T.o.E would have a similar opinion of your posit to the one you hold of theirs. — universeness
The point is, I understand ohysics and they don't. — Hillary
You claim you can blow all these physics guys away but where are your links that demonstrate debates you have had with physicists? — universeness
Other people? What other people? :snicker: — Agent Smith
The question of proof again... — Hillary
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.