Normal is what one would reasonably define as "expected." That which does not or tends not to deviate significantly from one period, instance, or form to another.

If I go to work at my office desk job one day and don't get violently stabbed, that would be "normal."

If I go to work at my job as a correctional officer in a poorly-run prison and someone else gets violently stabbed, that would also be "normal" (perhaps?).

Bear in mind we can hold inaccuracies, perhaps even full-fledged delusions as far as what is "typical" or "expected", particularly for those new or inexperienced or who otherwise don't really explore the full depth and area of a particular scenario or circumstance (ie. "living in a bubble" or "wearing rose-colored glasses" or simply just being fortunate enough to live a charmed or otherwise privileged life).

I'm not quite sure how this works, even having read the OP. If I have it right, the current word has 11 letters? — AmadeusD

Nae pal, when a word or letter is crossed out that usually means it's replaced by the text immediately following it. People often use this to "well, actually" people or "FIFY" to posts they object or have issue with. Example, if I posted:

"TPF posters are crazy!"

Someone might quote that post and reply with:

"TPF Forum posters are crazy!"

Thus illustrating a prominent or "new" idea ("all forum posters are crazy, not just those on TPF") from an old one ("only TPF posters are crazy").

Anyhow, it's a 10 lettered word, per the _ count. (At least it should be, it's often late when I post online)

Is there an R? — L'éléphant

There is not.

Hint (though not a particularly good one):

why do you utter a meaningless sentence — Corvus

They are just words — Corvus

This is meaningless:

"Something" obviously being any form of discernible matter — Outlander

This isn't:

As soon as you say vacuum is nothing, it is something. — Corvus

There is no such a thing called nothing, hence there is no such a thing called true nothing. — Corvus

Why is that? :chin:

Edit: I get what you're saying as far as "once you talk about anything it's 'something'". That said, explanations like that will make the average person go :roll: (if you're lucky)

What do you mean by something, nothing and true nothing? What are they in material objects in the physical world? — Corvus

Exactly what you would expect them to be, in the context of the physical world. "Nothing" obviously being as close to a "true vacuum" as physically possible, and perhaps "True Nothing" or a "true vacuum" not being possible (either by current scientific standards or simply by nature of the physical world).

Relevant tidbit:

A vacuum is defined as a space with as little energy in it as possible. Despite the name, the vacuum still has quantum fields. A true vacuum is stable because it is at a global minimum of energy, and is commonly assumed to coincide with the physical vacuum state in which we live. It is possible that a physical vacuum state is a configuration of quantum fields representing a local minimum but not global minimum of energy. This type of vacuum state is called a "false vacuum". — Wikipedia (False vacuum)

"Something" obviously being any form of discernible matter (a speck of dust or a blue whale, for example). Which, sure, there will always be "something" in whatever environment we try to make as close to "nothing" as possible. Especially if we count quantum activity or waves and particles (ie. magnetic or other "force" influence).

So True Nothing would be... well, it's in the word. Truly nothing. This may or may not be (currently) possible in practice (but perhaps in posit). However, note it once was impossible to reach things such as Absolute Zero and other previously unknown/"impossible" concepts that are now reached/obtained somewhat easily.

I'm not a physicist so anything deeper would be speculation/guesswork. Which is fine, in moderation.

Transgender people — Questioner

Again, you refuse to define (and maintain a constant definition of) "transgender people". I already caught you in one backtrack you won't own up to.

You said "transgenders are born". Which due to the existence of ultrasounds that can detect even the smallest abnormalities of the brain, means "transgenderism" should be able to be "detected" early on in the womb, which no reputable science supports. Instead of admitting you were wrong, or meeting halfway and saying "I don't know, that's just what I'm parroting, perhaps I made a mistake" you arrogantly pretended like you weren't painted into a corner, trying to shift focus onto something else hoping people wouldn't notice, as if we're all stupid or something. That's offensive. All that little move did is expose the illogical nature of your argument and possibly more about your character (or agenda or purpose here).

The meaning of what I wrote is simply this: transgender persons are born that way. I never said anything about detection. That would be absurd. — Questioner

You said, and I quote:

a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born. — Questioner

Then, when I asked if you could tell the difference between a "male brain" and a "female brain", specifically around the time a human being is born, you said:

yes, it can be done with fMRI - scans of brain activity — Questioner

So which is it? Either you can "detect" whether or not a male body is allegedly paired with a "female" brain (and vice versa) or no such specific pairing occurs in the womb at all.

(Not to mention actual science that confirms the human brain isn't done developing at all until around the age of 25 or later!)

So yes, you in fact made an unfounded scientific claim not backed by reputable science. Your best bet if you want to keep going is to pull a casual "oh I didn't mean to" or maybe suggest that English isn't your first language or something. Because your wording was clear as day. You can't keep doubling down without a cop-out at this point, not without harming your own case. Which might be well-intended but nevertheless has failed to remain logically consistent. Think about it.

I'm in a good mood tonight, don't take it personally. I worry we're getting a bit off topic from the OP's stated premise. But this is not a place where you can remain logically inconsistent without being called out for it. You need to understand that.

Where did nothing come from? — Corvus

One might argue, "nothing" is merely a descriptor that refers to the absence of, well, any thing. It doesn't "come from" anywhere. It's the result of either a time before "things" or the result after which all "things" are removed. Now there's a good litany of pseudo-intellectual "gotcha" phrases associated with the idea (superficial depth, often semantics, typically leading to pseudo-"revelations") so be careful not to fall into any.

True Nothing may not have ever existed, or perhaps it did and something did indeed come from nothing. That—while "trippy" enough to fully occupy the full thought processes of the mortal mind for 1,000 lifetimes—ultimately becomes secondary to the larger, or at least more relevant, question: "can nothing really ever be reached from our current something" ie. (a true vacuum)?

They are the largest surplus resource we have. They are not special. — AmadeusD

I think it might be better said "the act of procreation", specifically in times when 60% of children didn't survive past age 5, contrasted to modern times with the introduction of contraceptives, thus making the act of coitus into a past time or hobby (and to some a competition), has somewhat cheapened what was once a widely-revered occurrence. :wink:

yes, it can be done with fMRI - scans of brain activity — Questioner

Ok, in principle I believe that. I don't like the AI link. There's no reason it had to take "AI" to reach that conclusion. I'm not saying it doesn't take automated computer processing, but that's a basic "find the similarities" process inherently similar to the grade school matching game kids solve. They had that tech in the 90s.

Literally no reason for AI to have been involved. So now I'm suspicious if that's the only link you have. Again, I'm sure there are patterns that are more or less (if not more-so than not) accurate. But I haven't read anything in the article that suggests it's 100% accurate and no outlying "configurations" are possible. And need I remind you... what was the first step in evolution but a "odd outlying configuration." Ah, yes see we get to the root of the issue back to the theory I proposed.

Assuming you believe in all that, what if the first fish that crawled out from the water never made it to land to evolve because some fish doctors and all of fish society said "oh you're a transfish, sorry. We're going to bully you and treat you different until you take mind-altering medication and surgically alter yourself until we accept you (we won't even then, but whatever, It'll be fun to watch). That's basically, at least you haven't proven otherwise, what's happening in 2025. Crabs in a bucket mentality of low IQ people. We refuse to let one another succeed, so we drag not only ourselves but all of humanity down in the process of our insipid and backwards worship of our frail egos. I said it before, I'll say it again: that's why man must be ruled by a superior force. Call that "governed" if it satiates your ego.

a "transgender" person can be definitively identified by sonogram early on before birth. — Outlander


I made no such claim. — Questioner

Ok, so here is why I see other people taking issue with your manner of replying. Let me illustrate.

The development of their brain and their body are in the same sex.

But, sometimes, the two processes do not result in the same sex. So, a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born. — Questioner

I don't see how you can say the above sentence and then reject the idea of ultrasound imagery immediately after. You know what an ultrasound is, yes? (I said sonography previously, which is the larger field)

I did a Google search using a specific phrase from your post.

You're one of "those" people aren't you. Yes, that's quite alright. We all have to make a living somehow. Truth is old-fashioned when it comes to a paycheck. Guess that means this place is getting popular. Good. That's good.

I don't appreciate the condescension. — Questioner

What, that you might be incorrect? You must be new here. That's basically the only reasonable inference one could forcibly strain from a question. Note I did not make it a "have you stopped beating your wife" false premise question since I left the secondary option (original research/own opinion) for you to answer as well. Which you did not. You're either hearing this from an organization, one I would like to know the name of, so perhaps as to verify, or this is your original research or opinion. What in Heaven's name could be so condescending about a simple desire to verify the truth? :chin:

have you ever talked to a transgender person in your life? — Questioner

That's hard to answer since you cannot seem to offer a solid fixed definition of what a "transgender" person is. First you say the process occurs and finalizes in the womb, then you say it can't be detected in the womb (which seems to imply the "transgender" baby has some sort of superpower that blocks ultrasound from observing it). Then, there's the simple definition of anyone (even just for fun or a dare) who chooses to surgically alter themself to "become" like the opposite gender. So between that widely cast net, I'd say it's likely.

But more than that. I've watched, read, and yea even studied the words, remarks, stories, but above all resulting actions and consequences of those who identify as such. In 90% of the cases the person felt "confused", was often bullied (ostracized) for not fitting in, then after cocktails of mind-altering drugs, anesthesia, pain meds (hint hint) and surgery (coincidentally right after that begins avoiding that circle of toxic people that led them to the initial state of "confusion") magically feels better. For a short period. Then whatever underlying issue was really going on tends to resurface. It's a cruel thing to watch. And it's all for money. It's a racket. And once you see it for what it is you'll have no wonder why the fate of the world must be as it will be.

Grifters who'd perform unneeded surgery on their own mother for the chance to get even one extra dime out of the bottomless money well that is insurance. Grifters all of them. :cool:

Seriously, though. Does money not make the world go 'round? Or do we do what's right simply for its own sake to the point of starvation? Tell me you know enough about your own nature as a human being to answer at least that.

During the first trimester of pregnancy, the body differentiates (testes or ovaries) under the influence of genes. And then, in a completely different process, under the influence of genes and hormones, during the 3rd trimester, the brain differentiates to a male or a female brain.

In most cases, the two processes are coincident, and a cisgender person is born. The development of their brain and their body are in the same sex.

But, sometimes, the two processes do not result in the same sex. So, a male body + female brain develops, or a female body + a male brain develops, and a transgender person is born. — Questioner

Finally, we get to the meat of the issue. Two relevant questions that immediately come to mind.

1.) How intimate are you with neuroscience? Could you pick out a male vs. female brain NOT using post-birth indication/life experience (ie. mannerisms, social norms, cues, none of that stuff that develops AFTER a human is born)?

Pardon the morbidity, but, say if you had to examine two deceased babies, and you know for a fact one is male and one is female but you only had the brain to go by, could you really and definitively determine one from the other?

2.) The bold part of your reply shows you make the claim that a "transgender" person can be definitively identified by sonogram early on before birth. This isn't supported by any established, widely-agreed upon science I've heard of. Again, so far, all that science tell us is most males have average brains. This makes it colloquially a "male brain." Most females have average female-typical brains. This makes it, colloquially, a "female brain."

Why do you think just because a brain develops atypically, favoring patterns or structures generally common for the opposite gender, that human being is "transgender"? That's in a word, bollocks; pure quackery. So not really a question. But I need to hear your reasoning specifically what institution or group is propagating such "information" to you. Unless that's your own "original research" (random opinion).

--

There is a clear third option as well.

Perhaps the human brain is simply developing, human evolution is occurring (why would it not, after all?), and the male brain is becoming more refined (about time by God) and is slowly becoming more intelligent, able to recognize and associate more strongly with emotions and empathy (what it means to be human and not an animal), something previously gifted only to the "female brain". This enhanced ability, something the male mind lacks, is erroneously being referred to as "femininity" or "transgender" in a purposeful and widely-orchestrated attempt by the less than evolved (the majority) to retain their dominance at the cost of human evolution by ensuring the superior mind is kept down even before birth.

Sure, that's just a theory. But there's just as much evidence for that as there is for your "born transgender" claim. But it makes sense. Females are less violent, usually (perhaps due to different mental partitioning in regards to emotional capacity ie. a so-called "female" brain structure). Violence is the cause of most suffering, inequality, war, etc. on this Earth. So why would humanity not evolve as a whole to be less violent and more emotionally intelligent (or as the stubborn majority of people holding humanity back would say: "more feminine")? :chin:

Edit: That was more of a spitball, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense. This world is stained by war. Every civilization, every culture, every people, every land. Men didn't have to be intelligent. For crying out loud, they didn't even have to sane. All they had to do was be able to beat someone over the head with anything available, take what that person had, and use it to reproduce. That's what propagated throughout the tens of thousands of years. Junk DNA (not to be crude, but that's using their own vernacular when they refer to "smaller" or "weaker" people, so-called "beta males". So. That's in their own words). Intelligence clearly won, despite how its mocked so cruelly to this day. Are we not using smartphones and computers and modern engines or are we using wooden clubs and furs? Game, set, match. Good job, smart people. :cool: But the war is not yet over. No, not by far. :gasp:

What you seem to be insisting on is that the brain must match the body. — Questioner

What is a brain that doesn't match the body? How would it even function?

Again, per my above post, this has turned into a discussion about conformity to social norms, which inherently vary from culture to culture and society to society. Maybe there's some remote island village somewhere where men are enslaved by women and as a result men are "shy, reserved" or otherwise retain their childhood mannerisms (this is in reality what people actually refer to when they refer to "femininity" despite believing otherwise) whereas the women are brutish, crude, and abusive.

This makes discussing social norms and conformity to said social norms quite trivial. I cannot for the life of me imagine "a [functioning] brain that doesn't match the body?" What would that even mean? Now, as I said, it's possible more biological males (or females) in a given time, place, society, or culture are all similar. This is normally how it is. And those that aren't, are simply atypical. The problem is, as social creatures with a powerful often deadly need to conform, we assume if something is "atypical" it has to have a negative social context. Because different people who make different choices tend to make us question our own life choices. And the mind likes to be correct. So we'll discount the other person as "odd", which is true in the sense of regularity, but is actually a one-dimensional and superficial judgement that speaks volumes about the person judging and nothing about the person being judged. But we'll gladly think the opposite and sleep soundly at night all the same.

You stated some men have female brains. — Malcolm Parry

This is a point I touched on earlier. The average person tends to be uncultured, dumb, basically borderline deficient, and so much more. To these people, anything intelligent, emotional, or refined—despite actually being above them—their decrepit minds have to consider it as being beneath them so as to function "normally." Ergo, they consider anything that isn't lowbrow, primal, and animalistic (violent or destructive ie. demolition derbies, MMA fights, etc.) as "weird" or "not normal" or "non-masculine" ie. "feminine."

And the people in charge—who actually enjoy all of the refined things—simply say "Yeah, sure. Whatever you say." Because dumb people are easily controlled by dumb things. They'd rather the average person never pick up a book or question their life choices; it makes for better more compliant slaves. If you don't know you're a fly in a bottle, you'll never attempt to escape from it. From cradle to grave under a blanket of ignorance and self-delusion. People complain when the ruling class get richer or burden the working class with an unpopular change in policy, then they go watch football or an MMA match and forget about it an hour later until the next manufactured social issue is selected.

And the thing is, they're truly happier this way. The people in charge are—at the end of the day—giving the people what they want, happiness. Despite the cost behind it. Thinking hurts for them. Or at least cultured things are mind-numbingly boring. The average layperson's mind simply isn't equipped (or at least isn't wired) to process or understand the finer things in life we enjoy so naturally, so they'll call it "girly" or "feminine" (by which they mean "beneath them", again despite it being clearly the opposite) so as to maintain their ego and sense of purpose. Part hedonistic treadmill, part "the mind will believe anything if it makes it happy" ie. psychological homeostasis.

So, yeah. A great many people refer to people with intelligence, who like intelligent things over low brow activities are first, statistically "odd" or "uncommon", which the ego of the layperson of course assumes themself to be the perfect "man" (or "woman"), therefore, it would only logically follow, that makes this "uncommon" mind "feminine", since they don't like the things they do. Basically, someone's wrong or missing out on life. "Is it me? Nah, it must be that other guy. He's just weird/feminine." This is how the ego and average mind works. Is it logical? Just ask them. To them, it's no different than 2 + 2 = 4.

An organism feels. — Punshhh

I once watched a documentary on a child with CIP (congenital insensitivity to pain). While fascinating, it was tragic. Apparently the kid would run into walls and not realize they were severely hurting themself, resulting in innumerable medical visits and related costs.

Point being, just because that human being is unable to "feel" (yet does have the "hardware" per se to) and another living being that is also unable to feel (and does not have the necessary "hardware), do you see the connection? I can't prove it, and admittedly, I probably wouldn't want to go out on a limb suggesting otherwise, but it was discovered that plants communicated by what was previously undetectable means only semi-recently. Who knows what other secrets and untold truths may exist beyond the thin veil, the tiny tip of an iceberg, that is human understanding.

Contrary to the OP, in the gender-social sense, “trans women are women” is true. Insisting on only the biological sense is a misunderstanding of how language works, not a logical or empirical requirement. — Banno

Is this kind of like how "sick" "means" "impressive" and "hot" "means" "attractive" and/or "stolen", etc.? :chin:

New word installed. @Jamal should appreciate this one. I think.

(Note if you want to make it more difficult you can choose to view or not view the hint)

Hint:

Scurrilous? — L'éléphant

Take your prize and get out. Jk :razz:

:party: Winner! The currently selected word was SCURRILOUS! :party:

It took you (0) full word OR single letter guesses to claim victory.

New word incoming.

Okay, the real guess is a letter included above: R — Dawnstorm

Yes! There are (2) instances of the letter "R" in the currently selected word.

S _ _ R R _ _ _ _ S

Unfortunately I no longer have any hints due to the fact someone "R"-ready got it. :wink:

Accusing me of getting personal when you interpret being called wrong as a rejection of all that was and ever will be of your person - is a bit rich. — Tzeentch

Again, there's no "me" or "you" as far as this debate is concerned. There's ideals, truths (Uppercase and lowercase), and underlying realities (yes plural, or perhaps meta-realities that apply wholly and fully to certain spheres and sectors of the population and not others thus earning the distinction).

Allow me to illustrate this right proper. Answer this question, if you can.

If the laws in your country state drug dealers are to be shot. And you discover your one and only son is currently selling some low level drug he and his friends managed to get their hands on after watching a movie that glorified drug dealing (Scarface, for example). Are you going to shoot him? Yes or no. That will reveal all that needs to be revealed about this particular debate (and since you're so interested in the concept, personal character as well!).

This is obviously a pointless conversation. — Tzeentch

I don't think so. I enjoy our interactions, even if our beliefs and values happen to be polar opposites. I don't think they are. Not really. And even still, what does it matter in the grand scheme of things really? Perhaps it's due to the isolated nature of my work that I find nearly any intelligent interaction a rarity, a sort of joy in and of itself. Perhaps not. :smile:

Alas, your disinclination to ultimately "say" such was rightfully heeded. Though I appreciate your solicitous nature as far as eagerness to participate :wink:

Scandalous? — Mikie

That is not the specific given word.

If not, I guess the letter A — Mikie

Also, no, the letter "A" is not present in the 10-letter given word.

Though, as a semi-hint, perhaps those who are accused of this word might suggest " 'A', no I'm not!"" As is generally the sentiment of those who tend to be called the word in question.

but it seems that homosexual men have brain structures that resemble both male and female brain structures. — Philosophim

Right here we go with the fallen world logic. The "average man" is, historically, for all intent and purpose, a monster. A horrific abomination that failed to evolve. An existential threat to not only the world but life itself. This is evidenced by his petty wars, his illogically unappreciative nature, his petulant jealousies, his psychotic and hypocritical delight in all that he would find detestable if done to himself (violent and destructive forms of entertainment he sacrifices valuable resources crucial to his own life to even view) and above all, his unwarranted existential conflict with seemingly everything, including (if not mostly) himself.

How do we know how mankind was truly meant to have evolved? What would have brought us into a golden age of peace and enlightened society, that wasn't cut short by unfortunate packets of those who value brawn over brain. Packets that should have died out long ago that have now become the majority of the population, overtaking the world. This... excuse of a being we call the average man. We don't. Not really. We just assume because "it happened it's what was supposed to happen." A form of deterministic slavery.

Maybe we've reached a new term in science called "existential exodus" where due to the technology and innovation (likely introduced by the atypical ie. more evolved mind) and it's that these mindless brutes are controlling women with edginess, shortsightedness, fear, and above all violence, so that they themselves don't die out (which how can you blame them for trying) and so the real and proper future of advanced men, who are yes intelligent (which inherently applies an enhanced ability to connect with emotion ie. being more emotional) are left without mates (because being "smart" is "uncool") so they have little choice but to think that they're gay. When in reality, the so-called "normal" man is the "odd one out" who should be the one not reproducing, who has equal tendencies, if not greater, but has been able to convince the reproductive pool otherwise. This is why they hate educated women. Because educated women will only produce with men who advance the virtue and value of humanity.

That I'd believe. In fact I can prove it on paper, as far as who makes what inventions and who clings to them versus their own devices. So that's just science at this point. No big deal. So the question, do we look forward to an enlightened future of humanity and ensure the enlightened and intelligent surpass the outdated, self-destructive so-called "alpha" male? Or do we just let the world go to Hell? There's two options. And if you're not on the side that invented nuclear weapons and mathematics, over the side that has nothing but violence, fear, and weapons featuring a rock attached to a stick. You've made your own grave.

The biggest thing is also the greatest challenge. Educating women. Historically, women are victims of abuse. Rape, slavery, etc. The smartest stock (unless simultaneously blessed with beauty) didn't live very long, and if so wasn't matched with equal intelligence, simply brute force, so that basically counted out any intelligence in any conceivable offspring. That's just a fact provable on paper. So there's work to do, if one wants to undo the insidious death spiral that is the current course of human reproduction.

One 'them' made 2 comments in the derogatory - that my post is creepy and then followed up that it is disgusting. — unimportant

Oh, okay. We refer to people whose gender is unknown and impolite to assume as "they." Yes, I do that too! My mistake. Sorry about that. Carry on. And relax! It's the Lounge. Have a drink, get comfortable. We're not going anywhere. :smile:

Though in the future, a simple "that person" might suffice. I was concerned since you had previously mistakenly mentioned my post as something derogatory, thus priming my expected use of "they" to include multiple persons as opposed to it's actual use. An understandable misunderstanding. As it were. :grin:

That seems a very charitable appraisal of them calling my post creepy. — unimportant

Them? I see one post that mentions anything of the sort. Are you seeing double? People pile things on yes. But, many a time, it is but our own mind that plays tricks on us. Per past experience, of course. No shame. We all have our horror stories. However, one ought wish to make a fine distinction, a point of remembrance, a baseline of reality, when the illusions of one's own mind is made so glaringly evident.

S — Mikie

Yes! There are (2) occurrences of the letter "S" in the currently selected word.

S _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ S

Snake eyes! Well, at least a letter commonly associated with such happens to both start and end the given word.

I think there's a view you're not considering — Jamal

Oh I'm absolutely sure of that. This is the Lounge after all. I enjoy taking my thinking cap off here, if that's alright.

I mean the view that sees the idea that sex is dirty or that the animal in us is something to be ashamed of or to transcend—that this idea itself is what is offensive, rather than sex or the "bestial". In other words, it is disgusting that people find sex disgusting. — Jamal

Right, that's not quite what I was getting at. Different strokes for different folks. However, if one has what a thinking society might consider an irrational (that is to say, what should be irrational due to the heavy contrast of what intelligence, restraint, and pursuit of higher [to some, "lofty"] ideals have produced) fixation or perhaps even obsession with the lowest levels of the human experience, well, perhaps one ought listen and hear out the opposing party. Again, the people who chastise or outright condemn the values that brought about everything said condemning people use everyday don't really have a right to turn around and say "oh that's nice that it gave me everything I use and take for granted, but now I'm going to talk down about it as something I don't need" when in reality it gave them everything they have. That's what I feel many people can rightfully pose an issue toward.

Perhaps it can be likened to eating. Everyone eats, they have to. We wouldn't be alive without eating. But when someone just can't control themself to the point it starts to negatively affect not only their own life but that of others (specifically others who can control, or perhaps simply do value concepts such as restraint and planning, and as such want neither deserve no part of the burden that those who cannot). I mean, there has to be a limit to over-indulgence and what is socially-acceptable as far as inflicting your willful lack of restraint (and resulting detriment) on unsuspecting upstanding members of society if they can easily make the choice not to. There's a limit to how much burden and moral degradation (and resulting social detriment) the average person should reasonably bear, especially in the context of anything possibly detrimental or likely to cause degradation being wholly and perhaps even easily avoidable.

But anyhow. Perhaps the OP's underlying sentiment can be likened to how coal (a crude, dirty material) is the only way that results in diamonds (highly valued and generally clean and pure material) from otherwise violent, messy, and mindless forces.

The thanks is appreciated. Frankly I didn't think this thread would come this far. :chin:

New word, and it's one of my favorites. Learned it from TPF, actually. See the OP for the hint. I suppose I'll post it here. It's not the best description but adequate enough, especially for thinking minds.

Hint: One would hope to avoid their philosophical argument being labeled as (or consisting of) [this word] remarks.

10 letters. Go!

Clearheaded? — Mikie

:party: Winner! The currently specified word was CLEARHEADED! :party:

It took you (1) full worded guess and (1) single letter guess to claim victory.

Congratulations! If only I had something to give you other than my utmost genuine satisfaction and praise. (I might have a $50 Amazon digital gift card laying around somewhere from last year, but what are material goods when it comes to the true value of existence that is human appreciation, am I right?)

New word incoming.

A? — Mikie

Yes! There are (2) occurrences of the letter "A" in the currently specified word.

_ _ E A _ _ E A _ E _

You just might have this one in the bag, "A?" :wink:

I found it disgusting and I expressed that feeling. — T Clark

Of course, because it shows what an animal who laps at the bosom of primal lust without any deep meaning really is. His is a scathing commentary on how humanity has failed to evolve. That despite all our machines and pleasantries we still value that which the animals value first and foremost, much like the same.

Some might have the self-respect and dignity to admit, yes, there are faults we have personally that should be exposed so as to result in a better society and state of mankind.

Again this bandwagoning is what I see far too much on other forums. As soon as one negative post comes, others seem to get their courage and pile on. — unimportant

To be fair mine was written well in advance. And it was funny. The classic "everything's fine" in a situation where it's clearly not. You have people in this thread who relate to you and validate your premise(s), and you have those who don't. What more do you want? :chin:

Sure, I don't actually think it's the "best thread on TPF" but the fact that some people see that remark as wry humor (that's what it is: gentle, lighthearted absurdity not vindictive mockery or belittlement) addresses a common sentiment that does no good in ignoring or acting like the people (a majority) who hold it are inherently incorrect or out of touch, no?

Though, I do see your point. I withheld that remark not because I thought it was offensive but because it was non-serious. Whereas once a serious (potentially offensive) remark was made, I offered mine so as to lighten the mood with wry humor. This should have made you feel better and more confident in the face of the other person's more serious critique.

The Lounge is supposed to be a lighthearted place. It takes two to tango when it comes to negativity. So perhaps one might ask who it really is who isn't playing fair. :wink:

I don't know. I'm out of steam. Over to someone else. — Jamal

Well, when you recover, you'll be what this word is.

e — Jamal

As usual my own generosity is my own undoing. :wink:

Yes! There is not only (1) but (3) instances of the letter "E" in the currently selected word.

_ _ E _ _ _ E _ _ E _

Don't cheat now. Use your own head and immediate memory. You're only robbing yourself and your own experience if you use AI or look it up!

Ah, it's intelligent. — Jamal

Another synonym, yet not the currently selected word. Both your full-word guesses so far are "what one could or perhaps hope to aspire to be" as a result of the word. It's somewhat of a requirement to reach any of your full-word guesses.

Why not go back to an individual letter guess? There are two pairs of commonly used letters in it.

Enlightened. — Jamal

That's an impressive guess. And possibly a synonym of the word. Arguably one must be [this word] as a prerequisite to become enlightened.

o — Jamal

The letter "O" is not present in the currently selected word, unfortunately. If it were anyone else I'd have to punch your ticket as far as consecutive guesses. :wink:

As a free hint, a person typically verbally expresses "O" when they reach this state of mind (the word).

s — Jamal

The letter "S" is not present in the currently selected word, no. However, as an additional free hint, the word (or concept) is the "s"-ense of effective philosophy. That is to say, a person would or should ideally be in this state of mind to engage effectively in not only philosophy but anything else, preferably.

The letter "P" is not present in the currently selected word, no. However, as a free hint, the word (or concept) might only be possible if someone "does not have p".

In a sentence, it's a phenomena of the mind, chiefly pattern recognition or seeing the cohesion (similarity) that all machinations of this world (biotic and abiotic) have in common, typically followed by allowing desire, ambition, and imagination (and above all, ego) to supersede logic, truth, and reality (humbleness) that somehow since we are able to see (what we assume to be all) similarities between these things, it elevates us above all that is around us, to the level of a god (or god-infused being). Ordinarily a simple, natural background process of the mind or ego that some instead choose to embrace or elevate as something above the stresses, conditions, predicaments, traumas, conniptions, and strife that are commonplace in the average daily life as it were a "higher" or "truer" reality of it's own merit. And if it works for them, why not let it.

The problem is this is based on a relative non-fixed "idea" versus a solid, absolute entity (a "god") and so is inevitably less reliable (ie. "effective") as far as mental homeostasis and the resulting peace and purpose of actual theistic religion. I've found many people who are "spiritual" without believing in any sort of higher power (theism) are usually ticking time bombs as far as implosion of self-grandeur and.delusion when rubber meets the road. A false mental sanctuary that often leads not to resolution and acceptance of issues and the ills in this world and one's life but repression of them. Which is never good. No, not for very long. For those who believe in neither and simply seek an "end result" analysis as to which is more "effective" as far as observable and measurable purpose.

At least, that's how it is for most people I've come across and especially observed for a given period who proclaim fellowship in such. And I'm a staunch theist, just for context.

I had this reply as a saved draft, but originally decided not to post it due to it seeming "spammy" or non-genuine. But in light of @T Clark's scathing analysis I now feel it slightly more appropriate:

Best thread on TPF in years, OP. :up:

Or maybe we just take things at face value. He wanted banning, he asked for banning, and he got banning. — Hanover

Right. That's not only my but the general sentiment of the active participants in this thread at this time.

We're not impossible to reach out to, so if he pleads temporary insanity and wants to return, we can consider it then. — Hanover

Mm, that's not what I've been made aware of.

See the "official rules" thread, specifically this stipulation:
"Bans are permanent and non-negotiable."