Comments

  • Is philosophy just idle talk?
    People tend to review most of their life decisions once this hits home. — AmadeusD

    Decisions are easy to reconcile, little more than footprints on the beach before the daily tide rolls in. Indecision, however, is what drives men to madness and can haunt one's very soul forevermore.
  • What religion are you and why?
    When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything." — unenlightened

    Like what? Wasting away needlessly toiling in A dead world where everything, no matter how grand or monumental, flesh or stone, will inevitably decay and crumble to sand, for no purpose other than to do so for the sake of having something to do? Mindless pleasure that decays the mind? Grandiosity and a feeling of power over others that grows old faster than a piece of fruit left out in the hot sun? Yeah, no thanks pal. Keep your atheism. It is neither needed nor welcome in this land.

    (would be my reply to the author of the quote in question)

    Good thread. Not surprised to see the level of emotion and effort being expressed here. After all, people struggle to come up with a question more profound than the most basic: "What is life, after all?"
  • Is philosophy just idle talk?
    Likewise it takes more than mere imagination to create great works of philosophy. — Janus

    Generally agree. But for sake of debate (it's own point): "You [can't help but] always admire (be fascinated with) what you really don't understand." - Blaise Pascal

    Rings true, no?
  • Is philosophy just idle talk?
    Certain philosophies do seem to have less than tangible/measurable goals than others, yes.

    Philosophy of law is pretty clear, to know Justice as intimately as a man knows a woman. Philosophy of mind or religion is naturally a bit more abstract and open to interpretation. I'd say so, at least.

    You can lead to a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Everything is open to interpretation. Solipsism for example, I would call a non-philosophy and more of what should be a clinically recognized mental illness, however it follows all (if not most of) the rules and seems to be derived of a valid, fundamental question (what is real, what isn't, how can we be sure, etc.).

    It seems to be more a means to an end not an end itself. Or something.

    It creates conceptual "bricks", that do have substance, though perhaps little, that someone is supposed to use to perhaps build a house or bridge to a desired location that would have otherwise not been possible or of greater difficulty than without. Now, you can build a cheap, shabby, and even dangerous house or bridge if the bricks are not placed in ideal order by someone who doesn't know what they're doing. Or, you could feel high and mighty about being able to seemingly defeat any opinion you don't agree with by talking around it with fanciful magniloquence that seems to add up perfectly, if not just in one's own mind, and leave the person your speaking to dumbfounded to the point they forgot what they were doing. To each their own. Some are builders. Some are on a personal or selfless quest for knowledge. And surely, of course, some do indeed just like to hear themself talk. Guilty as charged. :smile:
  • Feature requests
    ↪Agree-to-Disagree


    My dear friend, I believe I can explain. As it so happens, the site owner, Jamal, being the humble and selfless (if not at times inconsiderate) person he is enjoys making use of the Shoutbox to announce site-wide changes as opposed to hogging up valuable discussion real estate space as would occur if done so in the form of a new announcement thread or "sticky", as it were.

    I believe you will find the answers to all your questions in this Shoutbox post, here.

    Or to be quaint, check the Lounge! :razz:
  • Sound great but they are wrong!!!
    ↪Paine
    Never true? I've used it and meant it.     — Tom Storm

    Interesting for sure. Perhaps, where respect that is due, mentioning it superfluously becomes a mockery. Does it not? My kind, smart, sir, @Tom Storm :joke:
  • Sound great but they are wrong!!!
    There's no such thing as a free lunch. (Tell that to the guy in school I bullied)

    It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings (though perhaps the one I had in mind simply was not fat enough)

    Lightning never strikes twice. (if that were the case anyone with the towering symbol of ignorance that would be a lightning rod should be tested for mental illness)

    You reap what you sow. (perhaps I planted a very long-term flowering plant at a second home a squatter dug up shortly after and planted something else and, after having him shot by police on my return, I reaped something else)

    It's best to let sleeping dogs lie. (Perhaps they were friendly and joined me on my daily walk and ended up mauling a would-be robber to death)

    I could go on really.
  • 50 Year Old Man Competing with Teen Girls in Swimming Competition
    Biological men are much more likely to have nefarious motives than biological women. — RogueAI

    :rofl:

    Oh no, my inexperienced friend, let me assure you, men are simply more physically, and as a result socially, capable of carrying out nefarious desires. Perhaps it can be argued men are traditionally greater thinkers (though the margin between those who are and aren't is quite large) ie. more likely to get away with immorality thus lessening the fear of getting caught thus increasing the desire to act on said desires, be it so out of intrinsic biological nature/adaptation or simple social status and resulting education.

    Unfortunately this thread is likely doomed to be a political discussion instead of an actual philosophical one, so I will bow out.

    I find this whole topic incredibly divisive and prone to abuse, intentional and otherwise. Some men are more "traditionally masculine" than others, often physically, sometimes in other ways. Just because someone is an "effeminate" male in contrast to another male does not mean they need to start thinking if they're actually a female and need to consider having their genitals removed and taking permanently mind and body altering drugs. That's predatory abuse, bullying, and frankly downright ridiculous at face value.

    It is documented many trans people, before any procedure, suffered from some sort of mental illness. No one just woke up one day and said to themself "Wow I just realized I was supposed to be born with a vagina". Not a one. My point is sometimes people with a documented high risk of mental illness who are burdened with self-diagnosing any alleged "ailment" or whatever the scholarly medical term is for "being born the wrong gender" are reasonably likely to possibly be incorrect. Therefore it can be argued blind, forceful pushing of the idea on someone who later chose such an operation is abusive and illegal.

    I'm a bit of an alternate thinker mind you so I believe when there's money to be made, it shall be. Insurance scams run rampant in the 21st century. At the expense of innocent, vulnerable people.
  • 50 Year Old Man Competing with Teen Girls in Swimming Competition
    So the rules need re-writing. Why is this not in the lounge? — Banno

    Perhaps OP neglected, perhaps for an unavoidable reason such as time or other constraints, what his philosophical views or belief(s) as to why this ties into philosophy. Allow me to do so.

    Since the dawn of man, there has been woman. The social order, simply if not tragically simplified into two: patriarchy and matriarchy. It is a known fact, as things are now (though perhaps may have been different in the past) the average male is of higher muscle mass, higher endurance, and, this is where scholars differentiate, of higher mental fortitude or ability to handle stress and anguish, whether or not due to the proven fact menstrual cycles affect the brain and induce higher levels of rage, aggression, or perhaps on the opposite end, lower levels of tolerance and the chemicals (dopamine, serotonin) that make a person feel "okay" or "at ease".

    These facts in mind, what are the social consequences of allowing someone who is advantaged by never having to ever once experience such a scientifically noted phenomenon? Any at all?

    Perhaps even more importantly, how will this affect society, the social construct we call "the world", and what potential for abuse (or perhaps benefit?) is allowed or denied as a result? These are the questions people wish to know, yet often fail to ask. So, lead on OP, what do you think?

    Edit: And even further, I suppose one could extract the following debate. Does one who naturally has greater ability hurt or perhaps strengthen and encourage those who, on average, have less? (Allegedly)

    An excellent question, OP! Excellent indeed.
  • Currently Reading
    Interesting. I can't think of a single book that has changed me like this. The notion of being a better person or progressing in some way seems very quaint to me. Is this how you judge books? — Tom Storm

    It's how I judge the works of those with a message worth sharing and perhaps encouraging and naturally later enforcing (though that hardly happens), yes. Not every work is of such value it transcends the genre of entertainment. Nor should there be. But generally speaking yes, the best forms of entertainment are those that manage to do so after the medium (paper or filmography) has ceased. That shouldn't be so abnormal a concept. Why is it to you?
  • Currently Reading
    Uncanny, haunting, and disorientating — Jamal

    Oh so is an infrequent morning fog. Come on, give us a little more than that. Why are you a better or different person, at least, how has your mind or perspective on the world around you progressed or at least changed based on what you've read?
  • All that matters in society is appearance
    I don't see how the inverse is so much the case, especially when so many of these people are deformed. — Lionino

    Any one of those pictured could have craniums the size and shape of a watermelon and jawlines reminiscent of the same, flesh literally rotting off even, and they would still be a welcome reprieve, an oasis-like vision, from the wretched abomination that is your soul, revealed by your course of conduct here.

    And you can quote that and take it to the bank.
  • Is this image racist? I talked to someone who thought so.
    It's frustrating me, out of all the topics that are a bit over my head or which otherwise fizzle my brain out, this literal nothing of a meme has evolved into some sort of unsolved Delian Problem here for some reason.

    In certain regions or neighborhoods there is what is known, informally, as "street talk" or - and there is where it takes on a racial dimension - "Ebonics" (or "ghetto speak" to some), often by African Americans or other minorities. Eg. "Can I 'axe' you a question" as opposed to"Can I ask you a question", the person is saying the latter however due to unconscious habit or perhaps ease of pronunciation the former is what actually leaves the speaker's mouth.

    So I can imagine a person who speaks in such a manner getting excited at something and exclaiming or repeating "Be more specific man, be more specific" and in some sort of wry humorous way the idea of a person saying something that sounds nonsensical "Be more 'pecific, yo. You need to be more 'pecific!" over and over creates a sense of comedic absurdity - as if one could somehow become "more pacific", whatever that would mean.

    It's basically making fun of anyone who doesn't pronounce the word "specific" properly, with the leading 'S' sound being omitted or nearly omitted. Which in and of itself isn't racial, though it can be lowbrow due to fact some people may mispronounce a word due to the presence of an actual speech impediment and not just the word being a linguistic anomaly the pronunciator simply doesn't say often and as such pronounces imperfectly.

    I can see how it could be rationalized as offensive or cast in similar light for any of the following reasons:

    - Certain ethnic groups, be it primarily linguistically and as a result physically or genetically altogether, pronounce things differently. Eg. Many Asians have a tendency to pronounce the 'L' sound as an 'R' sound. That's a stereotype but however can in fact be observed. It's standard animal kingdom ostracization ("he talks funny, he's weird/not 'one of us'", etc.)

    - "Dialectism" or to be proper linguistic discrimination is a noted phenomenon, strongly, if not more so in the past, tied to classism. Meaning, if you're poor, your education was poor, so naturally your proficiency in a certain language would likely be measurably lower than someone who was rich. So following along, minorities have been noted to receive poorer education than non-minorities due to income inequality, a state of affairs many assign blame to racism.

    Well that's basically it. I thought it was a funny meme worth a 2 second chuckle because I "got it", likely crafted by someone who "got it" as well and finds the whole thing an innocent pun created to encourage a smile, lighten the mood, and pass the time. That said, ostracization is a powerful first step toward isolation, which is a strong forward march toward dehumanization, from which genocide or ethnocide is but a stone's throw away. Further said, after having to explain all this, if I see it in the future, I will likely not chuckle but click away out of sheer mental exhaustion.

    I study hate. That is to say, as a staunch legal enthusiast it definitely becomes a relevant field to be acquainted with on many an occasion.
  • The automobile is an unintended evil
    The vast use of space used for roads, gas stations, parking lots, and other car related phenomena. — schopenhauer1

    Very succinct, well-thought out, written, and agreeable, with the exception of this line.

    Roads always existed. Either trails for walking or leading livestock comfortably, cobblestones for carriages or other wheeled mediums, etc. Gas stations = watering holes or small shops for feed. Parking lots = stables/inns one could accommodate their horse in reasonable warmth and comfort. Though, granted one would just tie up a horse to a tree and nap nearby. The sound of a horse being spooked would often awaken the traveler in the event of danger. I suppose by "other car related phenomena" you mean things like auto repair/supply shops/amateur race tracks and perhaps now EV stations? :chin:

    Mass transit is nice but before there were buses they were trains. And before that caravans of buggies. Granted much more limited as far as precision or specificity as to being in the immediate vicinity of where one wished to ultimately arrive.

    Also the "gas" part of the gas station actually takes up on average perhaps half or little more than half of the space the store utilizes for general parking/navigation and mainly, general commerce of goods. Safe, populated places where one would wish to store their horse or buggy took up much of the same space as well.

    Cars remove the animal cruelty/burden aspect from human travel which can be equated to human existence. No man is an island. No settlement is its own universe.
  • Is this image racist? I talked to someone who thought so.
    Ah, I get it. Ebonics. "Be more specific" = "be more pacific".

    Hey I don't have perfectly formed tongue, vocal, and throat muscles either. When I get excited I can have a bit of a lisp or otherwise unintentional mispronunciation. Of course I attribute that to being of an advanced human race that predated modern humans for millennia and as such perfected telepathy and so said muscles became nascent out of simple lack of need.

    To each their own I suppose. :chin:
  • What is the way to deal with inequalities?
    I think chiropractic helps people by rubbing their backs and making it hurt less, but the "science" of it in that it somehow actually changes the skeletal structures or that it corrects malalignments, that's all horseshit and should be discarded. — Hanover

    While I can't say I'm familiar with any scientific research or lack thereof involving chiropractic, and generally rank your general knowledge as on par if not better, the idea, as I was sold by my former chiropractor, that over time adjustments, well, adjust, seems to be plausible.

    Men grow old and often develop Dowager's Hump, or old man's hunch, after a time in life. Just as teeth can be straightened or made crooked, certainly can other bones such as the spine or neck? I had a bit of a near-hunch and was prescribed (or rather sold) a product known as a Denneroll, basically a solid pillow you place at the base of your neck for 20 minutes a day that prevents/treats/corrects what I described. I have to say I basically saw it work. Now if this is mere postural exercise, similar to laying flat on the floor and not related to chiropractic in the least, well, that's another matter. The average person will find the two related if not identical.

    It's prefectly ok to say accupuncture is nonsense if it fails to show it works based upon scientific testing. And it is nonsense as a treatment for illness. It doesn't work. — Hanover

    Again while I'd trust your general knowledge of most subjects over my own, the logic and claims are far from unsound. When your body is cut or pricked, it responds and releases chemicals. To quote John Hopkin's Medicine:

    "Acupuncture points are believed to stimulate the central nervous system. This, in turn, releases chemicals into the muscles, spinal cord, and brain. These biochemical changes may stimulate the body's natural healing abilities and promote physical and emotional well-being."

    Sure, it's not a game of Operation where you touch one spot and all of a sudden your lifelong migraines instantly vanish all the time, every time. Simply the idea, it doesn't hurt and for some people, claims to help or otherwise provide some tangible, medical benefit.

    Those are just my thoughts on your comment, thoughts which are held by many, mind you.
  • What is the way to deal with inequalities?
    Chinese Medicine is not a medical practice. It is a spiritual practice. And there's nothing wrong with spiritual practice. It is only wrong when presented as a medical practice. And i believe that is the case with Chinese Medicine. — AmadeusD

    I've had a cousin who saw acupuncture in a favorable, presumably productive light. What about chiropractic? People say that's "not a real science/medicine". Yet people swear by it.

    Just because we can't "see" something or correlate how and why something works doesn't automatically mean it doesn't. That's the life story of science and all innovation itself. We didn't know, then we did. Surely you don't suggest humanity has discovered all that is to be discovered about the human body, life, and the universe itself? We haven't even explored 5% of the world's oceans, which is nearly 75% of the entire world itself! Come now. Be humbled and ready to learn. Surely there's more to.. no? :chin:

    Edit: In addition to the fact human medical experiments are generally frowned upon. It's an entirely (at least one would hope) locked up industry in the modern age.
  • Who's Entertained by Infant and Toddler ‘Actors’ Potentially Being Traumatized?
    You start getting into dangerous territory when you start asserting and especially consciously performing actions or making decisions that decide what's best for another person's child. Not to say you're not 100% factually correct and can support your correctness with enough legal and scientific research to fill a library no sane person could discount or find room to argue against. Simply that, a legal parent or guardian has every right to ruin their kids future and turn it into something abominable if they so choose and there's nary a thing you or I can do about it.

    Other than make sure the law is clear, strong, and absolute, the civilian patrol is omnipresent and resolute, and the correctional or institutional facilities are large, properly-run, and always have room. That's literally all anyone concerned with the future of society- children, men, women, and anyone in between- can do right now. Know there's going to be fuck ups galore, and do your best to mitigate degeneracy from creating even more of itself by impacting those who actually raise children in a decent, proper manner, as well as said children raised accordingly, as degeneracy always seeks to do.

    Oh and I guess work to provide boundless opportunities for prosperity, fulfillment, education, and recovery easy accessible to all or whatever. Blah blah blah.

    Freedom is not free. We all pay the price. Each and every day. Some with our joy, some with our time, some with our sanity, some with our lives, some with all of the above. And yet, the world goes on as it always has. The celestial heartbeat and cosmic dance skips nary a beat nor rhythm. Something to marvel at if nothing else. :confused:
  • The Thomas Riker argument for body-soul dualism
    However, I do wonder what exactly identity is. — Walter

    Age old question. Is it as simple as this:

    Reveal


    .. or something far greater? I for one hope it is indeed something far greater.

    Because if I get duplicated (no matter how), is it OK to kill one of the two 'me's'? After all, I am still 'the other one'. — Walter

    OK as in acceptable? Satisfactory? Again it all depends to whom. As an atheist your highest power and moral guidance is whomever happens to be stronger than you at the time.

    If you truly had the choice, and you were the original you, would you prefer the copy to be destroyed or the original you. — Walter

    Seems to be a bit silly as far as questions go. I've never attempted suicide, so I don't see why another me existing would encourage me to do so simply for existing. Would you?
  • The Thomas Riker argument for body-soul dualism
    Let's remove the Star Trek weirdness and simplify your professedly-unique argument into the classic one, that is nothing new, and has thoroughly been discussed.

    If you could create an exact copy of one's brain, everything- memories, persona, mannerism, down to the smallest trait- and place that in a (I suppose for the sake of the experiment an exactly identical body, though otherwise would be valid yet naturally deviating) new person. Is that person the same person?

    Somewhat blase for this creed of crowd but until moved to the Lounge, I'll go with it. What do you think, OP? You seemed to answer your own question after all. Absent of any sort of supernatural or metaphysical nature, the two would naturally be identical. Otherwise, no. The man is the man and the copy is the copy. Lay off the whisky, will ya.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪AmadeusD


    See this is the problem with (not TPF, or discourse wherever it may occur, but rather) modern debate writ-large. We go off on personal tangents, warranted in each one's own mind in the moment of rebuttal.

    Let's backtrack a moment. If you could reduce or rather simplify the entire sentiment, as you first ascertained it to be, into a single sentence. For me, that single sentence was, to the best of my ability, based on your reply "Being crass or purposely offensive, for no other reason just to do so, then calling someone who believes society and humanity itself is better off without crass and (pay attention, KEY WORD here is: PURPOSELESS) insensitive demeanor and resulting sensitivity is a malady or "burden on society" while those who believe the opposite are assets to it" is in your words "unsure if [...] reasonable".

    That's all I disagree with. And I can point to documentation, legal, social, and otherwise, that support my sentiment. Can you?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    There is no 'largely agreed upon' standard for annoyance or loudness — AmadeusD

    Purposeless degradation or defilement of one's character. It's a literal legal concept, thousands of years old. Slander.

    If I come up to you and your family and say, "you're ugly and stupid" than punch you in the face, that would either offend or seem unneeded to the majority of people. That's a fact, jack. You know this. Brashness and "toxicity" go hand in hand. You could disagree with every fiber of your being of a person's life choices, but that doesn't mean calling them a disparaging name is any sort of reasonable means to go about correcting what you deem as a social ill.

    Do you like being insulted? What about harmed? Again, needlessly and without purpose. I would wager you do not. And if you do, that places you as an outlier and outcast of society. "Reasonability" is subjective, and if people wish to cast or call what the average, healthy individual wishes to avoid in the light of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" that is quite in line with logic and rationale.

    A child knows what pain is. So, hopefully, should an adult. So, though not quite an ad homonym, it is not "my" subjective assessment, but again, I do not understand why you do not accept this, an objective, thoroughly proven sentiment and therefore more or less reality.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I'm unsure this is reasonable in any sense. — AmadeusD

    Well of course not, that's an out-of-context clipping of a larger sentiment, which was also an opinion, one that we both know is shared by the majority. I'm not sure what your point is.

    I'm simply saying being loud and annoying is loud and annoying. Not a political view or lack thereof. Saying that not being loud, annoying, and offensive to, since you seem to be playing dumb for some reason, a majority and largely agreed upon standard of social morals, is some sort of hindrance to society while being offensive and irritating people is some qualification of strength. It's not.

    It is not subjective, in the terms of quantitatively-measurable politics and society, that is to say it is the will of the people and even yourself. If you like abuse and unneeded suffering, burden, or difficulty, you are a "masochist", which is the cousin of a sadist, and an even closer cousin of a predator or undesirable member of society, which legally makes you a threat to others especially children. I know you're not. So please stop pretending logic is anything less than what it is for the sheer sake of chiming in.
  • More on the Meaning of Life
    Let’s see if we can come up with some general statements that most people would agree to.
    1. The universe et.al exists.
    2. Life is part of that universe.
    3. Man is part of that universe.
    4. Man is a sentient life form.
    5. As other forms of life, man has certain characteristics.
    6. One of man’s characteristics is that he is a reasoning life form.
    7. Another of man’s characteristics is that he is a social animal and interacting with other people is a necessary part of his existence.
    8.
    Can we get anything out of these statements? A necessary part of a fundamental set of statements is that they are complete and consistent. That is, can we generate all that we want from them and are none of them contradictory. These are probably not but let’s work with them for a while.     — George Fisher

    I for one love a set of well-defined and descriptive criterion one can agree or unpack numerically!

    1.) What is the universe? The thing we see when we go outside at night and look up, invoking the vastness of the stars and other planetary heavenly bodies, or that which is inside ourselves that lets us acknowledge the former?

    2.) What is life? Being able to breath, and have said breaths and various Co2/oxygen levels recorded by scientific instrument?

    3.) What is man? Why is a monkey not the true man, perhaps we performed some sort of sorcery on the original human and turned him into monkey while doing the same to change our own appearance?

    Furthermore, if "that universe" is simply that which is all encompassing by the senses it quickly loses it's literal physical definition and becomes all that simply is or can ever be, here or not..

    4.) Assuming you and I, and those traditionally regarded as human are "man", sentient of what? Perhaps we are sentient to that which really matters not and other beings, that we call ghosts are the true sentient beings, only visiting us ever so seldom and by accident.

    5.) If you are a man who posted this particular stipulation, redundancy and purposelessness is in fact one of your certain characteristics. Though that only would apply to you.

    6.) Reasonability is subjective. It is reasonable for a drunk mentally ill homeless man to jump in front of a train, or attempt to connect a banana to a wall socket. Perhaps you mean, relatively, long term provable, productive reasoning that creates efficiency in what is required? Required by whom?

    7.) I've left my baby alone for a few minutes without it randomly bursting into flames so no, social interaction is not "Required" for existence.

    8.) You can squeeze blood out of a penny, apparently. Though I haven't had any luck.

    --

    Ooh, what a delightful thread! Do continue, OP. :yum:
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    politically correct culture that is so prevalent in the US — baker

    I still have a problem with people trying to say not being an insensitive douche is some sort of political culture. It's simply not being an insensitive childish douche. There's no politics involved in the quality of human character. You can go overboard, sure. But the question remains the same, do we want to be governed by hotheaded, crass, uncaring children or measured, polite intellectuals? Which do you think would really be most on the average "lesser" persons side?

    What annoys me is annoying dickheads who justify their needless existence and burden on others by saying "oh you just need thicker thin, there's something wrong you". No, there is not. You are simply an annoying dickhead and burden to enlightened, civil society the world would be much better off without. End of discussion.

    (Not toward you or Trump just my general sentiments on the back and forth/two sides or in my view "abuse" of the term "political correctness")

    At the end of the day, people are dense. "Cheap taste and short memories", a favorite quote of mine. They feel if someone is either yelling or being rude, imprecise, and insensitive they must be telling the truth or somehow of a more trustworthy character. Definitely over someone of the opposite demeanor or tone of language. Psychological projection perhaps. People eat it up. Every time. Way of the world. The mans no dummy that's for sure. Now at what cost? Only time will tell.
  • Are all living things conscious?
    Is a plant conscious because it can, and never fail to, grow toward a source of light and solve a maze, granted over time, humans would struggle to? Simple because we can't communicate with a plant due to it having no mammalian brain organs, that we recognize, it's just a plant?

    What about a severely disabled person who can basically only respond and react to stimuli such as pain, hunger, light, shock, etc? Are they conscious?

    What is consciousness, really. An excellent, if not tired prospect. "I think, therefore I am" or "I am, therefore I think". A worm tills the ground, knowing neither sleep nor gender, yet makes for an excellent buddy to procure a tasty trout from a nearby river. Though I doubt if worms could speak they would have very much to say! Or would they?

    Unfortunately I have no yes or no answer for you, at present that is, rather some, what I believe to relevant if not interesting musings for your consideration, as shown above.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters.


    Unless that person was black, that would probably win him votes. :vomit:

    I think that will be my new favourite emoticon.     — Benkei

    You agree with his factual understanding of the current political and social climate then.

    At no point did he say he would enjoy doing so, naturally he did not say he wouldn't, let alone the idea he would or wanted to have. He simply called a spade a spade and, at least in this particular scenario, happened to have told the truth.

    People don't like the ugly reality of our own nature being revealed to them, we like well manicured lawns, white picket fences, adorable canines, matching iPhone covers, and our freshly made deli sandwiches cut in delectable slices with a fancy cocktail sword skewering each. So much so those who actually wish to change the status quo, at least be a barrier and source of proliferation toward neutralization of the social ills that plague, not us but someone else (therefore not an immediate concern), are often ignored as if their message of awareness was as good as the degeneracy itself. We would rather shoot the messenger, before we would accept a message directed at oneself we find too intimately revealing or personal for one's concocted sense of morals and standards, guidelines that deep down we know we would break at the first hint of losing said vanities and "givens" we have enjoyed since time immemorial, provided it is reasonably likely we would still gain the upper hand and come out on top.

    This is neither a critique or praise of Trump nor one of his supporters, critics, or those in between. Simply a reminder that this is the world we live in, and ignoring the grim if not revolting realities that come with existence, only benefits those who wish to proliferate and propagate them further.

    Do you not agree?
  • Right-sized Government
    The right sized government is relevant to the right sized parenthood.

    The chain that supports you from an endless, ever tormenting plummet is in fact only strongest as its weakest link. Which in this case is the most unruly child given equal rights as the most ardent scholar enjoys.

    One who values life, rather the civil order that ensures such life is reasonably expected to continue the following day, would do well to acknowledge such realities.
  • Bannings
    Well that's a surprise. I was expecting to find the name of someone else on this latest tombstone to be quite honest.

    Hm. Perhaps it's just a bit of projection on my part, but I feel him to be but a victim of the lustful, buxom charms of the temptress' bosom that is alcoholic beverage.

    Oh well. What's done is done I suppose.
  • Bannings
    Got a hunch he's a historian of Ottoman expansion and the greater Muslim conquest. People tend to look at war in the past with a blase "yeah we kicked ass" type of mindset when in reality, as you can see, much more vile, less boastful events occurred regularly, typically involving women and children. I'm no history buff, but something in me doubts the conquest of Constantinople was a family-friendly moving experience with a Casablanca-esque atmosphere as people bade their farewells, knapsacks full of fun little snacks and treats for the kids as they hit the dusty trail. There's some pretty nasty stuff written in religious books. Those were the laws of the day, mind you. I'd be curious to know his knowledge or lack thereof regarding the aforementioned so as to ascertain precisely what frame of mind he was in when such comments were made, rather the true context of the seemingly glaringly callous remark(s). Any deeper understanding at all would be better than blind "infallibility", typically attributed to God, shown for one's "team" in a war involving human casualties. Which, unfortunately, in a war, is exactly how things work. It is simply against human nature to care about your enemy's child when your own are viewed by said enemy as being better off dead. Hm. Oh well. :brow:

    That or Michael's "Why be moral" thread featuring specific examples of baby killing was a bit more convincing than he anticipated. :chin:
  • Are some languages better than others?
    I was wasting my time it seems. Not even got going yet.

    Guess this is how things are now here.

    Bye bye :)     — I like sushi

    Talk to me. I have a knack for these things. Not languages or even philosophy, but being able to connect to and with those who feel unfairly treated, unheard, or ignored.

    I will not insult you by reminding you of basic logic and premise structure. But so I can be sure we are on the same page, answer me the following, if you please. It would make my evening if you did.

    A.) What is your concern or argument? If there is no argument what is the desired path you wish to take this general discussion toward? What is the goal, other than enlightened if not farfetched debate reaching into the most obscure regions of the topic? (Perhaps, this is it!)

    B.) Why do you feel the opinions and judgement of your judgement merits disengagement? Is this perhaps what you are accustomed to, be it here or other places? On The Philosophy Forum, no one knows you, personally that is. One could say, you have a new life here. With no judgement or constraints of any past or current life. Why throw it away when you have people all over the world who wish to engage with you? (Perhaps... dare I say, one might be a bit selfish to deny one's thoughts and beliefs to an eager public)

    C.) So what if some languages are better than others. I am better than you at certain things, assuredly, at least one could hope, just as you no doubt are better at certain things than myself or any of your critics here! What, may I ask, drove up this thought in your mind that led you to create this thread. Are you perhaps studying language yourself? Do you know multiple languages? Have you attempted to and found great difficulty in doing so? Do you find yourself unable to have these sort of discussions with those in your life or perhaps find those disagreeable as well?

    If you please, mind you. Discussion forums are voluntary, you could easily sign off and never return. Which would sadden me, to an extent. Please be considerate of others who enjoy your contribution here and at least consider responding.

    Thanks,

    A friend :)
  • Are some languages better than others?
    You think I am ignorant? Okay then … shut it down I will not waste my time if you assume I have not studied any linguistics. I guess you just have a pet hate.

    Np bye :)     — I like sushi

    No, no, to have one's thread moved to the lounge be a badge of honor, if nothing else. Like in the days of old, the philosopher's table was not a chopping block (though it may have served similar purpose after dark) but a refining board where one can best find one's own faults not in shame or negative light, but in the promise of progress, like all great thinkers thoughts and desires surely went through.

    You quit when in fact you should strive forward, you doubt when in fact you should only double down on the conviction that fathered this thought or discussion you brought forth. Sure, it's not perfect, perhaps not even desired by the majority, but I ask you now. What scientific theory was not arduously even cruelly scrutinized before it became the law we all know and acknowledge? Very few. So take solace my weary friend. :)

    Besides... I think now the mystery as to the identity of the caper of your disappearing thread is now well known. :wink:
  • Are some languages better than others?
    First off, all these words and terms you use "Sicilian", "English", etc are nonsense in a true discussion of languages being "better". All lingual communication is forced air through specific muscular nuance. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    So it depends on what one defines as "better". Simpler? Sure, cavemen grunts were simpler and for someone who views simplicity as the paramount of communication are in fact much "better" than modern languages. More intricate requiring skill to master and perhaps even a deeper specificity of intent or purpose one wishes to convey? Sure, than complex language like we have today is "better". Until you explicit define what "better" is as in what intent or goal is to be accomplished, it's a matter of perspective.

    One would assume, the point of language, rather communication altogether being to convey and converse a specific sentiment, desire, or goal, a modern language is "better" than a series of grunts or clicking of one's tongue, yes. Up to the point it becomes too complex very few know how to express certain intricacies and subtleties, properly, up to the point it becomes a mere vanity display of 500 different ways to say the exact same thing seemingly for the point of simply being able to do so.
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    Sure. They can all vie for the title of Who Acquired More Stuff for Their Heirs to Sue Over. — Vera Mont

    No, that's fair. Though bear in mind people fight and kill over far less. If they raised their heirs properly and morally, or at least with an innate desire for peace as well as the knowledge of the value of avoiding avoidable discord, conflict can be minimized if not removed from the dynamic altogether.

    That's but one way of looking at it, is what I mean. Family strife is undesirable but it is unlikely to be disappearing altogether any time soon. How I look at it is, people vote with their resources, in this case, their money. So if many people buy my product or service, it clearly benefits them and thus society, which encourages innovation and progress, thus not only rewarding me for my efforts but encouraging the next innovator who may bring something even better to the proverbial social table. Now I'll be the first person to say, innovation can sometimes go too far for one's own good. That said, the old adage comes to mind, "if you don't do it, somebody else will anyway". Along with "give them enough rope, they will hang themselves". But that's beyond the point so I digress.

    Within the admittedly poor limits of my knowledge, the majority is neither eager to contend nor able to attain anything like the full value of their efforts. Is that fair? I don't think so. But, as you say, opinions are cheap. — Vera Mont

    I disagree somewhat. Though not entirely. What is the "full value" of one's efforts? Sure that modest tailor who hems clothes and fabrics could be making more money if he happened to have been educated in technological innovation and managed to have come up with the steam engine. I completely get the sentiment, at least my understanding of it, of "not wanting to contend" as in not wanting to pit myself against my fellow man where if I succeed he falters, especially in the context of superfluous resources or wealth and unneeded quality of living. I get that completely. That said, when one looks beyond the short term and gazes into the long term of society as a whole, one might find it is not quite the zero-sum game. I think so at least.

    Perhaps I misspoke regarding my remark of "opinions are cheap". They are dynamic, if not shifting, and often ill-formed, therefore placing prominent and pertinent value on something that is as ever-changing or resolute as the tides can be an unwise principle to adhere to in life. What I mean is, just because someone doesn't like you or something about you, doesn't automatically give the concept merit.

    Regardless, I enjoy reading and becoming aware of the opinions of those I respect, such as yourself. Even online. For I believe, if not know, they are definitively grounded in many of the same truths and values I call my own. Thanks for the reply. :)
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    As we here all attest. — Vera Mont

    Surely just because one is limited to the certain cheapness that comes with the human existence does not mean bargains are not to be found? :)

    My claim is simply that without some unnecessary, perhaps even gross and offensive to the enlightened mind, idea, concept, or "dream" even, the majority would not be as eager as they should be knowing the full value of their efforts, despite being unable at the present. Is that not fair?
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    From where does a man strive toward then? — Outlander

    From birth to dotage, for self-esteem, the love of a happy family, the respect of his fellow citizens, the satisfaction of contribution to the common weal.     — Vera Mont

    Meh. Opinions and perspective, be they internal or external, are cheap, as ever changing as the winds. and often out of one's control anyhow. Lest you give turmoil and tempestuousness power, they matter not. Contribution is important. However, one can contribute a Trojan Horse unknowingly that provides great benefit, until it is revealed it in fact has not.

    What purpose does he have to excel, — Outlander

    self-fulfillment, the attainment of skill in his craft and the privilege of passing on hard-earned wisdom to the next generation.     — Vera Mont

    Wisdom... how fantastic. Utilization of knowledge. How many times has such utilization damned entire empires? It is not what is taught it is how to use it.

    to defeat that lesser man in the mirror he woke up to? — Outlander

    Why defeat? Why not simply improve upon, day by day?     — Vera Mont

    If one is without fault, one is without care.
  • How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?
    from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
    Wealth is an evil concept.     — Vera Mont

    From where does a man strive toward then? Rather, to? What purpose does he have to excel, to defeat that lesser man in the mirror he woke up to? None. None whatsoever. And this constraint, is the father of all squalor and mediocrity.
  • Web development in 2023
    No, it means you're not allowed to change the name. — Michael

    So you would agree it is more of a safety net for inexperienced coders versus an actual, functional progression in and of PHP itself. If I want to intentionally change the name, variable, or anything for that matter, of an open source framework I dang will do so from the source code seeing as it's free and open for me to do so if desired.
  • Web development in 2023
    That used to be how things were done, but then PHP introduced "protected" and "private" visibility precisely so that we didn't have to do this. — Michael

    But, and correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't that simply put/shift the onus onto the lower developer to use quirky/prefixed variables now?

    Example, in running your code, I just got a fatal runtime error "unable to access protected property Person::$name ".

    So it's not like it actually frees up the use of the literal verbose name of the variable itself. It just makes it so "Ok now I have to use use '$name2' or '$variable2' instead of what comes firsthand in mind." as far as secondhand development/utilization of a framework goes.
  • Web development in 2023
    That's the entire purpose of things like public, protected, private, readonly, final, typing, interfaces, abstract, etc; to ensure that developers do things properly. — Michael

    Yeah, sure. Again just trying to better understand not to argue purely for the sake of doing so, but- actually no I get it, especially the latter comment. I'm not an "open source" guy so I'm sure you understand my "that's a solution in search of a problem" mindset. Myself, and many others have gone through painstaking measures in attempt to facilitate HTML based interfaces can perform any reasonable, common-use coding in and of itself, perhaps replacing the need to code altogether.

    Being able to see at a glance 'protected "name"' immediately tells them that they're not supposed to do '$class->name = 'foo'''. — Michael

    I get that completely. But just to ponder. As a hypothetical. Couldn't all that be resolved by using a simple prefix to the variable? Example (and I do this in mine, sometimes, as do others) ... let's use your WTFramework.

    Any common variable a person would use $name, $id, $session, $user, etc.... whatever it is...

    Instead use a prefix so it would be

    $_name or $wtf_name

    literally

    $class->_reservedVariable;
$class->wtf_variable;

    So no person would ever overwrite a variable in virtually 100% of use cases whatsoever.

    I do get the point you want people in an open source framework to access and adjust variables and in a modern PHP dev environment the inline warnings are very useful.

    Anyway, nice meeting a fellow coder on here.

    Seriously I think TPF or even the two of us should have an old fashioned "code off".

    Say a simple guestbook. A page of static content anonymous users can post comments on, sans db, stored as text files. I think that would be interesting. If you have the time.
Home » Outlander