That is a disingenuous line of questioning. I never said anything about ‘sacrificing truth’ I simply stated I am happy to you a ‘cunt’ if you so wished or ‘king of the world’ … well probably neither of those in all honesty :D there are extremes I would stop at.

I don’t believe the delusion of being a king is comparable. I have not been anywhere in the world where there was a predominate minority of people believing they are kings. Correct me if I am wrong? Whilst when it comes to gender issues there is a very obvious minority stretching back through human history who ‘feel’ like the opposite sex of what their genitals say.

If you wish to offend people for nothing go ahead. I have no issue with it really. If said people are my friends I would though. Point being there are boundaries and a reasonable degree of friendliness is not writ in law but it will be judged by people nevertheless.

I don’t care for the ‘law’ tbh. I just use my own judgment because I think I’m old enough and experienced enough to dictate what I believe it right or wrong (reasonably well at least!).

If some radical politically charged trans woman came up to me and started ranting that I should always call her a woman I would tell her to get the fuck out of my face and stop disgracing herself by accosting me when I was out and about minding my own business. In the same light I hope you wouldn’t march up to someone you perceived as ‘a man in a dress’ and start lecturing them about how delusional they are and that they are bothering you by silently suggesting they are a woman when you know they are a man.

Is that a silly enough place you were hoping to get to in this discussion?

I the bigger picture I don’t think we create ‘equilibrium’ (let us call it) in order to ‘get comfy’.

I honestly see it that we do this simply to create a semblance of balance in order to measure from.

When someone creates a home and places certain things in certain places I see this as acting as a creator in order to knock it off balance and learn how regulation in one area can be transferred into life in general. A tidy home leads us to understand something about limited control.

At base it appears to all be about learning or, in mechanical terms, about collecting and regulating information in order to facilitate more of the same.

In terms of pure psychology I absolutely wish to get uncomfortable sometimes because the relief of comfort afterwards is quite nice to say the least.

This is not about you? Forget it. Maybe someone else has something to say even though it is off topic.

I think it was Schiller who said something like ‘if things work perfectly well humans will take them apart to see how it works/ give them something to do’.

Meaning, I think we are naturally inclined to explore and that ‘comfort’ (in too large an amount) can prevent this. Comfort and boredom have some thing some common - neither appears to be an initial state.

What mad man actually craves absolute liberation? Not me for sure! There is only so much one can carry on their back ;)

Animals that have evolved. Animals that are not exactly born ‘self-conscious’ as far as we know.

How the brain adapts to the environment in vitro and when exposed to the world may actually provide us with some insights into how we arrive at ‘boredom’ and whether it is viable to state that ‘boredom’ is the baseline for conscious beings.

Note: I don’t think we strive to be comfortable at all.

It has nothing to do with your ‘definition’. No one calls me ‘man’ they refer to me by name or with he/him. If someone prefers to be called he/him and dresses like a man I’m down with that.

If a guy is wearing make up and a dress, and appears to be conveying the general outward aspect of ‘woman’ I would refer to them as she/her because that is CLEARLY what they are conveying. I know they are NOT a WOMAN because I can see they are a TRANS WOMAN but I need not be a dick about it and refer to them as he/him.

Politeness in this circumstance has nothing to do with some weird inner dictionary definition of ‘woman’. Undoubtedly, as mentioned, it is possible I am unsure about whether someone perceives/conveys themselves as x or y, in which case I would just probably ask if necessary and suffer the consequences of potentially offending them (they would be rare cases).

Maybe being exposed to trans women more often than many in the western world has coloured my view? I have no idea? It just seems pretty obvious to me how to behave in a reasonable manner to people who are different to me in terms of how they perceive their own identity. God knows we all have some kind of identity crisis at some stage in our lives, that is just the way things are.

I’m not crossing over into sexism here. The same basic rules apply.

That is why I mentioned youth and novelty before. I have read some of his stuff.

I’ll have to look into what neuroscience has to offer about boredom and the brain one day.

I am not convinced ‘boredom’ is our natural state. I think humans, and most life as far as I can see, are at base about exploration of a sort. I think boredom hits when we have been exposed to too many or to few options.

Starting from the beginning of a human life we are inundated with sensory data and our neurons start to fade away in order to shape the brain into an efficient machine rather than waste maintenance on unused neurons. Maybe homeostasis as a regulatory device is where ‘boredom’ stems from? But homeostasis is not static obviously!

I think we’re roughly on the same page.

Regarding ‘happiness’ I can only say I managed to get into a certain state of consciousness (by fluke) and realised that to be ‘happy’ (as a goal) was kind of besides the point. It was like looking down on emotions as some weird facade but I don’t mean this in a non-feeling way (detached), I mean it in a ‘being happy is not important’ way because there is WAY more.

I think it goes without saying that work is required to live? I guess the transition from ‘animal nature’ (based on hand to mouth living) has always felt rewarding because ‘not dying’ is pretty good.

Projecting that into the modern world and humans I don’t quite understand your tone or what your reply means/says?

My point was just that a life of luxury and abundance seems hard to enjoy for anyone who does not believe they deserve it. Granted, many people exist that feel like they deserve everything for nothing … they usually grow up at some point though or turn to crime. Generally a price is paid no matter what.

I still view ‘boredom’ as psychological warning. Sometimes we react to it in the wrong manner. During lockdown a great many have felt the mental strain because they come to realise that they have been ‘working’ from day-to-day without thinking (maybe that is your ‘guilty’ group?), and having to face up to what they consider important underneath causes existential angst.

I do believe the whole existential question is one that comes more easily to some than others. It may even be better for some to ignore it best they can because they might simply end up miserable overall? Hard to impossible to say?

I don’t want to show anything.

In western society (where most people are bothered) there just aren’t that many ‘sexual predators’ to worry about. Plus, on the continent unisex is common enough already.

It mainly an issue for Americas, UK, Aussieland and NZ I expect.

Once CRISPR makes a little headway it will be possible to literally convert sexes. As for pregnancies … would need to do some wiggling around to produce eggs/sperm ‘artificially’ most likely. The whole procreation problem might not be so easy to overcome (at least for converting to female!).

We create the distinctions in language and the social significance of these differences. Be this for political reasons or simply down to low resolution analysis/laziness.

As a species it seems we cannot help but bifurcate everything we come across then clumsily categorise as this or that kind of antonym.

When there is a genuine paradigm shift what seems to happen is the usual ‘black and white’ attitudes come into conflict with a fresh perspective. From them arises a new term that is just as quickly cut in two, because it seems we just feel more comfortable with yes/no answers/views rather than having to deal with nuances.

Nothing wrong with this, it is just what humans do and it has been damn effective - even with the problems it carries along.

As for ‘happy’ it something we say but it is such a general term that if you try to get to the bottom of what it means there is little to no conclusive substance to it. Many people will say they want to be happy, but they ignore everything but the idea of this false goal. To be happy is more for children, and it is a fleeting and pointless feeling compared to everything else that happens to us before and after some insignificant little ‘inner glow’ we get (or however else you care to define ‘being happy’).

Happy is not something you do, not something you feel, it is an after thought to glimpse of something that touches us in a way we cannot really articulate.

Note: I admit I was fishing to see if you were curious, but I cannot explain something like this well because I experienced something that made me realise how the idea of being ‘sad’ makes no sense whatsoever and is more or less a delusion of sorts. I don’t mean this as a positive or negative point, it just is what it is and human emotions seem to me to be a confused bundle of issues covering up … words fail :D

Toilets are irrelevant. Plenty of countries have unisex toilets so I see no issue with anyone using any toilet.

Currently men and women cannot be physically changed to match the physicality of those sexes. Perhaps in the future CRISPR will allow people to change completely. As scientific knowhow stands, the physical differences (in terms of strength) cannot be levelled.

If I could literally change into a female overnight I would definitely give it a try (as long as I could revert back to being male). Who wouldn’t out of sheer curiosity?

We created the white and black balls. The human experiences and feeling are only partially, and imperfectly, captured in mere worded terms.

To be ‘happy’ is probably the most mundane and shitty term I have come to realise as utter nonsense over time. No one is ‘happy’ because ‘happy’ is nothing. It is a weird ‘after the matter of fact’ judgement imposed on us. Yet it is nebulous enough to carry the core of the experience/feeling that makes us feel like we can say ‘we are happy’. It is drivel though :D

Overall I don’t really see how a ‘better sense of humour’ would massively impact on sexual selection and general success.

If you are a caring individual that goes a long way. On top of that, if you are skilled/smart then you will go further still. A sense of humour seems more or less to be a little extra.

When it comes to social environments women tend to select men who earn more (can provide), show forms of protection (financially/physically) and/or are capable of developing friendships within the social structure. Humour could act as a detriment as it could act as a benefit.

I have a pretty good sense of humour but it veers from silly to dark, which can rub people up the wrong way. I am not exactly a very sociable person though, but I have made groups of stranger laugh out loud on public transport on a few occasions when in a high mood.

Have you ever been tempted to try stand up comedy? It is something I think about from time to time.

I don’t think either are ‘choices’. They are necessary life experiences. Without them life would be … null/grey/meaningless/void.

The pessimist exists merely because of optimism not in spire of it.

I genuinely believe life is fine. The burdens are the meat of life. Without burdens we have nothing. The time to reflect between basic sustenance can be viewed with pessimism or optimism. At some point in everyone’s life they will feel both, but some will feel one side more strongly than the other.

Work hard and play hard seems like a simple and effective life rule. Life feels good when at the end of the day I can lay back and know I have achieved something.

Boredom is certainly a window into the existential crisis. Boredom is just something inside telling you to reassess your life in some way. Avoiding problems is also something people do a lot. Bad combination! The key is to embrace the so-called ‘suffering’ and surprise surprise, it practically always turns out for the overall betterment.

To strive and to overcome. Little holds more ‘joy’ in life.

You marked yourself as an ‘anti-theist’ here. The point being an anti-theist can be critical about certain aspects a theist holds.

You did not originally state ‘I am critical of and reject theism’ you merely outlined you were anti-theist.

Again though, my interest here is in how we take the term ‘anti-‘ in different contexts. We would call someone who is ‘anti-women’s rights’ something more or less like a bigot, yet when it comes to ‘anti-nazism’ we would not call them bigots because we perceive their stance and highly irrational and actively damaging.

The question is then where anti-theism can fall? I can see that some would look superficially at religious beliefs as ‘childish’ and therefore deem their stance to be opposing, as I put it, ‘irrational and actively damaging’. That is a reasonable argument in some cases, but it would partially involve actively opposing anyone who participates in and encourages such ‘irrational and actively damaging’ traditions, right?

I am certainly not stating there is a clear answer to this. I am just trying to look for a way around the clear statement that hostility towards nazis is not considered bigotry. I think my issue here is in dealing with the idea as if separate from the individual. If a human lives by certain ideals we find abhorrent then we find them abhorrent because they hold such ideals, rather than saying they are not abhorrent they just hold to certain ideals I find abhorrent.

It is precisely in this confusion that a great deal of needless hostility and patronising tones come to the fore when religious beliefs are being discussed.

A quick grab from wiki is enough to show the diversity of the term:

- “Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who regard theism as dangerous, destructive, or encouraging of harmful behavior. C. Hitchens (2001) writes

"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."”

I would say that Hitchen’s is kind of bigoted here. He is clearly stating active opposition and hostility to religions. The details of how far he takes this are something else. As for someone like Dawkins, he is happy for people to believe whatever they wish as long as it doesn’t adversely effect others.

Then there is the bottomless argument of anyone who exists necessarily having a negative effect on someone else somewhere some how. The ‘intent’ alone seems unimportant if pure ignorance causes untold harm and damage to many people.

My view in regards to bigotry is that if someone cannot find a single positive reason for an argument they are veering into bigotry or already bigoted. The manner in which Hitchens conveys his view suggests that his judgement is made on the net effect (“- positively harmful.”).

If you don’t care about this fair enough. NP

It is something that I find intriguing and problematic.

An existential crisis is an existential crisis.

This seems to arise with age more readily. In youth everything is fresh and new, the horizons seem limitless and our potential to develop and learn in growing exponentially. It is no wonder that an ‘existential crisis’ hits at some point because we ‘slow down’ - or rather seem to.

The key is to recapture our inner child and see how fascinating the world IS (not can be!).

As children we did not really ask why we were asking why. I think it is at that threshold when the ‘existential crisis’ rears its head. The ‘why’ is approachable, but the ‘why of the why’ leaves us feeling adrift rather fascinated.

From a personal perspective something that I have become more and more aware of with age is how a life of leisure is no leisure at all. I seem to have an inbuilt code that does not allow me to ‘enjoy’ leisure unless I have earned it. It can be something simple like washing the dishes or making my bed. Once this is done I can relax and do something I consider ‘leisure’.

Is this an ‘illusion’ to feel that I have ‘achieved’ something that warrants me time to pursue more apparently frivolous activities? I am not convinced it is an illusion because if it is then what is not an illusion? Does ‘illusion’ mean anything if everything we experience is called an ‘illusion’? If ‘illusion’ is all we know then said ‘illusion’ is nothing more than our lived reality.

In terms of medicine it is kind of important that someone let the doctors know they are trans rather than just saying they are a woman. I think this is pretty obvious? Complications could easily arise for certain diseases and such if the doctor is not made aware of their patients sex above their preferred gender specification.

I can only assume you don’t take part in physical sports? There is a significant advantage physically. It is that simple.

I can tell you exactly what would happen if trans women competed in physical sports. They would break all the women’s records and rank high. This is simply a fact.

Women’s sport dominated by trans women is not women’s sport. There is a reason men and women do not compete together in nearly every sport. The men are FAR stronger and have better stamina too.

The fact that you have not found evidence of the supernatural isn't conclusive proof that it does not exist. — Elric

The ‘supernatural’ cannot be proven as it falls outside of natural sciences.

Atheist is a term coined by religious folk. Atheist movements have happened to better education and healthcare.

But the term ANTI- does. Not always, but it certainly can imply hostility..

Why are you acting like I have not made that clear as day you stubborn fool.

Kant if you are serious ;)

Crime and Punishment is certainly one I’d highly recommend to most people (and have done). 1984 was one that really cut through the nonsense and conveyed a message everyone needs to take seriously though.

1) Not really. It has been tried with children but simply doesn’t work. If it was to be made mandatory then most people can perform basic logical problems if they are set in a real world context.

If you pose the same logical problem to people where one is in an abstract form and the other is in a life context then way more people get the correct answer for the ‘life context’ version.

Today most students do learn logic via computer programming. It is already a part of most curriculums.

2) School funding is not really an issue when it comes to education. What makes ANY school better is the quality/passion of the teachers. Other than that the success of schools is partially (a large part) based on cultural attitudes toward the occupation of ‘teacher’.

In many western societies ‘teachers’ are not exactly respected, whereas in other countries they are very much respected.

If you wish to learn more about this I would recommend a quick search on youtube/google regarding how Finland transformed their education system.

I cannot help it if you act dickish.

If you are anti-nazism you are utterly opposed to a nazi, right? Surely that follows?

Whilst if you are anti-racism you are not necessarily opposed to ‘racists’ only those that ‘act out’ (so to speak). Generally if someone is opposed to racism they are opposed to racists, right? Of course, the devil is in the detail of what constitutes a ‘racist act’ that impairs the rights of other fellow humans.

Then splice in anti-theism and theist. ALSO note that I admitted that these are not the same thing, but it is certainly the case that anti-theism can - but does not always - mean opposed to theists.

What EXACTLY is not philosophical here? I thought I was exploring the distinctions between where bigotry begins and ends whilst you just seem, being honest, a bit petulant because I originally implied that being ‘anti-theism’ meant such was ‘bigotry’. I have REPEATEDLY, and almost immediately, altered that initial, and blithe, comment.

Just to be clear, ‘bigotry’ is open prejudice (unreasonable opposition) against persons/peoples attached to or part of certain groups.

Of course you can argue that opposition to ‘religious beliefs’ (theistic in particular) is a reasonable argument. My argument against this would be in the intricacies of what constitutes ‘theist’ (meaning what is meant by ‘god’/‘deity’). As an idea of some overarching, conscious supernatural beardy guy/gal … I’m opposed to that too. I think it is a stretch to state that that is what all theists mean when they say ‘god’/‘deity’ - judged on the hundreds I’ve personally spoken to.

Philosophy can even be considered ridiculous, hypocritical, stupid, in its efforts to assign to quantums and neurons and structures and molecules the task of building a good relationship of man with himself. — Angelo Cannata

I do not think philosophers do this tbh?

As for the ‘consciousness’ issue I tend not to bother listening to most people who have poor knowledge of the cognitive neurosciences.

Some questions are scientific and some are philosophical. As Feynmann once said, it is stupid to answer philosophical questions scientifically just as it is to answer scientific questions philosophically. The issue is knowing/understanding exactly what kind of question is being posed before jumping in to answer it.

emojis are now philosophical points? :D

Inspired by Diogenes?

1984 (or anything by Orwell)

I wouldn’t recommend any work of philosophy as a ‘must read’ tbh. If I had to pick one I’d go for The Republic.

If we are talking purely about philosophy then I think anyone serious about the subject should tackle Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason

Does anti-facist mean ‘critical of fascism’?

Look, I stated I was hasty so saying such does nothing. ‘Anti’ is not the same as ‘critical of’ AND I clearly stated that I am ‘anti-theistic’ in SOME areas yet don’t see my singular view on how education works as bigoted.

Maybe it is possible to get you to admit that someone can be bigoted towards theists. If you can then it is just a question of where the lone is drawn.

I certainly do not regard ‘criticism’ as ‘opposed’/‘against’ anything. Criticism is just criticism, and it can be both positive and negative - hopefully both! That is usually how I spot bigotry. If someone cannot offer a positive and negative aspect then they may well be bigoted.

Ontology and epistemology are not ‘exact sciences’ (so to speak).

To suggest there should be some underlying objective foundation for reality that we can access and create a universal ethic from seems naive at best.

All ‘objectivity’ in day-to-day life is just a matter of intersubjectivity. ‘Pure objectivity’ is achieved only in abstracted demarcations (ie. Mathematical Arithmetic where there is no ‘opinion’ over 1+1=2).

The OP seems muddled btw. It seems like you are equating ‘subjectivity’ with ‘post modernism’? In reality experiences (that we have) are subjective, so to claim there is an ‘objective reality’ is not the same as offering complete truth. Science doesn’t deal with ‘truth’ in this way. Evidence is laid out and experimentation sheds light on phenomenon that allows us to navigate through life.

We don’t have any idea about any ‘physical objective truths’ of our world. We have however managed to peel back some layers that have allowed us a better understanding (predictive models) of the world we live in. Whether the layers ever end or we are capable of getting to the core is a matter of speculation.

One thing seems pretty clear though. Acting like there is an underlying mechanism to reality has helped us understand and expand more and more … but more answers have led to more questions too.

It is pretty amazing :)

It is not massively complicated.

Trans women are trans women. Women are women. Referring to a trans woman as a woman is just a way of accepting someone as they wish to be seen.

In terms of close relationships, medical reasons and physically competitive sports trans women are trans women. Outside of those areas trans women are women.

It is just a case of common sense and politeness. Most people who see someone dressed as a woman will call them a woman. Maybe there are a few scarce situations where it is not clear but that can be overcome quite easily with a simple exchange.

It follows if you are completely against any theistic believes. I admitted it is a matter of drawing the line somewhere.

Upon further consideration I clearly stated that not all people calling themselves ‘anti-theistic’ are necessarily against theists (in every aspect). There is certainly a fine line between claiming you are against someone’s beliefs and claiming you are against someone.

As I said before, in terms of education, I am ‘anti-theist’ I suppose. That is a very specific area though and one which prompted a whole movement in the US under the guise of ‘atheism’.

I am against religious ideals imposing on my, and other people’s, choices. Other than that people can do as they please and believe what they want.

If you replace the above with Nazis and Nazism, you might see what I meant more clearly? It would be silly to state that I am against Nazism but not Nazis. The difference (I admit again) is that ‘theist’ is much more broader than ‘nazi’ (which is more or less like a particular set of ideas/beliefs), and although more dubious political movements/ideologies have a lot in common with religious traditions they are not the same animal.

If you in direct opposition to theism then it follows that you are pretty much opposed to theists, right?

I guess there is a middle ground though. Maybe I jumped the gun. Staunch anti-theists are probably more what bother me and it is those who are bigoted.

Being an atheist and and partly anti-theistic is not the same as being a bigot. My mistake. In terms of education I am very much opposed to religious teaching in schools that undermine and contradict science; within reason. Example like the age of the Earth and such.

A reasonable discussion can be had within the context of religious texts. I see no real problem in debating such and think it is probably one of the best ways to open more severe religious types to a new set of tools with which to question and explore their beliefs.

Preachers here will be banned I expect as well as those unwilling/unable to know who and how to respond enter discourse with. If two people are having a good discussion about the morality of certain religious texts based on the premise that god is all knowing and right, then it is pretty obnoxious if someone else jumps in to throw insults and sully the discussion being had.

I have had discussions about definitions of god in the hundreds, online and off, because it is a personal interest of mine. The majority of religious folk I have engaged with are more than reasonable. There are some that simply don’t know how to listen though.

On this forum a think a cool off period would be better than an outright permanent ban (in most cases). That is for owner of the forum to decide though. I have only ever seen a handful of long term posters deserving of a permanent ban. Others just need a breather for a couple of weeks.

I have no problem with people being racist or bigots. The issue is when they act out such attitudes.

If you openly admit you are hostile to a whole group of people merely because they are theists I think you have issues.

Bigotry isn’t a great look.

There is a BIG difference between antitheist and atheist. Maybe you read atheist by mistake :)

‘Preaching’ is not ‘theology’ though. It seems like the boundary you are looking for is more about that?

Preaching should be banned (but a warning doesn’t hurt). I used to see that on another forum I was on. They were asked to stop or leave. Some stopped and got into discussions, others left and some kept on preaching resulting in a ban.

@Banno My general view is if they are here for theology only then they may find other parts of the forum interesting.

Exposure to different views/ideas is a tricky and messy business, but overall the benefits for some are worth the annoyance others feel imo.