So, you disagree with the aspects of existence, being and behaviour that I proposed - the aspect of increasing wealth? I propose that the increase in wealth is indeed an aspect of our existence, our being and our behaviour - it is an aspect that is indeed known to any and all man — Pieter R van Wyk

Not particularly, no. We're largely self-serving beings after all, sure. Otherwise, it's not likely we'd be here.

Another way of framing the topic, rather properly underscoring the dynamic, is to say it is technically possible in theory, but not applicable due to the nature of human manifestation. We don't have control of whether or not we are born healthy, enfeebled, prone to anger, really laid back, smart, dumb, poor memory, great memory, poor sight, great sight, etc. Neither do we have any control over the events and information that we go through or are exposed to, particularly at a young age. All these things contribute to the type of person, or rather what type and state of mind we will have or end up having. These things also define not only what our perceived "hand" that has been dealt in life is but also what we perceive as not only the best options and possible actions or outcomes but the only ones at that.

We are free to move about and navigate the maze that is our life, sure, but it remains a maze that has been created, or at least influenced, by just about every single person living or dead. Every person on Earth has shaped and continues to shape this maze for us, every single person except ourselves.

Perhaps the answer is, we do in some things, and we don't in others. As to which concepts or aspects of existence, being, and behavior belong to which category, that's not something any man would know.

But philosophy, if it is to remain a relevant and vibrant force in the world, needs to address modern day problems and issues much more than it does now. — Philosophim

Beautifully put. That said. You may be surprised just how many modern day problems are self-inflicted. People don't want to listen. They want to do things their way. Higher forms of thinking and logic be damned. Until they get into trouble (or what mostly happens is a less discernible, more insidious misfortune: they simply end up living lives that are a shell of what they could have been, and per the nature of the hedonic treadmill, their mind just adapts to the unfortunate circumstance as if it were the only outcome that could have occurred, living lesser lives and often producing more lives that will likely only follow suit).

In short, you can lead a horse to water but... well, you know the rest. :smile:

Unless it's carefully woven into an action movie with explosions and brutality, even the most pointed and crucial piece of wisdom meticulously crafted for one's situation will likely fall on deaf ears. Not always. But more so than not.

I've found the most effective method to improve the lives of the layperson and get them to make better decisions and ultimately avoid grave misfortune is unfortunately to scare them. The government knows it. That's why they force young drivers to look at gruesome traffic accident photos in traffic school. Why dentists show kids and teens and even adults pictures of rotted mouths. Why they have pretty extreme anti-smoking commercials. Why people warn others they care about (or even any young person around) about the prevalence and lifelong burden of STDs. Etc, etc, ad infinitum.

it's not immoral to transition. — Moliere

But it doesn't solve anything. "Transitioning" only became a thing in the past few decades. Humanity has existed for tens of thousands of years. Can't you see the lunacy in assuming a life-changing and often permanent and irreversible procedure that hasn't had the time for any actual lifelong studies to be done is the "first, best, and only option"?

Forget morality, it's just not a sound belief to be so "gung ho" about. Not yet. Unsound beliefs like yours turn vulnerable people into guinea pigs. How can you not see the immorality in that?

Just because humanity can do something doesn't mean they should.

Hmm.. hyperbole? Figure of speech? Assuredly. Let's just hope, in these days of increasing political violence, it's not a slow day down at whatever the equivalent of Secret Service is around those parts, though. :grimace:

Not trying to be a dill, just looking out..

Yes. (Right click on top site logo -> Open in new private window [you will be not logged in and so can see what non-members see]).

100% of people will believe anything given the right circumstance. Whether this "circumstance" is casual, in the form of simple popular opinion, or extreme, in the form of ingrained upbringing and lifelong psychological manipulation (invocation of fear or danger to one's life, either long-term by mental imagery of an agonizing future or short-term by indirect, implied, or actual violence -- or shame, which shares most of the previous traits) is not relevant to the larger fact.

Generally speaking, people are a frightened and weak species. We mask these truths by violence and oppression of others so as to offer one's mind the illusion of power thus distracting from the reality of our own futility and transience. We cause most of our own problems. Again, mankind must be ruled by a superior force lest it destroy itself.

Generally speaking—from the limited exposure I have to his content—I never found anything objectionable. A bit more casual (as opposed to formal) than most, I suppose. Seemed to know all the lingo, at least. More so than myself.

Still, what people need to remember is at the end of the day, this is somebody else's house. He can make the rules, fair or not, and he can enforce them, selectively or not. If you get too comfortable you forget the reality of the place you willingly choose to frequent, that's hardly anybody's fault but one's own.

I think it's $50 a month to get a PlushForums subscription and maybe under an hour of work total to get an identical setup to this forum of your own going. No one can stop you from doing so if you so desire. Not me, not Jamal, nor any other site or staff member.

At the risk of adding to what I suspect might simply be a bad day or week, I feel a question at least on a few member's minds might be: Are you just having a bad day, @Jamal? Or has this been brewing for some time? :chin:

To some of us, this is much more than a website to waste time or "shoot the shit" on. More than a casual hobby or past time but an active part of one's life and between some of us almost like a club of distant pen pals (I'm trying to avoid saying "like a family" because that's simply not accurate for the majority of posters). My point is, participation on this site is important to some people more so than you might think. We're all real people with real lives and real feelings. Please remember that @Jamal, and if you ever want someone to talk to, particularly a stranger you won't ever have to meet or talk to ever again (you'd be surprised how almost natural it is to open up to someone like that), private message me anytime. :smile:

Wokeness: — is to behave AS IF only white males ever did anything bad.

Is that right, chaps?
And from that place, — unenlightened

I think the rational response to that would be it's about ANY given "majority." Any given majority needs to be kept in check. Period. Doesn't matter if that majority is white, black, or a race of hyper-intelligent gerbils. If you're a majority, that means you have power, and power is should be fair game to be scrutinized. Any society where power cannot be scrutinized is totalitarian. It's always been that way, since the beginning of time, to right now in 2025. "Heavy hangs the head... (that wears the crown)."

It's literally what the whole Declaration of Independence was about, separation of powers to prevent abuse of power. It acknowledges that men are not strong enough to remain moral and faithful to the ideals that made life worth living and that have given us every invention and human work we use and hold dear—given enough time, opportunity, and/or lack of supervision. That's why I like it. It not only acknowledges but codifies a hard truth without blurting it out brashly and turning people off from it.

That said, this isn't a popular definition because the fringe of the majority (who actually wish to do harm to minorities—or otherwise treat them less than equally because "what are they gonna do"—simply for not being like they are) don't like being told the reality that they're nothing special without their numbers. Similarly, those that have legitimate grievances derived from their state of being a minority also don't like that definition because it's dismissive of the legitimacy of their personal sufferings and grievances (i.e. basically, it's easy to interpret that message incorrectly as: "well, if the situation was reversed, you would be no different so your plight really isn't all that big of a deal.")

I just went up to bat for you, dude. Come on, now. Don't attack your one and only wing man in this discussion. :wink:

The disrespect you treat me with is unwarranted and betrays low intelligence. — Dogbert

Accusing people of things that never happened is much worse, pal. All that and more.

"Ennea" is a prefix for the number "9." You can't use words outside of their meaning and expect people to read your mind. We can't. This is an English language forum, if it means something in another language, I apologize. That said, you should have offered some context first before expecting people to just know what you mean without having any ability to.

Once again, your theory is being ridiculed and discounted. Not you. I don't know you. You are not your theory. In philosophy, we attack ideas, not people. I don't know how you could have possibly arrived at the conclusion you have, but I'll keep it in mind that you're on a hair-trigger when engaging in discussions in which you're involved in the future.

It's just the Internet. Lighten up, friend. :smile:

By what standard are human beings not also commonplace matter? — T Clark

I *think* what he's saying is per law of conservation of matter (or whatever) since the beginning of the Universe, there was and remains the exact same number of atoms in existence. From the moment of the Big Bang to right now as you're reading this. There are no new atoms being made and no atoms currently in existence being destroyed (not sure about black holes). Basically saying, the atoms in each of our bodies (what he considers to be "him", his physical body, not a spiritual or metaphysical essence) are the exact same and have existed for billions of years.

It's... a novel concept. Something to chuckle at for a moment or two, I suppose. But nothing more.

Like, why didn't the atoms in my body end up becoming part of a mountain instead, or part of a star a billion light years away? Why are they exactly as they are, forming my physical body? (etc.)

You have achieved.. the number 9? Huh. Can't say I ever did that (at least not that I was aware of). So, neat, I suppose. Was it painful? :lol:

Existence comprises minds, ranging from singular particles to entire nervous systems. — Dogbert

Panpsychism is a theory. Have you proven it yourself conducting your own individual research you can share with us or do you just like the way it sounds? :chin:

A word of caution, if I may:

"You always admire what you really don't understand."
- Blaise Pascal

I like to call it "enchantment bias." (Dibs on full credit if I just coined that term right now, BTW.) :grin:

Yes, it appears to happen in all cases of genocide. The aggressor feels a moral duty to continue the genocide until the victim is extinguished. — Punshhh

The point you haven't addressed is OP's claim that he feels the concentration camps were unlike the many other historical gulags (prisoner work camps) but instead literally just erected to perform torture for torture's sake.

A rebuttal to that would be, no, minus the technological advancement that, if any other historical prisoner work camp was in a period of time that had the same technology and progress of science, would have done the same as well, if not worse (including the medical experiments, experimenting on prisoners can be traced back to the BC period).

I'm not intimately familiar with non-Christian ideology but it seems to be a common "Abrahamic" theme that "everything happens for a reason", which might work out to "if you're in a concentration camp, that's because I (God) want(s) you to be there." Which means, unlike non-religious folk who would either sabotage their equipment, kill the guard (or themselves) at the first opportunity, religious folk will work and toil as if it was any other job. What I am intimately familiar with is how the atheist mind works, and in this particular case, it works by seeing the theist as a delusional albeit "useful idiot" in the simplest of terms for the reasons I've just explained. This could explain why they valued their labor and sought to transport them (a lengthy, resource intensive process) as opposed to killing them with a bullet to the head (fast and cheap). That would logically eliminate the idea of not wanting them to tell their tale to the Allies since the latter option would have been preferred. Or perhaps, they didn't want "the world" to see the bodies. Dead soldiers are one thing. Dead civilians are another. So, transporting them (and not killing them) does not in and of itself justify an argument for "sadism."

Based on these facts, it (OP's claim) is not immediately conclusive that the perpetrators "derived sadistic pleasure" that "became a need for them", at least, not in a unique historical context contrasted to the dozens, if not hundreds, of historic cases where groups of people were enslaved and/or genocided by other groups. It's just more shocking since in the modern age we have photographs and the evidence was freshly uncovered not wiped away or degraded beyond recognition by the sands of time, not to mention the advancement of science and technology (and resulting medical experiments).

There's nothing wrong with spying. — Metaphysician Undercover

You've always been a man of mystery, MU! Thankfully one fact has been brought to light. You're clearly not a minor, one responsible for one, a female, or a minority.

Because otherwise, yeah. Spying is a form of harassment and mental assault on a person's human rights. It is akin to stalking, threatening without threatening. Restricting their movements, patterns, habits, and even thoughts. Presenting an unknown danger and essentially constantly tickling the "fight or flight" part of the brain with a feather. Or jagged piece of metal.

Those who have nothing to hide don't worry about the spies. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is also not true. You assume people who live lives of deceit are for some reason moral people who would never lie, commit sabotage, or plant evidence that would hinder people of another "team" or race or ethnic group or religion or what have you. That people wouldn't do things at the expense of another to get ahead or further either one's individual or collective interest(s). This is sheer ignorance of the global community and basic history (as well as human nature).

Come on, man, you're slipping! :razz:

I feel it worth mentioning that people generally consider "intent" to be a prerequisite for an act to be "evil."

Going to visit an isolated or uncontacted people because you want to give them money, yet end up introducing a modern bacteria that 99% of people are immune from that ends up reducing their population to a few dozen, and had no idea, probably wasn't evil, or at very least wasn't "as evil" as if you wanted to visit them to steal from them, or otherwise were fully aware of biology and had such intentions in mind, and ended up doing the same.

Reason I mention such, is it seems your flagship example of religion hinges on not only the idea that a god exists or does not exist, but whether or not the people who perform actions or inaction under the ideological mindset of such genuinely believe a god exists or not. Theoretically speaking, if they were right, and we were all wrong, they would be preventing us from eternal damnation (or whatever) and therefore, despite acts of violence that would normally be considered evil, are actually the greatest good one could ever perform. Theoretically speaking, of course.

In short, imagine an isolated, ultra-religious family believing their 6-year-old child is the devil incarnate and so they drown him to "save the world" or what have you. They'll sleep soundly at night, and never perform any other act of violence again. Take real actual examples of history. Botched exorcisms for example. Giving people the benefit of the doubt (things were much, much different back then, superstition wasn't the exclusive domain of fools and the mentally unwell as it is often considered today) that they actually believed they were doing the right thing and preventing evil, one should clearly be able to draw a line between unfortunate, misguided deeds and intentional misdeeds.

Say your child really wanted to go to summer camp by the lake, and you know he or she cannot swim, yet didn't have that item of knowledge in your mind at the time, and you permit him or her to go, and they drown, resulting in your entire family disliking you, calling for your arrest, and basically putting you on par with the likes of a murderer. Or more simply, falling asleep while your kid is swimming in your backyard pool and the same fate befalls him or her. Are you evil? Did you perform an evil act? Well, did you?

What does that mean? — praxis

He thinks this is, or rather, is used to, social media. DM stands for Direct Message, so the kids today say "DM me" which means "send me a private message."

This offer is likely so as to avoid claims or accusations of being "off topic" or "spamming."

He feels you are wrong and also feels he can easily prove it.

Kirk, and other culture warriors, profit from catering to such people. — praxis

A bigot like Kirk — AmadeusD

This is the part that I believe is liable to cause confusion. First sentence might suggest he's only doing it for the money i.e. doesn't really give a hoot let alone believe a word he's saying and is simply saying so to pander to a given audience for a strictly financial incentive. Second sentence would seem to suggest he genuinely espouses these views, and any profit made is simply icing on the cake or otherwise "just comes with the territory." That's probably what the poster whom you're replying to is a bit hung up on.

I'm very good at bridging the gaps between people. A bit too good, really. I was run out of the last town I tried to enlighten, Socrates-style. (Not really. Not yet, at least.)

I have changing views about the topic, really. I think people who identify as transgender (who have or are seriously considering permanent, irreversible surgical alteration) are vulnerable people, and vulnerable people should not be targeted. On the other hand, I can agree with the idea that the medical system (and others) are doing more harm than good, possibly, to echo your earlier frustration, strictly for the money without any genuine compassion or concern for the well-being of those they choose to involve themselves with.

Human (or human-like) beings have been around for tens of thousands of years. The first transgender surgery took place barely a century ago. I don't see how one can comport a recently-invented surgical procedure (and resulting movement) to something critical to humanity and human rights.

Perhaps that's what he meant was the "abomination": a greedy (and possibly nefarious) system that exploits vulnerable people. Hey, I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt once. :wink:

I believe I have clearly framed the topic "Are trans gender rights human rights?" Some are, some aren't. Do you agree or disagree with these assessments? — Philosophim

See, what I'm trying to say is, and forgive my brashness, perhaps you've gone gung-ho into a battle wielding what one believes to be a sword but is really a tuning fork. You're missing the forest for the trees, my good sir.

One is a term that hasn't existed in the zeitgeist of any human civilization (at least modern Western society) until recently. Whereas, "human" is a biological and absolute constant. In simple terms, one changes, basically came into existence recently, and otherwise has no consensus agreeing solid and strict definition. The other does. So the rights for something that is absolute and non-disputable, versus something that is not only a new concept to all things social and legal, something constantly changing and still not widely-agreed upon between those who deem said concept important, are like comparing apples and oranges.

Let me simplify that: One is a derivative of the other. The derivative is a social construct (relative). The derived from is a biological reality (absolute).

So, that's double the percent of alleged transgender persons so far. — Outlander


Alleged? — RogueAI

Assuming there is either a biological or medical reality behind the idea that a human being can be born into one of the binary sexes yet would fundamentally either:

A.) be more productive and natural in the opposite sex
[OR]
B. would live life in discomfort, potential mental illness, and overall failure to thrive.

If even one of the two prerequisites above are true, that would mean such an opinion should only be given by a well-educated and preferably-licensed medical or psychiatric professional, similar to legal advice online, which by penalty of law is forbidden by a layperson. If none of the above prerequisites are true, then it's literally a non-issue akin to a hobby or weird phase that only the individual themself can choose to cause detriment and negative effect.

To simplify: To err is human. People make mistakes. It's not an established science with immediate physical and visual confirmation like an X-ray or MRI. If one believes surgical and biological modification of one's self is a choice, that's a choice they made. If one believes there is a fundamental or otherwise "human-like" right that is being deprived from not being allowed to surgically and biologically modify one's body so as to please one's self, that's a science and medical reality that only those highly trained and certified should be legally allowed to determine or give opinions on.

So, let's try to get back on track here. And the best way to do so is with cold hard facts. Hypochondria, affects 5% of all persons. So, that's double the percent of alleged transgender persons so far.

Let's also bring into the discussion the idea of anxiety or panic attacks, which affect a great larger majority, about 40% of people will experience such or similar with related symptoms once in their life. This is enough to dial emergency services or visit the ER under the true and genuine belief there is a true medical emergency or condition. Difference is, untreated, general anxiety or benign malaise may be confused as something more severe, including mental illness if not diagnosed by a qualified professional, or worse, self-diagnosed (or pseudo-diagnosed by non-medically trained non-professionals who may be family or friends). Which is basically the driving force (90%+ of the so called transgender movement, which in reality is a political, economical act of warfare that only seeks to confuse and disorient, so as to give enemy troops an advantage) of this so called human rights campaign. People in general may be stupid. But the people who decide what bombs drop where, are not. So don't make yourself a target. You might regret it. Or those, what's left of those around you, that is, when it's all said and done, might curse your very being. So be careful.

It's like you're purposely trying to ignore reality by not understanding these facts thereof, OP.

Again, we haven't truly framed the topic here. We have your ignorant and silly understanding of what transgender is, which while may be shared by the world, remains silly and ignorant. Until you can admit that, OP. This topic, rather your contribution toward it, will remain little more than a circus. And a dull one at that.

Where do you get the idea I have seen anything like that in my life? "Oh! Gold chain, me stupid, i'll kill person with gold chain in alleyway because we alone and nobody catch me! Me shmeagal, i want ring!" — ProtagoranSocratist

I mean, to be fair, there's a reason horror movies are classified as horror and not fantasy. Meaning, these things do happen. All day, everyday. I can tell from your disposition as well as the dismissal of his meta-point, you clearly know where you're going to get your next meal from. Not everyone has that luxury. I strongly recommend you re-read up on the Socratic method so as to better understand (even flawed) arguments other people might make.

RogueAI, can we say on topic please? What do you think about the OP's claims on the trans gender rights listed? — Philosophim

Right but be fair. A person is a human and they have human rights. They don't suddenly vanish because they think or adopt a lifestyle or even a religion that fundamentally demands or in their own mind redefines what they are.

We all have the same laws. People invented false religions (cults) in an attempt to quash the ruling laws of a given society (in some instances they succeeded, temporarily) but in the end these so-called victories were only short-lived, doing nothing in the end but causing great and unneeded suffering unto those (and thankfully, usually, only those who perpetrated them) and everything pretty much returned back to normal, granted, sure, the same rights you always had to believe anything you want anyway, provided you work and conform and above all follow the law basically never went anyway.

In extreme relation to the topic, I could believe, and be convinced wholly I am a dog. But that doesn't give me a right to shit on your lawn, to assault and batter you by licking your face because I'm "happy to see you", to avoid a noise complaint or charge of disturbing the peace/public nuisance because I'm making loud noise or barking, or basically sexually assault you (or your leg), without facing the same legal consequence as LITERALLY ANYONE ELSE.

You can be whatever you want to be in your own head. But it needs to literally not affect any law-abiding citizen in any way whatsoever unless they desire it to. That is to say, you don't get a special set of legal rules because you want them. Only handicapped or differently-abled people get that right. Anything else is a travesty of justice.That's just not how anything works.

90%+ of people alive today would not be alive, nor have ever reproduced, were it not for violence (what mankind pitifully attempts to separate from severe mental illness, lack of worth to reproduce, specifically mass hysteria by giving it a word i.e. "war") and most importantly, enslavement and oppression of women.

You can't even begin to understand anything in regards to this topic or its tangents until you really process what that means and what we're dealing with. What's really going on. Once you do, it all makes sense. Including as to what the solution is.

It's a result of ostracism. In the animal kingdom, animals that do not fit in are ostracized, and often have a 90%+ mortality rate. You will notice the average guy of average height and appearance makes up about 0.1% of people who believe they are transgender enough to perform permanent and irreversible surgery. While ALL the rest are usually small, skinny, frail, awkward, maybe stutter, perhaps might be a minority in that specific community, don't fit in, were bullied, or were otherwise traumatized, often sexually.

It's literally a form of legal and state-sanctioned eugenics they're flashing in our face all while pretending they're doing the opposite and protecting the vulnerable.

It takes a deeper understanding before you can really see what's going on. Literally every great invention, every great movie, story, every great piece of art was created by intelligent people, who tend to be on the smaller/frailer side physically. All those who tend to be larger, generally aren't able to do anything a machine can't. They are easily replaceable, for they serve no unique function. The more humanity progresses the more one side sees themselves as pack mules and animals whose only purpose and possible contribution to society is to lift things for those who actually improve the quality of life for us all i.e. the intelligent. They've become mired in jealousy and hatred, but they do have one thing on their side. Primal lust, or simply put, fear and violence. And that's just powerful enough to find a hapless mate, prolonging their existence just ever so slightly and long enough to do the damage they're doing.

In short, yes, vulnerable people have every right you have, and much more. But that's a distraction. These people causing this must be found and given the highest form of justice available. All they had to do was go quietly. To live their last days in the utmost comfort and dignity (as provided by the intelligent people who they're so vindictively targeting), a quality of mercy they themselves never could offer and so ultimately don't even deserve. But a fool and a demi-human will always be exactly that. It was predictable, really. What a shame it's come to this.

Civilization has been around for over 10,000 years since the domestication of cattle and crop. The first sex reassignment surgery was (barely) able to be performed barely 100 years ago. You couldn't come up with a better example of a solution in search of a (non-existent) problem.

All war is based on deception. Remember that.

You asked for the truth. I only hope you can handle it.

This discussion is fascinating. The one thing that warrants the powerful to retain their power and the subservient to bask in the safety of their subservience. This... silly notion that, somehow, given the chance, given enough time, we wouldn't be worse than those we complain about. It's a timeless classic joke, between those who know the depths of human nature. Why, it never seems to get old. :smile:

For a bit of context.. no, no not at first. Everybody starts out as the noble savior. Here to vanquish those who have forgotten what it means to be human, blah blah blah. And they do so. For quite a time. Until... well, something happens, shall we put it for lack of better terms. Something changes within them. They start to think, perhaps, they were made to make decisions over others, be it by fate be it by the mere physical nature of this world, whatever their mind decides upon, the man or ego of the man calls it all the same: "destiny." And from there, rules, as we think we know them, no longer seem to apply. Consequence, merely an illusion. And so on and so forth. I won't be the one to spoil it. No, not here. Not now. :grin:

Kirk publicly claimed that trans people are an “abomination.” — praxis

This is the disconnect. That I find it strange you are unable to see.

There is no third sex in any organism that exists or has ever existed. There is, at best, "budding" or self-replication, and species that change genders due to established DNA coding that science can detect. But no mammals.

This is about "societal norms" and "gender roles" that can be forced upon any individual by a larger or prevalent enough person or majority.

It was scientifically impossible to alter one's body to conform to that of a different sex until 50 years ago due to surgical invention. Humans or human-like species have allegedly existed for hundreds of thousands of years.

Some people just want to watch the world burn. They'd gladly kill a person, perhaps who is famous, even if they end up in jail or shot. So, to kill a concept, such as man and female, and to keep oneself alive despite disfiguring oneself through mutilation or surgery, just seems like a better option.

No one has yet to explain why people who choose to surgically, permanently, and irreversibly alter their body were 90% of the time bullied, ostracized, abused, or otherwise treated differently, often at a young crucial age of development. Because it's self-evident. A mind, especially a vulnerable or young one can be led to believe anything. That's documented, scientific fact. Like I said before, No happy and accepted or appreciated man wakes up one day and says to himself "You know what, I should have been born with a vagina." Not one.

It's miserable people seeing how far they can push other people while getting away with it and not technically breaking any laws. No laws that currently exist, at least. Cowardice laws are the one thing missing from this world to make it utopia. I pray you don't find yourself on the wrong side of them when they arrive. And they will soon.

If some culture has a tradition of whale-hunting, should the global community allow that? — RogueAI

What is a culture? Cultures do change. How long has it been prevalent? What was it rooted in? There's a difference between killing for sustenance and killing for sport. Some societies and civilizations were forced to eat rats or dogs for survival after either over-hunting, natural changes in climate, or perhaps conflict and conquest. In some religions the lighting of a Menorah was to honor those before who had to make do with very little. Not quite a perfect analogy since nothing is being killed, but the concept behind remembering what those before us had to live like and the sacrifices they paid is fairly relevant to what considers a cultural practice, perhaps.

As to the "global community" (mob rule) that's a socio-political concept that has impossibly-divergent meanings to each and every individual.

Should people not care that a magnificent creature like a whale is being killed? — RogueAI

Why is it magnificent? Do you have any idea how advanced a microscopic "water bear" is? It can literally survive in space and in lava. How is that not magnificent? Oh, because we as physical beings have "size bias." It's where the word "king size" comes from (versus "fun size", because smaller people get taken advantage of i.e. are toyed with and are "abused for fun", get it yet?) Everyone wants a "big" house because it's safe. Everyone wants a "big" serving, because it's healthier and prevents you from starving. We like what is large because it reminds us simultaneously how small we are yet how allegedly superior we are in our own minds.

And what about ants? They can lift 27 times their own size. To my knowledge, a whale can barely tow its own weight, and quite slowly at that.

Whales are neat, yes. They should be (and are) protected.

I'm not losing sleep over it, but there are some who are incensed by it, and I understand why they would care. — RogueAI

Sure. Plenty of nations are going over generally established carbon output limits. What are they supposed to do, start killing civilians so there's less need to produce? People love to call one another out. I'm sure if something gets bad to the point of existential concern, it will be called out by all with a voice (and plenty without). :wink:

For instance, here in Sweden, we have a pastry that used to be called "n-word balls" in a translation from Swedish. Many invoked tradition to preserve the name. However, one can coherently be against calling the pastry something that includes a slur without having to abandon the pastry and its role in Swedish culture. It can still be at the fika table. — GazingGecko

To be fair the word for "black" in multiple languages is 90% similar to the slur, which is also the name of a country. It's literally just the word for a color (and an actual country). People are just idiots. But I suppose that needs to accounted for in, basically everything these days.

Pretentious nonsense. — Tzeentch

So, tossing aside common knowledge, we still come to the unavoidable question. Was Engels a fool? Or a psychopath who enjoyed watching a tortured man dance to the tune of a few dollars? It has to be one or the other. There's no other option for you, per the corner you've painted yourself in by way of your remarks, my friend. :smile:

while he himself was being showered in money by benefactors like Engels — Tzeentch

History is written by the winners. And winners are murderers. Immoral people. Your trust is therefore based on immorality, which does not preclude the possibility of, oh I don't know, lies. :smile:

Say it is true. Why would someone, brilliant believe in someone who was a bum? Was he a conman? Then if so, he had a great way of conducting himself that seems to elude your understanding. Or, was he a fool himself? We're only as good as the company we keep. Surely you can understand that.

I just feel there's more to this story. And your seemingly inhuman desire to ensure there isn't any, only makes it all the more intriguing. Can you not realize that?

Where I come from we call this the Streisand effect. Of course, perhaps you're well aware of this and are using this to advance a covert goal or objective. Who could say?

It’s my informed opinion, yes. It’s not my opinion that he was an abomination or other superstitiously hated thing. — praxis

I think his point was, he genuinely believed in everything he expressed (and perhaps quite a bit he chose not to, as a nod to your suspicious sentiment). At least, that's what the poster you're replying to believes that he believed.

Most respondents seem to answer as if I am attacking tradition 'just because'. The point is that heinous acts through history have been perpetrated in the name of tradition. T Clark defends hunting with his family from an typically anthropocentric perspective because it serves him and his own in group, with no regard for the needless killing of animals for one's own fun.

Why can't he and his family enjoy a board game around the fire instead?

Does the act of killing some other creature enhance the fun and togetherness? that would be a rather chilling and bloodthirsty claim to stand by. — unimportant

While I cannot answer for @T Clark, I can say that, in general, all of the examples listed on this thread so far, including hunting, have many reasons, varying in "validity" based on perspective of who's hearing them, beyond "just because [it's tradition]." Example, Christmas is often practiced under the context of deep religious conviction. That's nice you don't believe in my religion, but with all due respect, I believe one will be met with a sentiment along the lines of "kick rocks." :razz:

Similar to hunting. Not only has the entirety of humanity and their ancestors, including you and yours' survival solely thanks to the ancient practice, science proves there are dozens of essential vitamins and minerals found only in meat-based diets. Sure maybe in the past 50 years one can take a vitamin pill to adequately supplement these in lieu of such, but that's hardly the point. The body seems to be "naturally evolved" to eat meat and evolution is indisputably linked to such function. Those are all plenty of reasons beyond simple "appeal to tradition" or "just because." To name a few.

Furthermore, I strongly suggest you watch a Nature documentary. This falsehood of a "peaceful system" with all the animals singing around a campfire together having a peaceful time that all of a sudden is just shattered by @T Clark and his rifle because he wants to eat, is... well, just not true. Animals kill, maim, and eat one another all day and all the time. Quite horrifically, really. Point being, it's not like we're introducing some unspeakable horror into an otherwise peaceful environment.

If you don't believe in something, you have a right to abstain from it, and I doubt there's a single person alive who would want anything more but for you to do precisely that.

Over-hunting is a documented concern, however, yes. What goes on behind the scenes to get even the humblest of breakfast sandwiches is enough to sadden a person, admittedly.

Fair. I don't care what Marx did outside of being a bum either. — Tzeentch

You really don't like this guy, do you. Why can't you focus on his work, at least.

He was obviously persecuted by the State for his beliefs when alive. A State that was not an open, free society and therefore has no problem ruining a citizen's life, if not outright taking it. The stress of being a free thinker in a closed, backward society is enough to cause anyone to turn to a bottle or pipe.

I'm just not buying the narrative you're selling, sorry. That is, this simplistic version of "he was just like that for no other reason than to have been so, therefore, he and his works are to be despised." Not a very good argument, even if true.

And I'm generally in favor of capitalism. Regardless of one's belief or preference in economics, that doesn't seem any valid reason to speak ill of the dead, particularly a person not you nor anyone whom you know has ever even met. Just my 2 cents.

Am I seeing this argument being made?

Some people get away with murder. Therefore we should not try and stop them. — unenlightened

What specifically in this thread are you referring to that seems to parallel or equate to such an analogy in your mind?

I don't know of any longtime posters with high post counts that seem suspect of such a thing. And my job, most of the time, is to basically to be by a computer so I definitely lurk here (pop in once in a day to see if any so-called smart people say anything smart or otherwise that I've never heard before) beyond the average member.

Christmas used to be good. The spirit and the season were different. Then retail stores took over the tradition and now Christmas is about spending. — L'éléphant

Interesting. And not unnoticed! However, does it not take two to tango? The average person does, or at least desires to, hold or perhaps be invited to, feasts essentially. And giving gifts is a form of thanksgiving and charity that surely has a place in society. Both these things require, well, purchasing what one does not generally have lying around. Not everyone is a farmer who owns cattle, pigs, chickens, and such they can slaughter by hand and then invite friends, family, and neighbors over. Not everyone has the skill or time to create handmade things that have value and utility (that would actually be appreciated by the person beyond the politeness of appreciating effort, especially in the modern age). So, people generally have to buy things from those who do, no? Is there something inherently wrong with that, or better yet is there some realistic alternative that would fit the majority of people regardless of their widely different life circumstances? :chin:

I'm sure there are many people who choose to "opt out" of "commercialism", specifically on holidays. Good for them. But gift-giving in and of itself, at least once a year, perhaps to commemorate a religious story of such, or perhaps just to do because "it is better to give than receive" or simply because yes people, especially kids, do enjoy receiving new and useful things, surely isn't immoral or otherwise something civilization and society would be better off without? Sure, the businessmen will find a way to turn anything honest into a way to make more money. Just as the moral and pious will find a way to turn anything negative into something to be grateful for. Two different people, same ideologies.

Why do people listen to or make music? Why do we read books and watch shows or plays? Why don't we just wake up every morning, go to work, then return home and sit there in silence until bed and repeat the process until one can no longer walk? Why are you so concerned with what other people do? Is someone holding you at gunpoint until you go on a fox hunt or celebrate Christmas with them? No? Then don't worry about what other people do. You'll be happier and live longer.

I suppose an answer could be, it's human nature to have not only traditional (first-person or actual) nostalgia from things one literally experienced before, but also "second-hand" or "generational" nostalgia (knowledge of what one's parents and grandparents or "people" used to do one, two, maybe many more generations ago and as a result develop a deep and insatiable curiosity towards what those just like us used to do [sometimes not that very] long ago).

Sure, some traditions were better off falling out of favor and popularity. Those that don't, and that don't seem to harm anyone who doesn't willfully participate, shouldn't be any of your concern. You're not your brother's keeper. Certainly not in the context of random people you've never met or who otherwise have the courtesy not to subject your life and habits to the scrutiny of a proverbial microscope.

Also, vote for this as a Lounge topic. (Unless OP beefs it up substantially)

Marx was a lowlife who made his wife and children suffer in destitute poverty to fund his smoking, alcohol and drug habits. He did this off other people's money, of which he received copious amounts. — Tzeentch

You'd believe anything you read, now wouldn't you? Caricatures come in all forms.

The only interesting question about this man and his "philosophy" is what lapse of sanity had people taking him or it seriously. — Tzeentch

The man is dead and after 100 years even his most bitter critics speak of him. Tell me. Will your closest friends even speak of you, given that time?

The man may have been mistaken. Terribly so. But what drives an otherwise intelligent mind to seek the low route of ad hominism? Could it be, perhaps, you're afraid of a dead man and his ideas? No shame. It is Halloween, after all. :smile:

There are plenty of online tools out there that already do that. Some are more reliable than others. Tip: Avoid sponsored results that give false positives to sell you something. — Baden

I think the elephant in the room, or perhaps the question he was not able to form, would be:

Aren't people raised by their parents? The apple doesn't fall far from the tree? Don't men consciously and subconsciously become influenced by the "father" figures in their lives, be they in the flesh, or perhaps in movies, music, books, and media in general? Don't we try to learn lessons (not to say be like, as to the grounds of cosplay or impersonation) but otherwise wish to be influenced by great philosophers and other folk we respect? We do.

So what happens when people use AI more than they speak to other humans so end up speaking in the same pattern with the same frequency of usages as the AI they use does? I do tend to purposely try to speak "extra clearly, professionally, concisely, and intelligently" online, a significant more than I would talking to anyone else in person, friend or stranger. Almost, non-genuinely and "perfectly" (out of consideration and respect for the sake of readability and of course interest to the person I'm replying to). Surely you can see how there is a concern for mistakes to be made? To err is human. And to use a tool made by humans, well, that just complicates things even further, does it not? :smile:

Surprisingly, it's part of a public government-funded university. Which makes it worse. — Baden

In the dark, a lit tea light is better than nothing I suppose. :grin:

Regarding the new policy, sometimes when I’ve written something that comes out clunky I run it through an AI for “clarity and flow” and it subtly rearranges what I’ve written. Is that a non-no now? — praxis

+1 for an excellent question. Naturally, @Jamal would have the final say.

(though I would presume the answer to be no, I'd be fairly confident in stating the policy and rules will likely be selectively applied to members based on their standing and tenure here. I'd eat my hat [though perhaps I'd have to buy one first] if you were penalized for such, considering the noteworthiness of your contributions here, versus say, someone who signed up a week or a month ago and seems to be keyboard-happy)

Additionally, assuming you're honest at chess, you're clearly no simpleton. Why would a skilled biker not scoff at the idea of using training wheels for his daily commute? It just doesn't seem necessary. Look at the mod Timothy's posts. They're very long. Perfectly coherent, not a single waste of space despite the volume. But if one really wanted to critique, sure, perhaps the same idea or message can be said with a bit less wording. But that would be a butchery of his expression and who he is as a person and what he allows us to privilege to glean from his mind, and yes perhaps very soul. It would be something that was once an honor turned into a mockery of humanity itself. A simpleton might look at his posts and call such "clunky", but certainly not you.

Look at every great classic novel. If you really wanted to, you could turn every chapter or the entire book into a sentence or a paragraph without removing a bit of the "essence" or "point" the author intended or that the general readership considers as important. What kind of nightmare world would that be? Why not just look at a traffic light all day and get amazed by the simplistic changes of color. Or why not watch paint dry? Because that's what it all boils down to when you remove your, what you believe to be "clunky-ness", what you think might be excess or something you'd otherwise wish to be perfected. We're human. We're alive. We make mistakes. We make imperfections. We ARE imperfect. And that's why we're unique and can never be replaced by autonomy. If I found out all AI "died" or became inert or was otherwise outlawed tomorrow, I'd laugh. If I found out something happened to you, I'd cry. And that's the truth. Because what you may consider something people don't want to read (and sure, most people are rather dull and probably wouldn't), people who actually have their head on right, would enjoy nothing more.

You don't need AI. Not one bit. Again, you have tenure. So I wouldn't worry. Though, it couldn't hurt to set the example and just do what everyone has to, at least right away while the new rule is literally hot off the presses. :smile:

Much of what all of us do is "parrot." Not many people can come up with an original idea to save their life. — Sam26

Because it's all been said and done before. The average person in the past 50 years comes from a multi-sibling household with TV or Internet or otherwise endless forms of entertainment that people a mere few centuries ago never had. Nobody has to think anymore. Not really. Other than the basic desires and how they relate to one's safety, gain, and resulting comfort in life.

Philosophy:
"There is no such thing as a new idea. It is impossible. We simply take a lot of old ideas and put them into a sort of mental kaleidoscope."
- Mark Twain

Religion:
"There is nothing new under the Sun."
- Ecclesiastes

I mean, what yours is suggesting is akin to creating a bonfire underwater. Even if you did, what good or purpose could ever come from it? :chin: