God is the same as his power and his love and his justice and everything about him. He is one thing. That is what monotheism is about. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share an intellect and will. There is ONE God but three relations of consciousness within it.
— Gregory

Yes. Unfortunately, you can't expect atheists and anti-Christians to understand that. Yet they are allowed to dominate the debate and even encouraged for some strange reason. — Apollodorus

Huh? Love and justice are abstracts. A Father and Son can be tangible when they are the result of tangle humans who have sex, but the existence of supernatural beings who some argue is only one being, seems a con game to me, trying to convince something intangible is tangible. I don't know about the Holy Spirit having anything like a tangible existence. The Christian understanding of a god is not the only one, and why would we assume the Christian notion of a god is the only possible one to exist? What about Apollo the power to create and reason? Isn't he also an important god?

Not sure if I’m following this. There would be no time in nothingness, at least in how I conceive of it. Time is something. Also, wouldn’t the possibility of the big bang itself be something? — Paul Michael

Time is not something. Time is not tangible. Time like math is an abstract. It is an invention of our minds and applied to what exists.

According to the explanation of the cosmos I heard last night, nothing existed before the big bang and then gases were the first to exist, and existence, as we know it today, took a very long time to evolve out of nothing, starting with hydrogen and helium.

↪Athena Canada. I used to vote. My friends used to vote. Most don't now, for the reasons I listed. Nobody listens to our letters, might as well burn them, the end result is the same. I figure democracy is a scam: nice sales pitch but the final product isn't worth a damn. — Book273

Democracy is what we make it, but to get something changed requires a huge effort and connecting with the people who are willing to work for the change. Timing is also important. I discovered it is much easier to make change happen when someone like the governor is new to the office and wants to make change. Today our children's services policy is very different from the past and grandparents have rights by law.

I'd agree with you that it becomes increasingly difficult to assess equality when we live in generically different scenarios. I guess it depends on whether you look at humanity via a macro or micro lens. — john27

I think our consideration of equality is equal under that law, not equally beautiful, or equally talented, or equally motivated. As some businesses are discovering today, hiring practices that include those who have been marginalized, is kind of like finding diamonds in ugly stones.

I drive people nuts with my talk of education and values and the Military Industrial Complex but our only hope is becoming aware of how the 1958 National Defense Education Act changed education, and why this has huge, social, economic, and political ramifications.

Equal opportunity is a democratic principle and in a way, education for technology increases that equal opportunity, but in another way, it marginalizes people and destroys their equal opportunity.

When it comes to our voting system, as some are talking about, the education we once had, would prevent the effort to control the voting process that is happening today. This is only one of the political ramifications of the change in education. We now have the reactionary politics that put Hitler in power.

Here we can't do anything until the next election, and then we have a choice about which lying sack of crap gets in, — Book273

Where do you live? Where I live we can write to our representatives, and write letters to the editor, and protest in the streets, attend public hearings on the city, county, and state levels. This activity can lead to people uniting and having a much stronger voice than an individual. Such as the National Rifle Association. It is possible to write a bill and get have a vote on it.

I have actively changed law at a local level and bureaucratic policy at the state level, by working with others. What is really horrible is I seem to be the only one in forums who understands what citizens can do and that the meaning of citizenship is being responsible for such things. Democracy means the people have the power. We just aren't educating for that anymore.

I'm not sure if you've seen a lot of US schools.. but a lot of them have nothing to do with the kind of education needed to engineer weapons.. Are we talking urban or suburban schools? Because urban schools are often just trying to keep the kids and its own funding afloat for four years... — schopenhauer1

You are responding to a post where I said the Military-Industrial Complex has been in control of education since the 1958 National Defense Education Act. That is not an issue of city or rural schools, nor is it about this state or that state. It is about education for technology replacing what Eisenhower called our "domestic education". Our domestic education added on vocational training when we mobilized for the first world war, but we retained education for good citizenship and transmitted an American mythology and education for citizenship, until the National Defense Education Act.

Education is like a genii in a bottle, the defined purpose is the wish and the students are the genii. We changed the wish in 1958.

A primary purpose of domestic education was preparing the young for good moral judgment and that means teaching the children how to think, not what to think. Our liberty and social order really depend on that past education. Education for technology is amoral and tries to program the child's brain to be of use to industry and the military. Does that make sense, the difference between education to achieve a democratic and social goal, or education to achieve industrial and military goals?

I have no argument with the observation that many, many schools are just struggling to survive. Students in those schools are being cheated of having an education because what they are getting will not help them in any way and the environment is largely responsible for the failure of the schools. The 1958 National Defense Education Act was supposed to end in 4 years. It obviously did not end and it may be too late to save our democracy now. We took our culture for granted and that was a big mistake!

That is, we have to fight the enemy within and not just the enemies without. — tim wood

The enemy was welcomed with open arms at the end of WWII, Not only did nations compete for German scientists, but the US also adopted Germany's models of bureaucracy and education. We replaced our education with the German model of education for technology. Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended. That ended in 1958 and yes the enemy is within.

For instance, now we see movies with HEROES in the Viet Nam war. (US-Viet Kong.) At the time the youth was opposing it and condemned it. Famous rockers and philosophers (John Lennon, Bob Dylan et al) condemned the war. People protested against it all over the world, not just on US soil. Now the war is viewed as a just war, producing heroes. And people gobble this new, albeit false, image down, because they still in the same groove as always in the West: believing the facts, believing the commentary. — god must be atheist

And people believe the Military-Industrial Complex is just theory and the same things as Hitler's New World Order.

Charles Sarolea's book "The Angle German Problem" is perhaps one of the most important books to read in order to understand what has happened to the US since implementing the 1958 National Defense Education Act. One of the first things the Prussians did when they took control of the whole of Germany was to centralize public education and focus it on technology for military and industrial purpose. The Prussians lived for military might as the citizens of the US lived for a love of God. Religion is good for war and war is good religion.

The Tea Party that is an essential part of the US history was opposition to Britain taxing US citizens to pay for the military essential to its control of the colonies. When the US entered the second world war its military strength ranked 17th, far below the military strength of much smaller countries. The US and democracy were best known as forces of peace, not forces of war.

Do the math. Are Americans voting sensibly? Does the ballot demonstrate/indicate that education makes a difference? I dunno, just askin'. Edify me, pleeaaase. — TheMadFool

Thank you, you are so right! Americans are not voting sensibly and the change in education is why they are not.

Mad Fool, I don't think you are getting the nuances of my post?

The US Republican-Trump party is now working to install loyalists in swing-state election-admin posts, so that they can manipulate the 2024 count to ensure he wins - all in defense of the stop-the-steal lie, which 2/3 of them still believe. — Tim3003

And they will probably succeed because we have been educated for that. Trump is our Hitler and the supporters of both men have had the same education for technology. Our power and glory is all about our military might, right? That has always made American great, isn't it? (absolutely not!) That and the blessings of a God who takes care of us and favors us above all others.

Here is our great former President Trump. I am posting it because it is exactly what Chis Hedge explains in his book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NsrwH9I9vE

Chris Hedges's book "THE END OF LITERACY AND THE TRIUMPH OF SPECTACLE?" is a must-read for this thread.

"The more we sever ourselves from a literate, print-based world- a world of complexity and nuance, a world of ideas- for one informed by comforting, reassuring images, fantasies, slogans, and a celebration of violence, the more we implode."

Deomcracy is, bottom line, a compromise between totalitarianism and anarchy. The deal we've agreed to is a fixed term (4 years in the USA, think Trump) of dictatorship interrupted by short spells of anarchy (elections). There's nothing great about democracy when you look at it that way; as it is authoritarianism is being favored, given we have to live with it for 4 years, in democracy and that speaks volumes. It seems the logic of democracy boils down to getting robbed by different people is better than getting robbed by the same person. I somehow fail to see the difference. — TheMadFool

And if religions put away their holy books and began teaching math and science, they would be as weak as our democracy is now. Autocracy does not require an educated mass. Democracy does require preparing citizens to be responsible adults who live by shared principles and will defend those principles. Our liberty is impossible without that. Knowing the principles of democracy is as important to a democracy as a Christian knowing the 10 commandments is important to Christianity. Knowing the history and philosophy of democracy is as important to democracy, as Bible stories are important to being an indoctrinated Christian. Without that education, we have anarchy, not democracy.

My IQ score is on the wrong side of 69 (Wechsler). Does that explain everything going on between us? — TheMadFool

No, but I will walk away hoping this morning is just an off day and not what can be expected in the future.

Up until the last 2 decades the spreading of news was controlled by the orthodox media - TV and newspapers. That news was written by employed journalists; edited, audited for truth and generally respectable if sometimes opinionated - if it wasn't other broadcasters and informed readers would make its shortcomings clear. So the public had reasonably reliable sources. — Tim3003

That past is the result of education for citizenship specifically a citizen of the US. I think the Brits also have a very strong history of freedom of speech and honor. I have read their education was about being English, manners, and customs and they rejected education for technology because they wanted to protect the class social order, and education for technology tends to erase the inherited class order. Germany under Prussian control focused on education for technology for military and industrial purposes. Now you might imagine education for technology is amoral and does not transmit a culture as the US and Britain were focused on their cultures.

The US added vocational training to education when it entered the first world war and there were wonderful benefits to that. However, at that time, war depended more onpatriotism than technology so our schools were used to mobilize us for war and be sure everyone understood our democracy and why it must be defended. Teachers defended our democracy in the classroom. Attorneys defended justice. Newsmen such as our local newspaper called the Register Gaurd defending our liberty with the truth. Investigative reporters had the defined purpose of exposing those things that threatened our democratic principles.

I was greatly saddened when I spoke and a reporter who had no concept of his importance as a reporter because education is no longer explaining what citizens have to do with defending our democracy. We are preparing our young to be products for industry not adults in a democracy. The news business is now about making a profit and it is dying like the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Step one, end education for good moral judgment and leave moral training to the church.
Step two, educate everyone for a technological society with unknown values.
Step three, watch our democracy fall because it is no longer defended.

We are witnessing many serious problems with the internet, but it can also be a place where people learn the principles of democracy and unite to defend it.

I'm sorry, Athena my Goddess, if you feel that way. Your vengeful reputation precedes you and I don't wanna be in your bad books. Let's just say that I'm wrong and you're right! :smile: — TheMadFool

What is the subject of the disagreement? And I swear, I am not behind the storms that are causing major flooding in Seattle right now. I don't have a desire to judge and punish anyone, except perhaps the young kid who replied to what I said and needs to learn good manners. :lol:

Not backwards! :grin: :joke: — TheMadFool

What does that mean? I am really disappointed this morning. I am not seeing any post that I consider worthy of contemplation and a considerate reply. Maybe another thread will be more interesting?

You've got it backwards as far as I can tell. — TheMadFool

How do you understand things?

Yeah, screaming "Stop murdering us in the streets" like the bunch of fascists they are :vomit: — Kenosha Kid

I suspect your goal was to be sarcastic and to ridicule what I said, please correct me if I am wrong.

I have been the person on the street and in public hearings standing on a table screaming for justice and escorted out by the police with the threat of being arrested for criminal trespassing. I know about acting out to get media attention and to have a voice strong enough to be heard when advocating for the homeless. This political activism was especially important when the state took my grandchildren illegally and made them wards of the state. We had a new governor who wanted to change things, so it was a good time for grandparents to unite and bring about a change in family law and the operation of the children's protective service. We fought for our grandchildren and won politically and I got my grandchildren back.

My granddaughter has been very active in the last several years and has gone to jail where was brutally abused by jail staff. My sister has also been extremely active on the streets, in hospitals, and in the state legislature's public hearings.

What was the point you wanted to make?

It might seem that there's more to a person than his intelligence but who in the hell decided to call our species homo sapiens (wise man)? Let's overlook this misnomer and what it implies for the moment and discuss the significance of intelligence (IQ). — TheMadFool

Well, we certainly have agreements on that point! I have been looking into this problem, and it appears there is a strong argument that God puts thoughts in our heads. That is a different topic, but one that might be worth exploring.

Are we to hold a mentally challenged individual (low IQ) responsible for an act that results in death, injury or loss of property? Let's, arguendo, say retarded people are held to account for their actions. That they surely didn't intend the illegal act must amount to something: like should be treated like and so, unlike should be treated...? With malice aforethought vs. unintentional/accidental/plain bad luck.

Ouch, ouch :gasp: please that is a totally different subject, but boy would it interesting to explore that. The US has a terrible record of incarcerating mentally disturbed people. Perhaps that goes with our unrealistic notion of a god and humans? What you said about intent, separates the Rittenhouse trial from the trial of the 3 men behaving as the KKK hunting down the coon.

As one poster in another thread said, many of the criminals who've been found to have low IQs are in prison precisely because they have low IQs. There are some wrinkles to iron out, nevertheless doesn't that mean we're mistreating (sending to the slammer is a form of psychological torture and the death penalty has its own issues) the disabled (low IQ folks)? There really is no difference between a gaol and a mental asylum, psychologically/psychiatrically speaking bit as to the manner in which they're treated, they're poles apart. :grin:

Oh yes, don't get me going on this one because I am highly emotional about our hugh justice failures. Have you noticed all the men being released from prisons lately?

Because my son, and also years later, a dear retarded friend were accused of crimes, I know our justice system is very corrupt! The goal is to nail someone for the crime and the system favors this goal, not justice. Thankfully I found an honest cop in a less than honest community, who got the case against my son reopened and the guilty teenager was correctly identified clearing my son of any wrong. Even the attorney I paid $300 to defend my son, was a corrupt SOB. He denied my son the lie detector test that he requested and then he decided to base my son's defense on convincing the court my son's friend did the crime. When I reeled in horror protesting my son's friend had nothing to do with the crime, the attorney said "what do you care as long as I get your son off". That SOB walked with my $300 and I never spoke to him again so he did nothing to earn his fee.

My retarded friend was not as lucky because his attorney stopped at getting my friend to plead guilty to a lesser crime rather than risk prison for a worse crime. There is no choice when the attorney is just out to make an easy buck and doesn't care about justice, and the charged person does not have the money for a better defense attorney.

I think its more specific than politics, its race. As you observed, even normally astute, academic types lose their shit as soon as someone says “black”. Fact after fact after fact unanswered, they just shift to a different attack vector and completely dismiss how they were just uncontroversially shown to be wrong. Its emotionally driven fantasy.
It would be nice to have a real discussion about any of it but as has been shown quite clearly in this thread you just can’t. You might say something that contradicts the dogmatic narrative and then there is no chance at an honest discussion. — DingoJones

Since 1958 we have focused on preparing our young to be products for industry. We have been teaching them what to think, not how to think. Now everyone is in the streets screaming what they want others to think, and part of not feeling heard is smashing windows and ransacking the city like a horde of barbarians sacking Rome.

I have been a political activist and after attending public hearings at the local and state levels, it is clear to me we are not well organized for democracy and resolving our problems through discussion. The internet is a great opportunity to improve our reality, but that means informed citizens taking on the responsibility of expanding our social consciousness and increasing awareness of democratic principles.

We have a ways to go to reach our democratic human potential and not many people who want to focus on that. As long as the Military-Industrial Complex controls education we are not going to get there.

If you wanted to do the research, I am confident that you would find that the mean high school and college GPAs as well as standardized test scores and scores on intelligence tests are all much higher among, say, electrical engineers than among police officers or firefighters.
— Michael Zwingli

It might be true, especially when you are comparing a group who may not need college level training, and another group who needs at least a BA, and maybe an MA.

If you collect the relevant statistics and display them in rank order, low scores to high scores across the board, there probably will be more high scores among engineers and doctors than among police officers and firemen. But... so what?

Training for even professional jobs is at least partly on-the-job. Just because your engineer has higher scores, doesn't mean that he or she would have the ability to function as a police officer, and just because the police officer doesn't have a BA, doesn't mean that he wouldn't have the wherewithal to earn one, even in engineering. — Bitter Crank

Yowsa! Those IQ tests should not be used to judge human beings! I have known geniuses who are totally unfit human beings. IQ testing in our schools, radically changed how we judge human beings and this has serious moral consequences. IQ testing is the mentality of the Military-Industrial complex and is about helping school staff select out those best suited for higher education for military and industrial purposes. This is our take on a German model of education and is what gave Germany reactionary politics and lead to Hitler and Nazis, and Texas thinking it is a good idea to have citizens report their family members and neighbors to authority. (law to prevent abortions).

What goes with this education is merit hiring. An arguably very bad way of judging people, that almost guarantees only those who have been processed through college will have an opportunity to have high-paying jobs or sit in the seats of power. An ugly reality that makes intelligent parents hysterical if their child is not in the top 10%. A few large employers have gone back to judging people by interviewing them to determine their drive and their potential and at least one company found ex-cons who were superachievers and the company saw in them a great benefit. This is different from not giving someone a chance if the person does not have the right education, from the right college, or has something else a file that is detracting. Those files used to be protected private information.

That effort to know people and the willingness to be part of their development goes with the democratic model of industry and our democracy would be much stronger and less violent if we had better awareness of the importance of childhood and education and believing in human beings.

„Every society has the criminals it deserves.“ — Emma Goldman anarchist known for her political activism, writing, and speeches 1868 - 1940

Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1221440-val-mcdermid-a-society-gets-the-criminals-it-deserves/ — quotepark

We created Rittenhouse and Travis McMichael, 35; his father, Gregory McMichael, 65; and their neighbor William Bryan, 52. The blood is on our hands.

reckless endangerment should have been maintained. That kid was stupid for role-playing the hero with a deadly weapon, and now he's a celebrity. This will set a precedent for young male vigilantes, if it did not already exist. — _db

I totally agree with you, and perhaps we want to explore if our society played a role in this? I am horrified by public broadcasting shows for children where the children are acting like adults. I think that sends a very bad message to children! That is besides all the violence of TV that appeals to young males and is paid for by commercials designed to get us to buy things.

On the other hand, playing that is an imitation of adults is very important to good social development, but we have been destroying childhood in many ways. As the 1958 National Defense Education Act continues to control education, we are pressed to stimulate our children to be as geniuses and the pressure is for them to perform as college students as soon as they are school age. There is no playtime that is not structured by an adult to achieve a specific goal that is dictated by the Military-Industrial Complex and our need to be competitive! God forbid that a child is not a top competitor and can not get into the best colleges, because that could mean being one of those dirty homeless people. I keep holding my breath hoping someday we figure out what the change in education has to do with social, economic, and political changes. So we get Rittenhouse who is far from being an adult, playing a superhero as you said. A very poor connection with reality!

But then we have the father and son who were found guilty of murdering Arbery and many breathe a sigh of relief knowing if these two were not found guilty, there would be rioting! People of color have gained more power than they ever had, and so have women gained power, and this is also a result of the change in education. The change is not all bad, but our lack of awareness is not good.

with what instrument do we perceive celestial bodies too distant to be seen by the unaided eye? — Leghorn

This list of space telescopes (astronomical space observatories) is grouped by major frequency ranges: gamma ray, x-ray, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, microwave and radio. Telescopes that work in multiple frequency bands are included in all of the appropriate sections. Space telescopes that collect particles, such as cosmic ray nuclei and/or electrons, as well as instruments that aim to detect gravitational waves, are also listed. Missions with specific targets within the Solar System (e.g. our Sun and its planets), are excluded; see List of Solar System probes for these, and List of Earth observation satellites for missions targeting our planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_telescopes — Wikipedia

Our intelligence is not just what we know, but also our ability to ask good questions. It also helps to know where to look for good answers. :lol: Wikipedia may not be the supreme authority but it is a good starting place.

I don't have any argument with you however if it has not already been introduced, I would like to say we are animals, and we all, including the animals, are equal under the sun. But obviously, a man is not a bull, and a woman is not a cat. There are different species and ours follows the line of apes. That means we are mammals and we are social animals, and such animals have different individual statuses. The most useful is the alpha male and the least valued members are pushed to the outside where they are most likely to be eaten by a preditor. So within equality, we have inequality.

We have learned animals teach each other culture and those that learn the culture best will have a favored position and others will want to be around them but not all will be allowed to come too close. Also in herd animals, we see a sign of democracy. Rather than one alpha male determining when the herd will move to the river, this is a group decision. With movement members of the herd will communicate a desire to move to the river and when enough agree it is time to move to the river, they start moving and everyone joins them. This is fine as long as the need to move is not a predator. In times of emergency, we might want an alpha male we trust, who can immediately call us to action. In an emergency, there isn't time for debate.

Bottom line, we are equal under the sun, but we exist in very different circumstances. The difference in circumstances will improve the survival of some, but not all. Our children need stability, security, and very good schools, and unfortunately, that is not our reality so some will be pushed out of mainstream society and will experience greater threats to their lives and sanity.

That is not how either understands their act of abuse unless they are aware of being angry and wanting to hurt the other person
— Athena
Could you rephrase this. I said
I can't see a problem with someone who is sexually abused blaming someone who abused them.
— Bylaw
I think some people do frame their sexual interaction with an adult when they were a child as sexual abuse. I think they would also say they blame the person in some way or other. So, I am not sure what you mean by it not being 'how either understands their act of abuse...'
I am including females as sexual predators, because of news stories of female teachers lusting for a young male student and acting on it.
— Athena
And some of them have blame, the young men and the adults they become, especially if they were very young.

I don't see how 'blame' is inappropriate as a rule.
How many men fake a climax to make the woman feel good and to stop the action that is not appealing because the hormone level is not where it needs to be to enjoy sex?
— Athena
I have no idea how you got here or what this has to do with what I wrote.
If we think of nature we might be a little less hysterical about the behavior and behave according to nature's rules, instead of flaunting the rules and then crying about the man's act of nature. :monkey:
— Athena
I don't think I was hysterical. I don't think your response makes much sense as a response to my post A young man who rapes someone in the way you describe is a very dangerous person but I guess I kinda hope he watches the guy who wants to be killed and eaten by that German guy before he meets you. You won't have any blame for him or complaints if he kills and eats you. He will have thought you wanted it. It would be hysterical of you to think his behavior was blameworthy even if he starts eating first before the kill. — Bylaw

Oh my goodness, I didn't mean for any statements to be taken personally. I think we have a whole lot of misunderstandings.

I am quite sure none of the men who attempted to have sex with me thought they were harming me. Why would anyone assume it was their intent to harm someone? I am not saying that harm can be done. I am just saying that was not the intent.

Comparing a cannibalistic pervert with most of the people who are charged with rape is a false comparison. However, I remember long ago there was a news story about such a perverted person. Thank goodness the high school and college males are only wanting sex and are not intent on harming the female.

Yes, I would rather not have life than be an Afghanistan mother right now. Finding happiness in a situation of powerlessness as one's children die, would be perverse don't you think?

Hmm...I think this is a really difficult question, with a lot of different sides, and maybe no good one answer. Again, I don't have a lot of info on the topic, so I'm just going to relate my thoughts on what I've heard on the radio and whatnot.

I think its important to note that the loss of importance of family comes from a lot of different sectors.

For example gender dysphoria: A rising mental condition that makes some girls physically feel that they belong more in a guys body. I don't suppose that they would be particularly receptive to oxytocin, or stimulation via maternal instinct if they felt more physically inclined to be a man. So perhaps if we could conclude that a variant expression of oxytocin exists within woman in general, it definitely would not be hard to believe that some women just feel less inclined/binded to maternal instincts like other girls would be.

Theres also scientific advancement. I think were getting to a point where now you can actually choose the eye colour of your child, hair colour, specific immunities against certain disabilities etc... we may eventually come to a point where its more cost effective to just make a baby in a lab, then go through the natural process.

Overall ignorance might be a point too. Since celibacy is gaining traction, some people don't know exactly how powerful the sentiments are after having a kid. How it completely takes over your life.
They might just view the practical/physical aspects of it, and go, "meh, not for me. Costs too much."

Finally there's just the fact that there are too many people on earth! I think men are less incentivized to have babies when they know they might contribute to the overpopulation of earth.

Now does/would all this contribute to the devaluation of a woman?

Well depends on how you would define one. I think gender is a really complicated issue right now in terms of definition, and in my belief I think it might be better to restate the question to how can we sustain the individual, who NEEDS maternal instinct to validate themselves? If one day family is out of the picture, how can we still stay connected?

Do these advancements destroy family fidelity?

Well yeah. Now you have to define yourself by yourself, whether you want to or not. — john27

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I love your questions about gender dysphoria.

Can hormones affect gender identity?
The hormonal theory of sexuality and gender identity holds that, just as exposure to certain hormones plays a role in fetal sex differentiation, such exposure also influences the sexual orientation and or gender identity that emerges later in the adult.

Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation - Wikipedia — Wikipedia

However, gender dysphoria can also be a defense mechanism resulting from childhood trauma. However, we have always had Tomboys, and why not? The restrictions that were once put on females made being a boy appear a lot more fun.

"a point where its more cost effective to just make a baby in a lab, then go through the natural process." Bad idea. Bonding begins in the womb, and no female animal will produce milk until a baby is born. Once the milk begins to flow, we can keep it flowing by milking the goat, cow, or a human mother and as I mentioned the baby suckling on the mother triggers the mother's hormones and heightens bonding. But so does learning a language begin in the womb and while in the womb the baby recognizes the mother's voice. I hope we come to pay attention to what makes us humans. We might be able grow babies as the novel and movie The Brave New World speaks of growing beings, but I am not exactly sure they would be humans instead of androids. Mammals are conditioned by their relationships and environment.

"some people don't know exactly how powerful the sentiments are after having a kid". Oh yeah! I tried to warn my son about how a baby would change his life and he didn't pay attention. Like the ignorance could be, not knowing what one is missing or not knowing what one wants to avoid. Being a parent is a human experience and unless someone has had the experience, it is hard to relate what that experience is. Facts have little meaning without experience. However, not all parents want to be parents, so they do not respond to the child emotionally, and you causing me to think about this, is very appreciated. It just is not the same for all people.

Many people are thinking our planet is overpopulated and global warming is making matters much worse and it is best to not have children.

"Now does/would all this contribute to the devaluation of a woman?" The value of the woman was radically changed when it was decided the man puts the baby inside the woman. I would love to turn the clock back to when we thought life came through the woman and we loved our earth mother. If we need women to reproduce and nurture children, and all of us, she can not be devalued, but we can fail to recognize her value. I think our role in civilization has been overlooked and I have no desire to live in an all male world. Male domination was bad enough. This is when we should be stronger and bolder about being women and not one of the guys.

I can't see a problem with someone who is sexually abused blaming someone who abused them. — Bylaw

That is not how either understands their act of abuse unless they are aware of being angry and wanting to hurt the other person. I am including females as sexual predators, because of news stories of female teachers lusting for a young male student and acting on it. Normally sexual behavior comes from knowledge of self, not knowledge of the other person. Some thoughtful people may read a book about sex and technologically be sex experts, and they can not know how the other feels without asking? :lol: How many men fake a climax to make the woman feel good and to stop the action that is not appealing because the hormone level is not where it needs to be to enjoy sex?

The young man who recently entered an older woman's home and raped her had been watching porn of women waking up to a rapist and being delighted. He expected her to enjoy the sex. He is not the only rapist who expected the female to enjoy the sex. In the past women were expected to say no, and men were expected to not take no for an answer. From the Carol Burnet Show to Mash and Gomer Pile sex is a mating dance of females rejecting the male and the male continuing to pursue the female and it is funny or pathetic when the roles are reversed. If we think of nature we might be a little less hysterical about the behavior and behave according to nature's rules, instead of flaunting the rules and then crying about the man's act of nature. :monkey:

Well, I'll warrant I don't have much knowledge on this topic, but i'll give it a shot.

my general idea is that its not necessarily only a woman's social responsibility that has altered; I would say that the average idea of "family" has changed, or in any case has lost a veritable amount of importance. Human artificial insemination, rising rates of sterilization amongst men, I think theres even a human clone in china somewhere... not sure, but it would seem that the word family is definitely decreasing in value. Personally, I wouldn't be able to say whether its for the better or for the worse, seeing that my belief around family is obviously biased.

Who knows? Maybe in the future we'll see family as a terrible and archaic form of human development. Only time will tell I guess. — john27

Thank you that is what I was hoping we would get at.

Okay, what of our hormones that define our human nature? Sex and mothering are hormonal. Now we can be celibate and childless but that goes against our nature. Our nature is to feel pleasure when we have sex or suckle a child. Oxytocin is our love hormone and sex and suckling a child stimulate the secretion of that hormone. Because of our hormones, it can be hard to be celibate and it can be hard for a mother to return to work instead of staying home to care for her baby. Men can get up in the middle of the night and give the baby a bottle, and they can change the baby's diapers, but they will not have the feelings a mother has. I do not understand why in this age of science, we are in denial of our hormones and what they have to do with our feelings and behaviors? What we have done is very dehumanizing and it is hard for me to believe this is good for humanity.

Family fidelity is gone from our consciences and I know for a fact this is very painful for most older women who are being firmly rejected by their grandchildren who don't like old people who just by looking at them, remind them of their mortality. In the past, we were taught to respect our elders, and family fidelity defined who we were and our place in society. Education for a technology society with unknown values has purposefully destroyed that. I am horrified that today when people speak of their identity it is about the work they do, not family!

Until women's liberation, I was Mrs. James Smith, and it was my husband and children who defined me.
For at least 6 thousand years all of humanity was ordered by family order. That is no longer true. We are no longer committed to each other as we once were and this has huge moral ramifications. What do you think?

Do you really have to ask??? — baker

Well of course. Philosophy is about asking questions, and then daring to answer them. It is not being a know it all. Just this morning I read how we risk the gods striking us down if we are not modest in all ways. :grin:

There would be no point in coming to the forum if it were not to ask questions and attempt to answer them.

If they decided to start shooting down satellites, I think that the US wouldn't take that very lightly and we would do everything in our power to send some more satellites to replace the one's we lost. While the loss of multi-million dollar satellites wouldn't be a great thing to happen, it wouldn't really cause that much harm if they didn't follow up with such an attack with some kind of military action.

I don't know that the US could really do to China if they did such a thing, but I'm guessing it wouldn't help them much to do such an action since it would definitely cause the US to be less friendly when they start destroying military and/or civilian assets for no other reason then they felt like doing so. — dclements

War is insanity. Fortunately, we have international law and international organizations that might prevent war, and this was not so in the past. For sure China is testing all boundaries. A check of what Chinese citizens think of the US is not good. https://www.gzeromedia.com/the-graphic-truth-how-do-chinese-people-view-america It is concerning to me that China has invested so much in military might, considering from our point of view, no one is threatening China. The majority of Chinese citizens have an unfavorable opinion of the US and I think this should concern us. Things were not always like this. When Nixon was cozying up to China, it was fashionable to have clothing reflecting Chinese fashion. We learned of Tao, I Ching, and The Art of War. Something has gone very wrong and I think it is good to attempt to understand why.

Nuclear warheads and other NBC type weapons are really only useful as a deterrent to preventing another country from trying to invade you since you could "theoretically" get away with using a nuke against a military force (somewhere outside of your country where they are building up for an invasion) if that force was much too big for your own military to deal with. Also they can be useful if you need to strong arm a neighboring country that has powerful conventional forces but no nuke themselves. — dclements

Man, just take out our satellites and almost completely destroy the US defense system and the ability to support it. Without those satellites to keep our technology functioning, I don't think the US would have a defense. :lol: I would give them 3 days before they are on the streets killing each other with their own guns.

Maybe I'm wrong and all they are is really just a baby tiger instead of a mean and vicious bear they are trying to pretend to be. But even if they are not really ready to be the world superpower that they think that they are, I sure they have enough people, resources, etc. to make themselves a bit of a headache for the West in the years to come. However if they are almost at the point of being a super power on pare with the US, it is going to take carefully planning and work with our allies in the West to make sure China realizes that they really can't just do whatever they want. — dclements

How about this, the US minded its own business and was known for isolating itself and being strongly against war. Our Constitution made it hard for the US president to engage the country in war, and this is no longer the case. It used to take the US a good year to mobilize for war. We can now engage in war with 4 hours and congress does not need to approve of anything before our bombs fall. In the past, our ability to fight wars depended on our patriotism. Thanks to education for technology for military and industrial purposes our high-tech military does not depend on our patriotism.

We think of the US as a national leader and what did that mean before the world wars? What does it mean today? How about this, Eisenhower embedded the Military-Industrial Complex in the US and it is now what it defended its democracy against. In the past our leader was about ideals. In the present our leadership is about military might. Not only is our leadership about military might, but when it comes to understanding our ideals and being a united nation, we are destroying ourselves and could hardly look any weaker to the rest of the world. Hello WE ARE WHAT WE DEFENDED OUR DEMOCRACY AGAINST AND THAT IS THE POWER AND GLORY OF MILITARY MIGHT. China is just following our lead.

Next, China's huge population demanded a huge leap into modern technology. The same is true for India but I think India is less likely to want military might. Our planet is overpopulated and resources are relatively scarce. Surviving will depend on our technology and that includes the technology for war. China has hypersonic nuclear missiles that can bypass the US defense system. So much for the US pounding its chest and posturing as the alpha male. It ain't the alpha male anymore and any American who disrespects China is being part of the problem. Few things are more important to Asians than saving face and being honored.

I am curious about is going through your head.
I ask for a lot of things that don't interest my child. He is used to that. How to put it, we understand each other. — Valentinus

Speaking of child care is the foundation of why I brought up the subject of changing consciousness. Our civilizations have been patriarchal. The Cherokee are matriarchal and there are other matriarchal societies around the world but these are not dominating powers as patriarchies are. In our patriarchy women have agreed to be like men and leave childcare up to someone else. I question if that is a good idea.

I do not think in any matriarchy or patriarchy do men desire to be as women, unless they are homosexual and even then I doubt this is strongly connected with wanting to be a mother. Drag Queens are not displaying a desire to be mothers. There are some nurturing men who enjoy being with children and this may or may not reflect their sexual orientation. :joke: This is crazy-making because there are so many possible combinations, but I think I can safely say, in our society, we do not have nearly enough nurturing men willing to devote themselves to children.

Why don't many women what to be nurturing and financially dependent on someone else? On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the best, How do we rate women who are financially dependent so they can stay home and care for their children? How on the scale where do we put men who are financially dependent and stay home to care for the children?

We would actually have to live up to our own ideals, — James Riley

It should be obvious I love the Greek and Roman classics, but I am not as well informed as I would like to be. It is my understanding that the Celts got along fine with the Greeks, but not with the Romans, who not only enslaved others but also themselves. Can we see this conflict between the invading, Christian conquers and the indigenous spiritual people?

Some Christians realize Christianity was derailed by Rome. I wish we worked with a better understanding of that line of thinking? How far can we go with a concept of, "specific performance" in equity when the foundation for all thinking and understanding of truth, is the Bible?

The meaning of equitable is just or fair : dealing fairly and equally with everyone. — Webster

This gets all tangled up with notions of "us" and "them" but with the Greeks comes the idea of universals and then the Romans give us law. But a legal effort of Rome was to take what was common practice in different city/states to decide cases involving people from the different city/states. We did not do that with Native Americans. Something mean happened when our linage dropped the many gods and in favor of the one God. Excuse me, but isn't that the end of equity?

Specific performance is an equitable remedy which may be applied in contract law. For example, X agrees to sell property to Y. X fails to convey the property to Y, but not because of any default by Y. A court may compel X to convey the property to Y. Generally, it's a remedy which isn't ordered where payment of money damages provides adequate relief.

From a lawyer's standpoint (well, this lawyer's standpoint) one of the problems with equitable relief is that the court has a great deal of discretion in fashioning a remedy. It's very difficult to successfully appeal a decision made by a court sitting in equity, because the appellate court will defer to the lower court's decision. It's necessary to show an abuse of discretion by lower court, which isn't easy to do.

I don't know whether specific performance may be applied in the case of treaties. Sometimes it won't even in contracts, especially where the remedies available to the parties is specified, and specific performance isn't one of them. My guess would be that the treaties made with native americans limited the remedies available, but I haven't read any of them. — Ciceronianus

Thank you. What comes to mind is justice is not just property decisions. We have denied people their inalienable rights. I think a problem emerges when people believe they are superior to others and a God who has favorite people blesses them and wills them to take all they can get. The only benefit I can see in Judaism is this God gave them a relatively small claim to land. Where as Christians have no limits on what they believe they can take or at least control, in the name of God. My thinking on this may be totally inappropriate, but would you like to comment about how Christianity influences our understanding of justice and how increased secular thinking is changing the consciousness of justice? Perhaps how science and international points of view are changing our understanding of justice and what is equitable.

:smile: What do we need to know for "right-thinking"?

As I remember, the ruling raised questions about who would have legal jurisdiction over the land for the purposes of civil and criminal law. That seems like much more than allowing them to open a casino. That's why I asked if you'd heard anything more. I haven't. — T Clark

The ruling will have significant legal implications for eastern Oklahoma. Much of Tulsa, the state's second-largest city, is located on Muscogee (Creek) land. The Muscogee (Creek) Nation cheered the court's decision.

"The Supreme Court today kept the United States' sacred promise to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of a protected reservation," the tribe said in a statement. "Today's decision will allow the Nation to honor our ancestors by maintaining our established sovereignty and territorial boundaries."
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/09/889562040/supreme-court-rules-that-about-half-of-oklahoma-is-indian-land — LAUREL WAMSLEY

This has far-reaching legal consequences.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that about half of the land in Oklahoma is within a Native American reservation, a decision that will have major consequences for both past and future criminal and civil cases. — LAUREL WAMSLEY

And back to the Palestinians in Israel and the Uyghurs in China, what are unalienable rights and justice and nature's laws of cause and effect? What are the boundaries of doing unto others as you would have others do to you? Internationally in a world with hypersonic missiles?

Back in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that about half of Oklahoma was on land that belongs to the Muscogee tribe. Have you heard anything about how that is working out? — T Clark

Oh yeah! Our history is a huge international problem! I have heard about the Oklahoma land dispute and your comment has heightened my awareness of the complexity of the problem. Some native Americans were more settled than others. I can see how a migratory tribe would have a weaker claim to the land. If they were not present to defend their land, then how can they claim it? I am not saying taking control of their territory is justified. I am just acknowledging the weakness of their case. And we know many times the Native Americans were present to defend their territory and it was taken from them anyway. Now how to we stand up to the rest of the world and tell them they can not do what we did?

As I remember it, "specific performance" is a common law legal principle in equity. It requires that you have parties. One party could be an Indian Tribe. The other party could be the Federal Government. But the court is enforcing an agreement. So there had to have been an agreement (offer, acceptance, consideration). The parties must be subject to the jurisdiction of the court. The court figures out what the agreement was, and then enforces the agreement. The court can award damages (i.e. money, like the U.S. Supreme Court did in a case the United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians). But the Indians rejected that money. They want the land, as specified (specific) in the treaty. Perform; do what you said you would do. — James Riley

Oh my goodness, I think I actually understand what you said. Oregon tribes had a hard time because the treaties they signed were not processed? This was in a show last night. Something like they were not ratified? And White people were encouraged to homestead the land, and they got legal protection, not the tribes. Then the government just decided to declare the tribes no longer existed leaving them to fight for acknowledgement of their existence. Schools for Native Americans were used to make the tribes none existent. The children were sent to a school very far away and prevented from speaking their language of maintaining any traditions. Many children died and an effort has been made to return them to their tribal land.

The fight is not exactly a fight for equality because it is not about being as the Europeans who invaded their land. So now I must ask what does the word equity mean? Of here is a philosophical consideration what are inalienable rights? Do they apply to all humans?

The U.S. has a long history of 1. Screwing Indians; and 2. Buying it's way out of it, when it's own courts find it has screwed the Indians.

By going to court in the first place, Indians have subjected (subordinated) themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts of the other party. That is questionable in the first place. Should not an international court, sitting as an independent arbiter, hear the case, under international law, between sovereign nations? I say yes, but, like Indians, I don't matter. It's all a charade designed to fuck Indians.

Yes, but isn't this the conquers privilege? Look at Israel and the US support of it. :rage: This thread goes with the changing consciousness thread I started because I think in general our consciences is changing. At least the public broadcasting shows I watch are coming from a point of view that what the invading Europeans have done is immoral by today's standards.

If one understands war, and might-makes-right, then it is easier to live with. So, the U.S. won, Indians lost, and they are lucky to get what the U.S. courts give them. But there is a problem: Forget the Indians for a minute. The U.S.'s own Constitution provides that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. So the U.S. is violating it's own laws when it fails to abide it's own word. The U.S. is not only fucking the Indians then; it is fucking it's own citizens and itself.

Ouch! I think we have an international problem, and what is being said here goes with a changing consciousness. The whole world is judging us and some of those folks have serious weapons. We have lost the assurance of being the winner of all wars. This forces a re-evaluation of ourselves and effectively we are a nation in serious need of psychoanalysis.

The U.S. might argue "pacta sunt servanda, rebus sic stantibus" which is an international law principle that "treaties shall be obeyed; so long as things remain the same." The U.S. would argue that things have changed. But there is also a principle that a party to an agreement can't purposefully change things to get out of an obligation. If the Indians, or time, or a third party had caused the change, maybe. But the U.S. damned the rivers, stopped the grass from growing, blah blah blah. So it can't, in equity or law, get out of it's obligations.

I am loving your explanations, and what of this...

Who are the Uyghurs and why is China being accused ... - BBChttps://www.bbc.com › world-asia-china-22278037
Jun 21, 2021 — China has been accused by the US of genocide and crimes against humanity against the Muslim minority group. — BBC

Internationally we don't have a leg to stand on because we have not respected our treaties with Native Americans, and what we have to done to people of color is totally unacceptable by today's standards, and what is new, is we are becoming aware of how the rest of the world sees us, and how our own history destroys our arguments with China and others. Trump followers do not appear sensitive to this international problem, but can they succeed in halting the change of consciousness that is occurring? Is that even desirable?

Thus, if money is to be paid, pay it as a Fifth Amendment "takings" to all the trespassers who have made a living on, and invested in the Indian lands, and then kick them out and let them start over somewhere else. In other words, don't try to buy your way out by giving chump change to the Indians. Buy your way out by giving chump change to your citizen trespassers who relied upon your failure to keep them out, per the treaty. It's a U.S. thing. Not an Indian thing. If the U.S. stood up, it could then look at Israel with cleaner hands.
3 days ago
T Clark
7.1k
↪James Riley

On the bright side, our fossil fuel economy is not sustainable. I thought when we began fracking for fuel our troubles were at least temporarily over, and I am horrified by what is happening to gas prices and that we are still dependent on foreign oil. I thought this day was far in the future, along with the global warming problems that are already intolerable. How intelligent are we if we do not question if we need to live together differently and build our happiness of something besides material values? And so I have the other thread questioning our changing consciousness and asking questions of men that make them uncomfortable. Am I a better human being if I have a high-powered career than if I am just a domestic woman, and do nothing beyond caring for my family and volunteering in my community? I think it might be easier for women to feel unity with the women of the world than it is for men to feel unity with the men of the world?

We can hardly control our circumstances. Life contains suffering.
What we can control is our mental states. Do I focus on the bad and spiral into negativity, or do I focus on the good and appreciate all that life has to offer? — Hermeticus

What does life have to offer? Can you think of any conditions that leave a person feeling powerless to achieve happiness?

If only it did. Oh, you meant the other kind of parties. — Ciceronianus

:rofl: I love your reply to James.

I just want everyone to know I have not forgotten this thread. I just ran out of energy before I got to it, but I got my paperwork turned in on time, so my day hasn't been a total loss. I promise I will be here first thing in the morning when my batteries are recharged.