The Bible presented among Christian believers, is a collection of stories written by supposed divine inspiration. The stories within the Bible show us scenes of gore, rape, slavery, and so many more violent acts, yet Christians sit here and preach that we must do what the Bible tells us word for word. — Edward235

Some of it is alleged to have 'divine inspiration'. Some of it is purported to be history. Some of it is liturgy (e.g. Psalms). the Bible is a collection composed by various authors over time, revised, edited, and reworked. Only 23% of the Bible (New Testament) concerns Jesus, the Apostles, Paul, and the early years of Christianity. 77% concerns the Jews and Israel.

Yes, there are numerous stories recounting violence in the Bible. The promised land was secured by violence. "Kill them all." Deuteronomy 20:16-18. Was this a surprising innovation by God, or just standard operating procedure in armed conquest? More the latter, I would think.

Jesus Christ, whom Christians consider the fulfillment of the God's Word, said: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." That is what the Christian is directed to do. Period.

The idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, to be taken literally from Genesis to Revelations is a recent innovation in the 2000 year history of the faith. This approach was developed as a reaction to the new insights developed by scholars in the 18th/19th century. Textual criticism and evolution both cast doubt on some biblical truths. In reaction, conservative believers hardened their view of the Bible from "authoritative" to the Bible is inerrant -- literally true, not questionable in any way, shape, manner, or form. In other words, Fundamentalism.

Most 'mainline' Christians (Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic alike) reject Fundamentalism.

Some people have a low tolerance for ambiguity. Multiple meanings which can be revised according to interpretation bother these people a lot, whether it's the Bible or the Constitution, law, or ethics. They see things in black and white without any annoying grayscale.

Conflict is a constant in the world order, new or old. There are political / economic / ethnic / religious / cultural fault lines all over the globe that regularly result in conflict, casualties, disruption, famine, various forms of collapse, and so on. This has been the case for decades, if not centuries. Just for example, the civil war in Sri Lanka between the Tamils and Sinhalese between 1983 and 2009. Most people in the world were not greatly bothered about it, but for the people who lived there a bad time was had by all. JUST one example among many.

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia bothers far more people than the Tamil Tigers vs. the Sinhalese ever could, A) This is taking place on NATO's steps, if not on its porch. B) Russia (and the former USSR) are/were big-name enemies to several big-name states. The people of Ukraine, unlike Iraqis or Afghans are democratic westerners. Thanks to Stalin (famine), Hitler (invasion and genocide), Chernobyl (reactors go boom!), and now Putin we have seen great suffering in Ukraine. We are more predisposed to think kindly of them than say... the people of Nagorno Karabakh.

At least 10,000,000 people were in the Ukrainian diaspora. They are a visible ethnic group in many places. There are roughy 2.5 million people of Ukrainian descent in Canada and the United States. Their presence in many countries makes their suffering, courage, and cause-in-general more accessible than that of Sudan or Yemen.

The remarkable unity displayed by EU and Nato member adds to the immediacy of their needs. If instead, only Cyprus, Portugal and Norway were helping the Ukrainians, we would probably care less about them.

So it seems. As I said from the start, Western oil and defense companies are going to make a huge fortune from this: — Apollodorus

They will, true. But when do oil companies not make money? Oil is in demand everywhere, and the oil companies are located around the world wherever there is oil. War or no war, oil is generally a great business to be in. Suck it up and sell it.

In a dangerous world (created partly through the good offices of arms companies), when do defense companies not make money? Big ships may not be the thing this year, but drones are. ICBMs may be in the doldrums, but Stinger missiles are hot. Fighter planes are very expensive, but one can make money on mines.

Oil and Arms will be making money into the foreseeable future, regardless.

Here's a fuck up: Ukraine is a grain exporter to the Mediterranean basin, through its Black Sea ports, which Russia is busy closing off.

Ah, I wasn't thinking that trade relationships would or did trump security policy. I posted the chart just to give people like me a clearer idea of the Ukranian economy.

Here is a chart from VISUAL CAPITALIST showing what Ukraine imports or exports, and from/to whom.

Ukraine’s Shift Away from Russian Trade Dependence
Since its independence from the former USSR in 1991, Ukraine has steadily shifted towards Western trading partners, especially as conflicts with Russia escalated in the 2010s.

After years of negotiations, Ukraine’s Association Agreement with the EU in 2014 facilitated free trade between EU nations and Ukraine, reducing the country’s dependence on trade with Russia.

Ukraine is one of the most important economic centers of the former Soviet Union, and it had long been the breadbasket of the USSR thanks to its fertile chernozem soil and strong agricultural industry.

Trade value between Russia and Ukraine peaked in 2011 at $49.2 billion, and since then has fallen by 85% to $7.2 billion in 2020. During this time, European nations like Poland and Germany overtook Russia in terms of trade value with Ukraine, and in 2021 trade with the EU totaled to more than $58 billion.

Good point. But entertainment is easier than instruction. I don't want to claim that in "the good old days" news media were all about instruction. What was the case, I think, is that instruction played a significantly larger role than it does now. That isn't to say there was no bias; just that news organizations were more serious about providing information, and not just amusement.

Of course, if it doesn't affect the viewer, disaster information is as entertaining as a sitcom. It is a pleasure (on one level) to view a horrible event than has no person consequences. 9/11 is a classic example: Fascinating event! I knew absolutely no one who would be or was affected. The forest fires in California were not entertaining, because I knew a couple of people who were directly affected, and we could both see and smell the smoke 1500 miles away.

the sheer desperation and moral bankruptcy of the media enterprise — FreeEmotion

Always bear in mind that most of the media are for profit enterprises. They are not staffed by philosophers (like that would help) or public intellectuals. Reporters, commentators, hosts, producers, etc. possess varying levels of depth and insightfulness. If a big war had broken out between Myanmar and Thailand instead of between Ukraine and Russia, the same batch of people (more or less) would have descended on Bangkok and started to report back.

William Shirer, a CBS radio reporter, did such a great job reporting on WWII in Europe because he had been there for several years before it started. Eleanor Beardsley, NPR reporter, has reported from Paris for years. She was suddenly reporting from Kyiv / Kiev. I like Ms. Beardsley, but how much background can a reporter collect during the flight from Paris to Kyiv? Lyse Doucet, a BBC reporter (thick Irish accent, Canadian, apparently) bounces all over the world, disaster to disaster. Same show, different corpses.

Why don't the Ukrainians flee to Russia?. — EugeneW

A small percentage are fleeing to Russia, mostly from the Donbas region immediately adjacent to Russia. Those living in Kviv or Lviv, for example, A) don't want to go to Russia and B) would have to travel eastward toward and through a battle zone. Travel westward toward Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, or Moldova makes more sense at this point.

“Why can’t we just let people believe some things?” one Twitter user replied. “If the Russians believe it, it brings fear. If the Ukrainians believe it, it gives them hope.”

You know already it because you posted this quote, but false fear and false hope do not make things better. Truth matters, even if it is an early casualty in warfare.

I'm not a 'news junkie' but I do try to stay well informed on what is going on. One can get reliable, stable information about Covid-19, for example, but one can just as easily hear wildly conflicting information which can't be easily harmonized. Dr. X says masks reduce transmission, Dr. Y says we can stop using masks now; Dr. Z there will be new and possibly dangerous variants in a couple of months. Dr. A says the Pfizer vaccine works on young children; Dr. B says everyone should get a booster; Dr. C. says the vaccine is uniformly ineffective.

The same thing is happening in Ukraine. "The Russian advance has stalled"; "the Russians will soon control Black Sea ports and shipping"; "Ukrainian regular troops and volunteers are fighting very effectively"; "the Ukrainians are likely to win"; "the Ukrainians are likely to lose"; and so on and so forth.

Conflicting views can be heard from one news agency, let alone ten news agencies.

When there is too much conflicting information, I tend to stop listening--not because I don't care, but because it's too difficult to parse out the facts. What really happened 3 days ago may be cleared up tomorrow. What happened 10 minutes ago will need time to clarify.

Battlefield managers can not wait several days to get clarity, of course. But we who are far distant from the battleground should not take every report we hear as settled truth.

According to Britain’s National Literacy Trust, 16.4% of adults in England, or 7.1 million people, can be described as having “very poor literacy skills” or as being “functionally illiterate”. — Apollodorus

As usual, the United States is worse:



The state where I live, Minnesota, has a high rate of literacy, but even so, about 10% of adults are functionally illiterate. Illiteracy is certainly a handicap in several ways, not least in its effects on cognition. One's ability to access printed information is obviously limited. On the other hand, research doesn't show that individuals get a significant boost in quality of life by learning how to read.

The prospects of someone unable to read are not going to be vastly different once they learn how to read at an 8th grade level. With good material, a low ratio of teachers or tutors to students, and a reasonable amount of motivation, an illiterate person can acquire fairly good reading skills in less than a year.

The major benefit of reading is getting information, and it will take them many years to catch up on all the information that passed them by -- which is one reason learning to read doesn't make an immediate difference.

Besides the illiterate, there are many adults who don't read much even though they can read, and they often find it difficult to read and sort through complicated information--like an article on who is telling the truth, who is lying, who is faking it, and who is confused about what is going on in Ukraine.

Some disambiguation is needed here. A lie is not the same thing as a myth. A theory, true or mistaken, isn't myth. The idea that disease was spread through a 'miasma' or bad air is a mistake, not a myth. Misperception isn't a lie or myth: it's a mistake. "Is it a bird? A plane? A drone? No, it's Super Putin." Lies, misperception, hearsay, rumors, misinformation, unrecognized fact, wishful thinking, etc. are all part of 'the fog of war'.

Russian planes flying over Kiev? – FAKE — Apollodorus

I don't much care whether planes were flying over Kiev or not. Look, wars are not won by a scorecard of facts, fictions, lies, truths, myths, or the like. Wars are won on the ground (with or without air support). Who controls the territory when the war is over?

It would be better if everyone fact checked before they hit 'send', thought first and spoke later, didn't gush BS, observed more carefully, and so on. But hey, humans aren't like that.

Maybe the Ukrainians will fight fiercely enough to end with a draw. Maybe NATO and EU will supply weapons that tip the balance into a Ukrainian win. Maybe a meteorite will smash Moscow, causing Putin to lose focus.

My unhappy guess is that Russia will win on the basis of the preponderance of resources it can bring to bear. I don't like it, mind you.

@et al It won't interest anyone outside of the small circle of opera lovers, but... Never mind nukes. Anna Netrebko, very big-name Russian diva, just got kicked out of the Metropolitan Opera in New York for her continuing loyalty to Putin--probably permanently. A joint project with the Bolshoi was also dropped.

The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast
the first one now will later be last Bob Dylan

New York and London oligarchs and kleptocrats have been happy enough to have Russian oligarchs and kleptocrats buy the high up high end real estate they have built. The upper reaches of these properties are beyond the means of the normally rich, let alone the merely prosperous and barely getting by. I wouldn't object to the seizure of these assets and then used for some public purpose.

Yes: MAD is still crazy after all these years.

I'm not so worried about V. Putin saving face as I am his being (or feeling) cornered or trapped by NATO, the EU and Ukraine. Russia is by no means cornered at this point, but it's conceivable that... say, if economic warfare intensified, NATO sent forces into Ukraine and Belorussia, the EU -- to the extent the it isn't coextensive with NATO -- sent more forces to join NATO, and maybe Turkey (part of NATO) mined the Bosporus and Dardanelles, Putin and his military might feel they were cornered, at least as far as conventional warfare was concerned. This is the danger point where a limited tactical use of even one nuclear weapon against NATO or against Russia could trigger a tit-for-tat exchange, and pretty quickly (say, in less than an hour) result in many atomic weapons being launched.

That could be the end of our species for a long time, or forever, and the end of many other species as well.

The American Defense Department's estimations of nuclear destruction (at least as far back as Ellsberg's revelations are concerned) were way too "sanitary". The calculated destruction on the basis of blast damage and fallout. What they left out of their estimation was fire (conflagration, really) caused by the blasts. The fire storms in target areas would likely significantly raise the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (CO2 being the least of it). The vast amount of dust and soot might counteract global warming for a period of decades, but then global warming would suddenly rebound.

For the most part, people in the Industrialized North (Europe, North America, Japan, northern Asia) would not have to worry about all this because we would either be dead or wishing we were dead already. The Developing South would find its development brought to a screeching halt, and then be slammed into reverse. The most the Developing South could hope for is a less sudden demise.

It didn't do anything with it's nuclear forces. — ssu

As far as I've read, they matched Russia's nuclear threat level. — Manuel

I took that to mean the guns have already been cocked and aimed long ago — Paine

Sadly, President Biden didn't personally inform me of his atomic intentions. But we certainly would not necessarily know that nuclear policy had changed even one iota. The missile silos are always manned, so one wouldn't notice the daily shift change. A key portion of our nuclear weapons are on board submarines, about which we know little (in terms of where they are, will be next, and who their launched missiles will obliterate. B52s? Some of them are still in service, but I don't think they have a role to play in nuclear warfare, any more. I could be mistaken about that. But I wouldn't expect to see the B52 fleet taking off and circling somewhere over northern Canada, waiting for final instructions.

foundation myth — Apollodorus

foundational lie — Olivier5

"myth" as in "mythos"

"myth" may be used as a fancy Greek term for a lie, but that isn't its only (or main) meaning.

a myth or mythology.
"the Arthurian mythos"
(in literature) a traditional or recurrent narrative theme or plot structure.
a set of beliefs or assumptions about something.
"the rhetoric and mythos of science create the comforting image of linear progression toward truth"

Lies, on the other hand, are deliberate and contrived for contemporary purposes

So a myth is not ipso facto a lie.

"The Pilgrims", a small band of separatists, play an outsized role in the American mythos--the Mayflower, Thanksgiving, etc. The Puritans did the heavy lifting of founding New England (and 'yankee culture'). It isn't a "lie" that the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, it is myth.

Myths, of course, are made over time. The desires of imperialists and colonists and later Americans to possess as much of North America as they could get, became the myth of Manifest Destiny, once that seemed attainable, and ever after. Thanks to Manifest Destiny, the map of the United States looks mostly complete (except for that empty space north of our border--joke).

Converting foundational myths to foundational lies is risky, because an important function of foundational myths is collective unity. A people can develop new myths, over time, to reflect new bases of collective unity.

Sophisticated urbanites, like those who populate The Philosophy Forum, never confuse myths with Real Politic. When the chips are down, the bombers will fly, the tanks will roll, the soldiers will march in the name of this or that Peace Loving People.

Putin certainly appears to be engaging in an embarrassingly crude property snatch. Urban sophisticates usually try some more polite, subtle, or underhanded method of stealing wealth. I guess that means Putin is not an urban sophisticate.

There may be a mythos that ties the Ukrainian and Russian people together, but the current war of is based on lies.

So, anyway, what do you think? — Xanatos

The flammability of depicting sex with children (not adolescents) is extremely high. It apparently does not make any difference, legally or philosophically, whether sex between children and not-children is a video, a drawing, a cartoon, an animation, or robotic. It's just plain verboten.

Depending on location, sex between adults and adolescents (and its depiction) may range from intensely inflammable to merely inappropriate. Sex between adolescents (say... older than14 years old) and older adolescents and adults occurs in the world, and has a long history. Many individuals and institutions are adamantly opposed to youth/adult sex, but then many individuals are adamantly opposed to relationships between people who have unequal power, or of different races, religions, and so on.

One problem I have with the severe criminalization of any behavior related to contact between adults and children (say, under 14--pedophilia) is that there is very little chance of changing child-sexual attraction in adults. It seems to be an essential part of those individuals' psyches. The behavior can be punished, but so far as I know, the attraction to young children can not be extinguished. Persons convicted of sex crimes (say, possessing child porn) may end up with amounts to a life sentence, because they can be shown to have been "cured" and safe.

I suppose pedophiles can and do learn to have nothing to do with children, but sexual urges being what they are, failures can occur.

I would think that altogether artificial forms of child porn (cartoons, cgi, etc.) would not amount to crime, but as far as I know it is entirely criminal. Pornography doesn't seem to generate sexual desires that don't already exist (heterosexuals looking at gay porn stay heterosexual).

Sexual activity between adults and children isn't desirable, but the reaction to any aspect of adult/child or adult/youth sexual content is fairly often hysterical.

Well, I think a certain degree of national pride or, at least, appreciation for one’s cultural heritage, isn’t a bad thing. — Apollodorus

I would go further and say that a certain degree of national pride (cultural heritage appreciation) is positive, desirable, even necessary. BUT, I would then undercut that by saying national pride (and sometimes cultural heritage) is a necessary delusion. What do I mean?

I love my country--not all of it uniformly, but I'm proud of America and am not embarrassed to be an American.

Yes, I know we were established as an imperial beachhead by the English Spanish, and French. Yes, I know we deliberately and inadvertently wiped out most of the native peoples who lived here prior to our arrival. Yes, I know we created a lot of wealth on the backs of slaves. Yes, I know we have been ruled by oligarchs, some more enlightened than others. Yes, I know we burnt a lot of coal, oil, wood, and gas and contributed more than our share to global warming.

But I still love my country, and I relish its cultural output--not all of it uniformly. Much of American culture was imported from elsewhere--like coffee which has never been grown here. Coffee is a very good thing.

Love of and pride in my country may be based on certain delusions, though, like: "In God We Trust", "E Pluribus Unum", "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all", and so on. No, I don't actually think that God prefers the United States over Australia or Mongolia. I doubt God exists at all, and as for liberty and justice for all... I rest my case.

But still being American has worked out pretty well for millions of people over the last 3 centuries. Of course, it worked out spectacularly badly for millions too--all the losers in the game. But I still love my country, and I wish it well.

The same can be said for a lot of Soviet citizens, Russians, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, Arabian, Israeli, et al citizens. People tend to like where they live, and they all maintain a mix of realistic and delusional ideas about their homeland.

Were any of us absolutely honest, realistic, and totally non-delusional, we'd have to consider blowing our brains out forthwith.

We haven't had a Rand thread for quite a while. Gird up your loins.

No: It isn't a 'default state'. "Depression" describes a reduction in physical, cognitive and emotional functioning. It is a disease state, ranging from mild to severe, short-term to chronic.

Happiness isn't the default state, either. Life just isn't arranged to allow us (or any creature) continual blissful relaxation.

If there is a default state, it is the struggle of life to survive, grow, mature, and reproduce. When members of our species are successful, our lives work out reasonably well. Past success does not guarantee future results.

human plague of cannibals — bert1

My theory is that as soon as the electricity grid goes down, the batteries fail, and they've used up all the drugs and booze, they will turn to cannibalism. Of course they will. No internet, no social media, no streaming services, no phones, no same-day delivery! The people will be so angry, upset, and frustrated there will be no sufficient relief other than grabbing some live bodies and throwing them onto the barbecue. Necrophilia before or after dinner?

So Putin could crash our systems and Voila!

We're now on a knife's edge and there are many directions in which this precarity could lead us. — Garrett Travers

Which knife edge of precocity are you most concerned about? Nuclear annihilation? Conventional world war? Global overheating? The Black Plague (or its equivalent)? Severe world-wide depression? Social collapse? Civil war?

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' Doomsday Clock shows 100 seconds before midnight. We are at 412 ppm of CO2, up 11% since 2000. Depression and social collapse are always just around the corner. Maybe Americans will get a second civil war -- Stephen Marche, The Coming Civil War, Dispatches from America's Future, thinks we are on the way.

So many problems, so little time. Or, altogether too much time. Don't know.

I wish there was a Grand Solution we could all get behind, but if wishes were gold bullion, we would all be rich.

"country" or "borderland" — Apollodorus

In the past (like... 40 years ago) people often used 'the' when referencing--'the Ukraine'.

Fox News says "The Ukraine” was previously used as a shortened version of “the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,” and therefore saying “the Ukraine” refers to a time that many Ukrainians would rather not reference."

I always assume Fox News is lying, so maybe it developed from the name being perceived more as a common noun than a proper noun, like 'the' midwest.

If trump makes a comeback it's game over. — Changeling

It might be "game over", and Trump never faded into the sewage lagoon where he had been consigned; he keeps resurfacing.

Stephen Marche's The Next Civil War outlines possible ways the United States could start coming apart--not just from polarization, but from people diverging from common interests; white supremacists infiltrating into the police (and military); economic advancement by marginalized groups, and so on, That last -- marginalized groups getting ahead economically -- enflames the dominant demographic more than their own decreased economic well being.

So from several causes, the game might be coming to an end.

Plus, how would Biden react if Texas decided to become independent and join Mexico or Spain? — Apollodorus

Some days I think that would be unfortunate, and other days I think "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out".

E Pluribus Unum has worked, and not worked, in the US. There are several serious books suggesting that we might be better of with less "pluribus". One is The Nine Nations of North America by Joel Garreau. Another author suggested a more complicated map than Gauueau, grouping New England and Great Lakes states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and a few other scattered pieces) as Yankeedom--a diverse geographical area (all fall along the northern tier of states) but all have social cultures descended from the Puritan foundation of New England.

It seems entirely plausible that Moldova and the pacific coastal regions of Russia might not have much in common, similarly, Kazakhs and Baltic cultures are pretty dissimilar.

Reading what you wrote, seems to me I heard Putin say that it was the Bolsheviks who granted 'independence' to provinces of the old tsarist empire. My impression is that the Soviet Republics weren't all that independent of centralized control.

So, how much difference would it make (outside of local boundary disputes) whether the soviet empire or the tsarist empire were reconstructed?

@et al Were the United States to invade Canada, capturing Ottawa early on and decapitating the government, we would probably be successful. (Just thinking about how the trucker convoy tied up Ottawa for 3 weeks.) The rest of the world might be totally appalled, but who would want to take on nuclear America militarily? There might well be a long period of internal resistance, but nothing we couldn't deal with. The Canadians are not much like the Islamic State, after all.

Were Russia to invade Ukraine, capturing Kyiv early on and decapitating the government, they would probably be successful. (Just thinking about whether we have to call it "chicken kyiv" from now on, or can we go back to 'chicken Kiev'?). The rest of the world might be totally appalled, but who would want to take on nuclear Russia militarily?

The leading major powers can pretty much do what they want to do in their own backyards, or even in someone else's distant shit hole garden, should they so decide. Urbane sophisticates don't like this sort of thing, but up against a shark what can even a couple of dozen North Atlantic organized herring do? Not too much, without risking making things worse for themselves.

True, there are "sanctions" and maybe in the long run sanctions will have some effect; time will tell about that.

If Comrade Putin wishes to reconstruct the Soviet Union, there is some chance he might succeed. After all, are corrupt Russian oligarchs very different from soviet commissars and apparatchiks? After all, just how committed is the West to the freedom-loving peoples of Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, or Belorussia, to name a few of the former Soviet Republics? My guess is that we are not deeply committed. (The Baltic states are the exception, most likely.).

Stay tuned.

You were asked and you gave. Blessings on you.

Given his recent good fortune, it would not be unreasonable to expect at least a gesture of reciprocity. Sadly, he may not know how to reciprocate. He may not know how to express gratitude. Of course, I know nothing abut him, but some people don't feel urgency on any number of normal responses in social situations.

I think it perfectly normal for you to be troubled by his lack of reciprocity. It's obvious that reciprocity of some sort would be the appropriate thing to do. Alas, it isn't happening, and maybe there is nothing either one of you can do about it (for quite different reasons, of course).

If he had no skill at managing money (making it, keeping it, spending it wisely, etc) maybe he doesn't know the meaning of the substantial amount of money he received (maybe from you and from others. He might not have this windfall for long, if he doesn't know how to hold on to money. Perhaps somewhere down the line he will be broke, again, and will want help. Should that happen, you might want to carefully weigh whether to give him more money.

It would be good if he could at least express gratitude for past help received. A lack of gratitude may be more grating than the lack of reciprocity.

In any case, you are in the better position. You are not at fault.

the most commonly searched topics on the site is penis size. — praxis

This is something else that Sigmund Freud got wrong. It isn't women who have penis envy, it is men. We all want to know how well we hang in comparison with other men--desperately hoping and mis-measuring to show that we are at least 1/8th of an inch above average.

It's not the ship, it's the motion of the ocean. (consolation prize)

Congratulations; as Ronald Reagan said, "Trust but verify."

It is a Kinseyism that a lot of people are neither heterosexual or homosexual, they are bi-sexual. They are said to have satisfactory sex with both the same and opposite sex. (I'm taking this on faith, not on personal experience.). You have probably seen Kinsey's and other people's stats on bisexual behavior. A small percentage of men are exclusively homosexual (like...2.5%); a large percentage are exclusively heterosexual. Increasing percentages of men behave bisexually on their way to exclusive heterosexuality.

Is a man who has sex 60% with women and 40% with men homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual? Depends who is applying the definitions, I suppose. Kinsey (1894-1956) conducted his research in the 1940s and 1950s. His Institute at U-Indiana carries on today. How bisexual men found partners in the 1940s isn't clear to me -- I'd have to read a batch of Kinsey material, I suppose. And Kinsey's research was a new field: there was not a lot of nuts-and-bolts research before his.

Homophile advocate organizations (who have a vested interest in larger numbers) tend to claim 10% of the population as homosexual. I think this is wishful thinking. A friend of mine always asked, "If 10% of the population is gay, who is getting my share?"

In 2021, IPSOS, a French market research firm, conducted a large survey in 21 country, all continents. They found:

80% of people worldwide identified as heterosexual, 3% as homosexual, 4% as bisexual, and 1% each as pansexual, asexual, and other. Results indicated that significant differences in sexual identity have emerged between generations across the globe, with the youngest group, or Generation Z, being more likely to identify as bisexual (9%) than Millennials (4%), Generation X (3%) and Boomers (2%). Generation Z and Millennials were also more likely to identify as homosexual, with 4% and 3% doing so respectively, compared to 2% of Generation X and 1% of Boomers. In addition, the survey found that men are more likely than women to identify as homosexual (4% vs. 1%).

There are, of course, obvious problems in pinning down actual sexual behavior. Unless one can use a massive and intrusive 'bird watching' approach, one has to rely on self-report.

Remember the scene where the champagne was uncorked and everyone did a girlish scream? Do you think that was pre-mediated theater or a deeply pre_conscious , reflexive perceptual reaction that gets to the heart of what I’m talking about? — Joshs

La Cage, as a film, contained no actual spontaneous behavior of any kind. It employed a fair amount of exaggeration for effect, but sure, the gay characters didn't seem artificial.

Gay men in the Upper Midwest seem to be more tightly wrapped than gay men elsewhere in the country, though there are exceptions. When I moved to Boston from Minnesota in 1968 I found most people in Boston to be more open, spontaneous, and expressive than Midwesterners people. Others have observed the same differences.

I am a good example of a tightly wrapped, tightly screwed together gay man. I always needed a couple of drinks to loosen up enough to engage other men in bars, and I was by no means the only one. Do Midwesterners learn to be tightly wrapped and screwed together, or is it just the way we are? Geographical Determinism? Extreme weather? A disease spread by wood ticks?

Some very campy gay man (can't remember) said "I never had a closet to hide in" because he was a campy child.

This sort of thing was just outside my cultural and experiential zone. Jerry, Rich, and Vic, three guys I met in my first year at Backwater State College (1964), were, I long since understood, campy and cruisey, but at the time that was something I hadn't previously witnessed. I did not know what to make of it.

So yes, I can acknowledge that these three guys, 2 rural, 1 urban at age 18 in backwater Minnesota were campy. Going back a little further, even I exhibited campy behavior at the age of 12, which wasn't appreciated.

gaydar — Joshs

I'd be a lot happier with gaydar if it were more reliable. Like radar, it's a great advance over flying around in the dark. One might use 'gaydar' as a very narrow 'sex-finding' skill, but it is based on a 'gestalt' that includes "the identification of a constellation of behavioral and appearance cues (dress, pronunciation, interests, posture, demeanor, walk) as pointing to what I have been calling a gay gender-associated perceptual-affective style."

It’s interesting how it’s common for members of the gay community to refer to each other as ‘she’ or ‘queen’ or ‘girl’. I don’t think this is just social conventions that we learn from each other. This use of language comes directly from the way we feel inside, this equal dose( and in those men who are strongly effeminate a much higher dose) of feminine style and masculine style. — Joshs

While I have heard gay men refer to each other as "'she' or 'queen' or 'girl' [add in 'sister'] since I started traveling in gay circles (some 55 years), there have always been some men who did, and some men who didn't. I associate it with 'camp'. Some men 'camp' and some men don't. Some men are campy all the time, which I find kind of tiresome. Without a time machine, the only way we have of determining whether this is historically 'built in' or 'learned' is to look at print sources which are unreliable at capturing occasional instances of campy speech. Does Walt Whitman use feminine pronouns for men? I don't think so, but that's a guess.

"Camp" (high camp, mid camp, low camp"... see Susan Sontag on Camp, 1964).

Why do some men use, or not use campy speech? One guess is that it depends on whether or not they have immersed themselves in campy gay bars from the get go. It takes practice to do well. Men who don't drink and smoke (and go to bars) are less likely to be campy [theoretical postulate... no evidence on hand]. Men from rural hick backwaters [me], however profoundly gay they might be, tend not to be campy. Class has something to do with it. Lower class, more likely; middle class--too insecure; upper class -- more likely to practice high camp. [not fact based; conjecture]. And, as you say, at least some of it seems to stem from the self-protrayed gender role. Some guys are consistently butch/macho/masculine, and some guys are consistently the opposite, and probably always were, one way or another.

Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde (1854-1900) practiced high camp. He was gay and straight (much more complicated than merely gay, straight, bisexual).

are you suggesting we are just our brains — Andrew4Handel

Certainly didn't mean to suggest that. We are everything between scalp and toe nails, all connected to the brain. l

The existence of a 'self', the brain, consciousness, etc. are all very hard problems. As far as I know, no one has solved these difficult questions.

Do you think with your Kidneys? — Andrew4Handel

No, but my bladder operates an alarm clock. There is the alimentary nervous system that operates the gut. The ANS has something to say about how we feel, and even how we think (see the various studies of the microbiome).

You seem to be assuming that consciousness is inextricably linked to some brain actives of which no reliable correlates have been found. — Andrew4Handel

Right, nobody knows where the self or consciousness is located, if it is located anywhere. Son of a bitch. My guess is that "self' is emergent, arising from activities of the brain that are not, oddly enough, conscious. However the brain does it, the brain does a great job of faking our consciousness, and sense of a conscious self if they don't actually exit.

I recently read a description of how we know we have relieved our sense of thirst. There is a small set of vessels in the liver that receive blood from the upper end of the intestines. When we feel thirsty, these vessels signal thirst, and we drink water. The water is absorbed in the stomach and intestines. The blood flowing from the small intestine provides the vessels in a specific location in the liver with a sample of blood, from which these vessels can determine whether we have drunk enough water, or not. If we have, the vessels signal satiety,

This is a very recent discovery. Various locations and mechanisms have been suspected as the measuring point. Now we know. I suppose these vessels send a message to the brain, "Enough with the water, already!" when we have swallowed enough.

I would have thought the brain detected thirst and its satisfaction, but no. The brain gets a memo.

If we are just our brains then they are material objects controlled by laws of nature/physics/biology. — Bitter Crank

That spongy 2-halved blob in our skulls does rather seem to be a material object, and it seems to exist within the sphere of reality controlled by nature, physics, biology, doesn't it???

So no free will, then? Can we tell whether we have complete free will?. Can we tell whether we are entirely determined by physics and chemistry? I don't know how we could perceive such a pervasive determinism either way.

Personally, I think people should stop worrying about free will. Endlessly ruminating about free will doesn't get us anywhere.

The first issue Walzer ponders is whether there really is such a thing as an ethical dilemma. — frank

I've come across Walzer in decades past (in the pages of Z Magazine--which seems to have bit the dust). My dim recollection is that he was difficult to comprehend.

No such thing as an ethical dilemma? Really? How is that the case?

is our brain feeding us — Andrew4Handel

Do you think your brain is something other than you? I am my body, my brain. What my brain thinks, I think.

Many of the brain's activities are not conscious. All the physical regulating that the CNS carries out is done outside of consciousness. Some parts of the brain are manageable, controllable; some parts are not. One morning I might wake up awash in feelings of despair, angst, and anxiety. my brain may direct my feet and hands to a bottle of benzodiazepines (for immediate relief) and a bottle of SSRIs for longer term relief.

I could spend the rest of th day ruminating (chewing over and re-chewing) all the reasons why life is unsatisfactory. I could get on the bike and go for a long ride. The latter would probably br more effective than the former, in terms of me feeling better.

I, you, can decide to think some thoughts, or so we believe. One day I decided to learn French. I started, but found it tedious so I stopped, I am responsible for that, as far as I can tell, I spend much of my day reading, I am responsible for that. Various Amazon algorithms help me find books to consider, but I have to decide to buy them.

The One Click feature is Amazon's way of extracting payment before I have had time to change my mind, like one does when one puts the book in the cart first. I like to put clothing in the Landsend cart and then not buy it, I get the pleasure of picking things out but not the cost of buying it. Merchants hate it when that happens. That's why Amazon invented One Click.

Much of the content of our minds was put there before we had control over our environment. All kinds of things get dumped into children's minds, along with language, a basic understanding of the world, and so on, If we have had garbage dumped in our heads, and if we think garbagy thoughts, that just proves "garbage in, garbage out."

So we are responsible for some of our thoughts, but not all.

I assume that you are NOT suggesting that William Wordsworth (1770 - 1850), Romantic poet, was the cause of pain and war. So, some other sort of romantic.

YOUTH are romantic, by nature. They haven't yet come to terms with having to take care of themselves--grocery shopping; laundry; regular house cleaning; showing up for work every day, on time; changing the oil every 3,000 miles--all that stuff. Youth are pretty much wrapped up in themselves. How long does 'youth' last? In many cases, 25--about the time their brains finish forming. (this is biographical -- I'm not looking down my nose at today's youth.)

I entertained many romantic political and religious notions for many years, long past any definition of youth. It was a relief to flush out the system and get rid of the excess.

Naiveté isn't romanticism; viciousness (Hitler, Stalin) isn't romanticism either. In the psychological, non-poetic meaning, it's just delusional, and delusions can definitely lead to bad consequences when we act on them. (Delusion is a standard feature of human beings.) Romanticism, without analyzing the term closely, is about inspiration, subjectivity, and the primacy of the individual, says the dictionary.

Here we sit with the ability to communicate with people around the world and we seem on the brink of disintegration and possibly another world war. Our reality is not the expectation of reason. Could Romanticism be the problem? — Athena

the problem of disintegration and war is perennial. Cohesion within and between nations is difficult to maintain over the long run. "The peaceable kingdom" is a romantic idea. We are always rubbing up against each other, individually and collectively, making invidious comparisons. Before long, we decide to just get rid of some inconvenient group of people, and heigh ho, heigh ho, it's off to war we go.

I think the polarisation of the past can look less serious just because it is in the past. — Cuthbert

"It's not even past" Faulkner said. But yes, past polarization fades over time.

Black-white relations in the US have always been polar, slave and master, 'boy' and 'sir', down and up, urban and suburban, and so forth. I didn't experience the riots of the '60s because I ws living out in the sticks. I have, though, read their history -- before the '60s, and urban riots later on.

I still don't think we were so polarized then (say, 1950 to 1980) as we have been since 1980, and much less so then than we are now. That isn't to say that the conditions that led to the riots were bad -- they were. But immiseration isn't the same as polarization.

Are we here in the United States more polarized now then we were in the 1960’s?
— @Dermot Griffin
Probably not — Gnomon

I think we are much more polarized.

There was some polarization in the 1960s. Vietnam was the principle locus. Also hair length, hippie clothing and lifestyles, "bra burning" (in quotes because very few if any bras were burned) and such cultural issues. On the other hand, congress was much more collaborative; The two "bad guys", Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, were not miles apart on many issues. Nixon, for instance, favored treatment as the primary response to drug use. The Watergate scandal did not separate conservatives and liberals -- in congress or the streets. Most people ended up being thoroughly appalled by the Watergate scandal.

Our present state of polarization has been building for quite a long time--way before Donald Trump slithered into office. I'd say it's been building since the last 40 years, ever since Reagan (1980-1988).

One of the theories about polarization says that the leading cause of civil conflict is the rise of marginalized groups, relative to the dominant group. One author put it this way: "white people mind getting poorer less than they mind black people getting richer".

The various minority growth that may tip demographics from white majority to white plurality in 20 years or so, has been accompanied by improvements in income among minorities in many places (certainly not everywhere). Better income, more education, more achievement, etc. It's not a zero sum game. Mexicans going to college doesn't reduce the number of whites in college, and improvement in minority income are not coming out of white people's wages. What is upsetting is the change in relative status.

Racially, the two political parties in the US have become quite different. The Republican Party is mostly white and the Democratic Party is far more open to minorities (latinos, gays, blacks, asians, women, immigrants, etc.).

Economically, the US is mostly working class. The relatively-poor working class and the absolutely-poor working class are sharply divided economically from the 8% to 10% of the population who are either financially comfortable "middle class" or "very wealthy ruling class".

Mass media is a key part of our polarization. Elementary, high school, and even colleges are often less effective in teaching people how to live and think than in the past. Old mass media has largely faded--the three networks, the daily newspapers, and the like. The wild, unregulated internet has taken the place of more "civilized" and centrally controlled institutions.

The Atlanta Constitution, Chicago Tribune, or San Francisco Chronicle were never going to report that a gang of pedophiles was running the US Government. There is nothing to stop QAnon from claiming that there are pedophile orgies on the floor of the senate, or that Hillary Clinton is a reptilian alien.

Conspiracy theories are more compelling than nuts and bolts civics, economics, or public health. So JUST SAY NO! to vaccinations, masks, social distancing, and so on.