If you need help with English, get some. — tim wood

And this is the state of man.An artificial impasse. Granted, the individual this (metaphysician undercover) easily could have and perhaps should have mentioned the specific points of contention, lest it seemed every word and effort of your expression is little than that of a raving madman, something hurtful. But perhaps, instead of such a mindset, the answers to your questions are self-evident! And he is in fact challenging you to pursue such avenues of self-inquiry further.

So, let's embrace the mindset of an casual observer. He requests clarification. You seem such a request is beneath your effort as, certainly, any rational mind could make sense of what you purported? Is this correct? So, perhaps frame it differently. You seem to make a statement, that the person perceives as a question. That is to say, he derives several statements at least one begetting a question. This is a compliment. Not an insult. Should you not go from there?

The AN view is asking what right anyone has to create life if they know it will suffer. — I like sushi

I'm sure you're correct in most instances. Of course we have yet to meet or question an actual practicing anti-natalist (not counting the obvious resident one, joyous and pleasant to know him as he is..., of course, a bit or irony but that's beside the point, for now)

I fee it important to note the overwhelming drive in which spurred my recent response to you, was to assert, rather question, anti-natalist is poorly defined as is. That is to say, there are two (at minimum I argue) driving forms of rationale that define such an idea. With no shyness of immodesty, I believe one could ascertain the driving consistent ideology of anti-natalism is: life is more likely to incur negative outcome than positive, and so, in respect to culmination of man's efforts of reason, that which is likely to produce negative result, is best avoided. However, this may be true. All well and good. But there remains a blockage, a failure of inquiry, I believe. As to whether or not said belief is based on circumstance that is changeable, or remains a hopeless illusion of changeability. That is to say, in simple terms, yes, if something is likely to be negative, it is to be avoided. But whether or not this negativity can be changed, resolved, eliminated, defeated, or perhaps lessened by introduction of a greater dynamic thus making said negativity trivial, is my, question. Basically.

So. I believe there are two types of anti-natalists. Those who are such rationally, and those who are perhaps confused and only in such respective minds of thinking due to circumstance that is in fact, false.

That is to say, those who are truly not anti-natalists but consequentialists, or best said, the current state of being ie. the status quo produces adequate evidence procreation is more harmful than positive, as in, perhaps things could be changed, whether easily or throughout much if not impossible levels of difficulty, to alter such a reality. This is the divide I think is neglected in the majority. Hence me reason for replying.

So. Yes, ":the way things are, that can be changed, but do not seem likely to be changed, creates the factual inarguable reality that, creation of new life is more likely to incur suffering on the innocent then immediate and observable positive outcome and so, procreation is to be avoided"

Versus "No, even if everything were to be perfect, either eventually, or in some intrinsic yet unobservable way, creation of new life is likely, eventually, to be of worse outcome than not"

Essentially. There is a divide that those who fail to acknowledge simply refute the soundness of the anti-natalism argument. Is my suggestion.

If someone wants to argue that my conclusion is false — Michael

Surely there are many ways to assist a friend that their current action or belief that will assuredly guide future actions are "lacking", that is to say, have reasonable methods of improvement not currently taken.

Things are not alwaysfalse or valid. Binary enslavement. It is not always "my way or the highway", that is to say, perhaps one there is more that one can contribute to a certain goal or ideal than can be immediately ascertained. Is this false or true?

I have no idea what you're talking about. — Michael

And that is understood. Well and good. This is, after all, the only rational non-ill-intended platform of debate or intellectual opposition. Reasonable inquiry itself, even.

I suppose, to simplify, how would you best explain the reasoning behind your recent argument/reply/rebuttal or opposing position to someone who is either: unaware of the argument, that is to say, does not have the fortune to be in the posses ion of the knowledge you hold (yet is capable of so). Surely your questioner is of sound and rational mind and morality. So, if he is incorrect, and you assert the position you remain the opposite, how does one become equals on the same page of truth and rationale you see?

I am arguing that the supertask is metaphysically impossible. — Michael

As you understand it, of course. And, make no mistake, I would be among the first to swear your understanding and take of things is valid, but also the first to defend the idea that things can change.

Surely some things must remain consistent, for is this not the basis of sanity, after all?

But there still remains some outlier arguments you believe to be irrelevant, or in your words "implied". This is all the opposing party wishes to acknowledge, I do believe.

In simple terms, perhaps, a remote possibility exists, the individual who declared such a statement, has different views and relevant perceptions toward said statement than you hold. Nothing more. Simply the remote possibility. Not that one is "wrong" but simply there is more to the intended truth than one currently perceives. Surely such a thing is possible, no?

The laws of noncontradiction and excluded middle are implied. — Michael

Clearly not by you. Could've easily included it. So why didn't you?

Surely you must believe your interlocutor has a point in his statement other than that of a any random dreg of society: "you're wrong".

He has a point, a truth and testimony, an entire world he wishes you to experience

Can you explain better please? — I like sushi

Basically what makes the anti-natalist so sure? What specifically do they hold their ground on?

Is it, say as if one were a prisoner, who is given the option to father a child, knowing said child will also in turn become a prisoner and experience more suffering then pleasure? And is this the root of all AN argument: if more pleasure cannot be "guaranteed" prior to the creation of life, such action, which would apparently likely result in more negative than positive is to be avoided.

Is this not the AN dogma or decree? I apologize, for it is me who is now asking for you for information or clarity!

To further say, there is a war (or framed binary belief or "footing") between so called "anti-natalists."

That life, regardless of change or possible omission of what is currently held in the antinatalist mindset as "suffering" or "negative", creation of new life either, is intrinsically a negative, whether that conviction is held based on the likelihood of even, say, a perfect utopia naturally always reverting to a negative state, or some other generally non-evidential belief.

That is to say there are two camps so to speak, whose divisions are defined not of anti-natality at all but greater reason itself: possibility of change and rigidity of current state of affairs. Is this not correct?

ANs are not against existence per se — I like sushi

Let's reframe the mindset here. Not ""against" anything, simply the acknowledgement (belief, rather) that creating human life is more likely to incur negative experience than positive and such should either be avoided altogether or at least such factual information or likelihood (whether true or not) should be made present in the minds of all men or women capable of childbirth?


Can we agree on that as being the anti natailist creed? Or do you have a different definition in mind?

But isn't it ironic the AN is only able to prevent said suffering, by in fact, making full use and utility of the alleged eventual path (or in their mind, cursed tool) that is existence?

Kind of a corundum in and of itself, no?

Ok let me put the question another way. Either I "just happen" to be among the infinitesimal fraction of matter that became human beings, or this seeming miracle actually allows me to infer something about the nature of reality (maybe all minds are somehow destined for a higher state of being within their respective timelines, idk). — Dogbert

There's no real question mate. That is to say you have avoided anything of genuine philosophic value completely.

This is the standard kindergarten response that predicates of rather fortifies the atheistic philosophy or "way or life" ie. religion.

Yes any state of realization of avoidance of that which could be horrible (or awful whether immediately or over generations) is likely, perhaps as you suggest, even mandating of ideological if nor ritualistic recognition. But the critic rightfully questions: "yeah. so what?". That is to say, predicates the positive future of those who dismiss this ideology as a falsehood altogether. Perhaps who end up in a better state of observable quality of life than if not having done so. So what is the response to that?

If you think I somehow don't believe/know about evolution than you've missed the point of the question entirely. — Dogbert

Yet interestingly enough it, finally. encourages you to offer more input to a claim that has been repeatedly confirmed to be "requiring more information" to constitute a solid philosophical inquiry.

So. Here we are. Rationally speaking.

Your post: I subscribe to way of thinking and consider its tenets of proof to be self-evident. As anything opposite would in fact infer me to be as. well, a moron, per se.

*multiple ignored or otherwise inadequately replied to posts* (no further comment)

A finally (adequately) replied to response: : "Somehow" (as if the replier's state of mind is somehow bizarre or unreasonable based on your reply [which is understandable, the ego is real, but understandably... unimportant. It's kind of an obvious unspoken litmus test to determine how far one is as far as philosophical progress]).

So. To simplify. Which I believe is the best course of action to produce a reasonable response. What is the underlying logic or rationale behind what encouraged such a reply?

Ah, thinglihood. The Achilles heel of all great thinkers.Hearkens back to the conflict arisen from the first true philosophers, who of course remain absent from "observable" or rather "reputable" history.

You must first acknowledge your question "answers" itself by "defining" a truth it attempts to discover. Or as some say, constitute a statement and remains a non-question. If this is confusing, this is further proof of this acknowledgement, otherwise, your use of the word "physical" retains a basis of that which is commonly perceived as "physical" as in: easily evidenced. My point being the fact you mention the "physical" means you acknowledge there is a "non-physical" that stands guard just over the boundary of what you (or presumably, the majority) consider physicality. Otherwise, there is no distinction only but another thing. What I mean is, your question remains a non-question because it dictates a debated concept "physicality", which deprives the purported environment in which you wish to have such a debate of a sole propriety.

This is often confusing so if I may circle back.The ignorant observer, which I likely wager you to see me as. Philosophy is the Colosseum of non-violent gladiatorial custodianship of that which not only is and is to be, but rather should be for reasons not needed to be physically asserted in perpetuity. Basically, my statement is though you in intent ask one question, three questions are in fact begged of the viewer.

What is physicality? What is a basis? Determined by who? Is said basis justified? By or denounced by what? What is constitution? The sub-questions are truly endless.

But to assume the "most reasonable" assumptions as fact:

Well, even operating on such strict standards offers a world of flexibility, I suppose the most base being:

Is there any observable (repeatable event or testimony) that is "consistent" that which is also repeatable or consonant,

It becomes a non-question almost. More details or information requested.

Your posts in this thread have been highly disappointing. Once upon a time you were capable of valid arguments. — Leontiskos

Yet highly effective as they turn even your own into such of similar nature.

You feel the need to neglect reason, virtue itself in condemning your fellow man. Sure if one is correct such factual arguments are a mere commodity.

Why is he wrong? If you are so evidently correct, such reasoning should be a natural repertoire, riposte, even. Yet you present nothing. Why is that?

For the same reason you divert any sort of actual thought or sophistication:

"It's just what happened bro"

Can you prove it? "I don't feel the need to" only shifts the burden of proof to those ignorant. Yet here you are.

Just as a broken clock is right at least twice a day, so is the unexamined life. That is to say, remains in a constant state of such. Thusly, this narrow frame of mind can be called truth to those who know nothing of the sort.

If you feel threatened by its chaotic nature, it means that it disturbs your ideological beliefs — Tarskian

Does one have non-ideological beliefs? Is that a thing now? You wear double-layer body armor in your words because you know the environment (truth) presents an imminent danger (your baseless ideology), Ironic no? Prove me wrong mate.

if everything were perfectly ordered, nothing would change. Existence requires both. — Wayfarer

This invigors a deep curiosity in me. Something that does not change, does not exist? How so?

Interestingly enough, one definition of death is "to exist cease living (in a meaningful way to the majority)" and as such, is the only way many can find life or escape the constrictive confines of those who "lived" to dictate the meaning of what "life" is, a meaning birthed solely in valuation of devaluation of life itself. So, it's a conundrum at the end of the day, to say the least.

Edit: "to cease 'living' ", where 'living' is defined not strictly by a biological state but rather a societal expectation. Not sure why that didn't come out as coherently as it did in my own thoughtsphere at the time. :confused:

You have been vomiting word salad — ToothyMaw

I've made but two or three concise statements that remain consistent. I'm sorry that personal, if not conflicting opinion or commentary inter laid appears to obscure such to the degree of invoking mental images of "vomit" to you. But again, that is neither here nor there when it comes to philosophic inquiry.

Let's simplify:

Post #1: The person seems misunderstood. Perhaps this begs the question that things or judgements are not always justified?

Your reply: What?

Post #2: Perhaps people should be less judgemental.

Your reply: You hate me. You're trying to kill me.

Post #3: Lol. Anyway I agree with you. People should be more understanding. Shouldn't you lead the example?

Your reply: You should be banned. (ie. face real physical penalty for expressing a conflicting opinion, hinting at physical retribution ie. violence or harm for disagreeing)

--

Yeah. I'll just leave it at "I agree". Mental illness is real. And should be handled appropriately. Before it gets out of hand. This thread has, whether intentionally or otherwise, become a great example of that.

Clearly you are determined to cast whatever I say in a bad light. — ToothyMaw

I actually awake each morning with the sole intention in mind. Out of 8 billion persons each with a chance of a unique position or reality, yours is truly my sole and only focus. How ever did you know. :wink:

I am not sure what this means, but it sounds vaguely threatening. :down: — ToothyMaw

To you. And that is your right, notwithstanding of or in any relation to actuality.

"People fear what they don't understand and hate what they can't conquer.”
― Andrew Smith

And so, I, and any possible truth I may bear, will forever remain in a destitute state, something hostile or above all, "morally" "defeated" or "of majority disdain" and of no possible purpose. Not unlike the individual in the video.

Such is what such is.

But to the point.

You are largely correct. Humanity is, writ-large, lacking in the respect and consideration for those who are, whether by artificial and unwarranted judgement, or perhaps intrinsic truth, beneath what is expected or warranted to be. Your post begs a solution, which also seems to determine said solution as compassion and understanding. If this is so, why are you not the first and foremost to lend such?

the point is that some people might not have the patience or understanding to deal with him equitably — ToothyMaw

The problem is people appoint themselves as if they had any true authority or place to think they have the right to "deal with" let alone judge others. A gear is not a driving force, it is but a necessity. People who think otherwise best learn their place before they discover the truth that they have none other than what is given to them.

So, please consider what it would be like to be this guy. — ToothyMaw

That guy seems just fine. From all that can be rationally discerned from the interaction. Granted we remain ignorant of any backstory or context, meaning, unless, of course, he has a "flip of a switch" mood disorder and turns into an axe murderer in a moment's notice.

So, judging as if his testimony is factual and would be supported by an equally intimate observation of whatever actions that led to his current predicament, it would seem in fact any will or desire to perform an action to disrupt or eliminate whatever system or "status quo" that disrupts or restricts the freedoms of those who are peacefully existing is in fact justified. My two cents, at least.

And again, I see no evidence of that. — Leontiskos

Are you some sort of arbiter of truth? If not, that's fine and respectable. But of no relation to any sort of absolute value or meaning. Unless you do believe there is no further or greater state of understanding, knowing, or being that could possibly be achieved other than that which you now "possess" (or as I attest, possesses or rather, restricts you).

discrimination — Leontiskos

This is the word that begs further inquisition. Why not discernment? Discernment is active, alive. While discrimination is passive, dead, if you will. Completely unresponsive to new information. What makes a man an intellectual corpse, little more than a ghost whose actions, thoughts and very life become little more than but a haunting in the arena of true philosophic discourse. Sure, it's natural, wise even to believe the repeated actions of one will indicate the future action and inevitable fate of those who act on them. But seeing beyond what can be seen, beyond the arbitrary faux limits of what men think can be, is what separates the philosopher, the rightful ruler, whose proclamations or "truths" that are not based on so-called rationale propped up by inorganic states of detestable action, a dynamic of perpetual hypocrisy to simply maintain but a foothold in the mind of man instead of a persistent truth intrinsic to men rich and poor and even in infancy can recognize, the True Sovereign, from the commoner. Being alive, or open, knowing "statistically" (based on the view of the majority or "what is apparently, if not glaringly, seemingly-evident") is but a transient state of affairs that can be turned on its head in a moment's notice.

No, I see no evidence of that. — Leontiskos

You will note I said views not the current argument brought about by said views.

someone belonging to group X has Y percentage chance of committing action Z on average. — Leontiskos

This is the point of contention: "on average." As it stands, your statement of fact is correct. However one is best to bear in mind that that is all that it is: a statement. One that stands alone, isolated from factors that contribute to best discernment of actionable reality and best course of action. Not past or future, simply present. A snapshot. Akin to renting a room based on a single photograph of the interior from the most convenient, readily-available angle. Sure, you'll likely get what you expect. Unless you don't. :smile:

Not a particularly great example but sufficient for the moment. Perhaps this prospective room has a magnificent view overlooking the sea (representing the increasing opportunity for positive and lasting change for group X) that is not present in said snapshot (your sampling data of group X). Or, of course, perhaps there is a rather unpleasant occupancy of bed bugs (representing the ingrained habitual patterns and, yes your "likelihood" of regression and perpetuation of said undesirable outcomes) also not present in said snapshot. As you can see, this "snapshot" or "current sampling of available data" is a fickle indicator, whether it be positive or negative, for what the future truly beholds and as a result the best choice of action to take.

The inability to admit that it is not necessarily unreasonable to make inferences about individuals on the basis of group statistics is a form of irrationality that accompanies progressivism. — Leontiskos

If I may. Again. I think he's asserting the fact that current circumstance is a poor indicator of future circumstance and resulting potential ie. reality. Sure, a person fresh out of high school is not wise nor likely to be very skilled. I suppose you could say close to 100% of persons who fall in this category are neither wise nor skilled. However it would be foolish and irrational to assume that because of this state of factual circumstance, a person has poor chances to become wise or skilled. That I believe is the disconnect between the opposing views present in this exchange. Something surely the three of us could jollily agree on and make a toast to! :grin:

I was just reading about how different blonde and brunette women are treated across society. Blonde women still get the majority of the breaks. — Rob J Kennedy

Possibly of relevance: Color Psychology: How Yellow Color Affects Your Mood?

Most notably: "On the color wheel, yellow is placed among the warm colors which are found to induce feelings of energy, happiness, and optimism. Color specialists and psychologists tell that if you give any child a box of crayons, they will most likely reach for the yellow crayon."

Surprise, surprise. :smile:

Thousands of years of waking up to the same color (the Sun) might have something to do with, no? Almost seems natural, heh.

Sorry, 90% of the reply was to the OP due to the only compromise that respects women's desire (however prevalent it may or may not be) to restrict XX persons to women's restrooms (considering there remains no legal distinction between a legitimate female-identifying person and one who makes a false statement to that affect on a whim), along with the desire of legitimate female-identifying persons to use the restroom aligned to their gender, would be a third "gender-neutral" restroom, which is in fact a thing. A widely-discussed and popular thing, at that. Highly relevant to the topic at hand (see first sentence of the OP: "Let's talk about women's bathrooms.")

This portion was you for:

In short, it's a discussion. The OP is trying to have a discussion. It's as meaningful as those who participate in it wish it to be. — Outlander

It's late. There's not much activity this hour. Just a simple reply, nothing more. :up:

unless you have genetic testing kits at every bathroom, saying some bathrooms are for xx instead of women is completely unactionable. Are you trying to make a meaningful suggestion or are you doing something else with this xx idea? — flannel jesus

From a small business owner's perspective, the idea of having to have a third bathroom on top of the two required many can barely afford as-is would be a nightmare.

29 CFR 1910.141(c)(1)(i) states:

"Except as otherwise indicated in this paragraph (c)(1)(i), toilet facilities, in toilet rooms separate for each sex, shall be provided in all places of employment in accordance with table J-1 of this section. The number of facilities to be provided for each sex shall be based on the number of employees of that sex for whom the facilities are furnished. Where toilet rooms will be occupied by no more than one person at a time, can be locked from the inside, and contain at least one water closet, separate toilet rooms for each sex need not be provided."

--

So basically, if my business or establishment "requires" or has the level of activity that demands or otherwise makes the use of a single-occupancy restroom unfeasible, I would be required to completely overhaul basically the entire fundamental structure of the building, which mind you is already occupied to make maximum use of the space provided (no structure of business or public use just has "free unused space" lying around that can be used because "oh there's nothing going on here", every space of the structure is either currently in use or is already well designated for future use). Imagine the permits, planning, closures for renovations, and the financial costs as well as time. It would change the maximum occupancy of the building in accordance to fire code, which in turn would change basically everything about how the business operates, down to the scheduling, inventory, staff, etc. The pipework, which might require a complete excavation job to allow more water, or something of that nature. All for maybe a percent of the population to use, once for 2 minutes, if they happen to have to pee whilst patronizing my establishment. That's crazy. And often times a technical impossibility, depending on the structure, infrastructure, space, etc.

The fact remains an XY (biological male) is significantly, incredibly, indisputably more likely to have an urge and act on said urge to unwantedly, violently sexually assault (rape) an XX (biological woman) who is vulnerable with her pants down in an enclosed, private area than the other way around. That's indisputable. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either not being serious or is dangerously out of touch with reality to the point they need to be institutionalized for their own safety and that of others.

The idea that having to use a bathroom that isn't "made" for your gender, is some sort of rights violation or identity-crisis-forming scenario is ridiculous. If I have to take a whizz, and go on a tree, or something, I do it because it's what's available. I won't suddenly start having an identity crisis wondering if I'm a fox or a bear and not who I identify as after doing so. Anyone who feels otherwise clearly has something else going on irrespective of gender identity. It's simply not related.

So, for the protection of women, (XY) uses facility A and (XX) uses facility B. There's no prejudice or discrimination involved whatsoever.

Interesting fact: there are more toilets in the United States than there are people. I'm sure there's a pun there but in all seriousness the economic cost alone (not including the feasibility and flat out impossibility to add a third restroom to every two sets of standard restrooms, however many that would be) would be astronomical. Nothing short of mind-boggling.

--

In short, it's a discussion. The OP is trying to have a discussion. It's as meaningful as those who participate in it wish it to be.

My take is: I don't believe something as insignificant as the lettering on a placard that designates what room you take a dump in (of all things) amounts to any real, measurable form of discrimination or any sort of realistic identity-crisis-causing factor. If so, the problem clearly lies elsewhere, not in one's gender identity. I just don't see it as realistic or feasible to legislate mandatory third-gender/transgender/"female" identifying XY restrooms for the reasons explained.

Not to make light of the issue, but it is a known fact or "running gag" non-female-identifying males jokingly identify as "women" when "caught" messing around (whether "innocently" as in "just taking a peek" for purposes of non-physical, non-violent sexual gratification or maliciously ie. considering actually performing a violent criminal act) in or near women's restrooms. To me, legally and morally speaking, this is a clear-cut risk for women everywhere. That risk being, there is no legal distinction, no form of discernment, between a transgender female who honestly identifies as a female who has undergone surgery and everything else, and a standard biological male who got caught and claims "no I just now realized I identify as a female, five minutes ago". Absolutely none whatsoever. That is a clear and present danger to women. I don't see how any argument contrary to that is even remotely defensible. I'd honestly welcome and challenge anyone to dispute that.

Huh? Philosophy degrees need a statistics requirement. If I tell you that the Atlanta Braves team batting average in 2024 is .244 (the median in MLB), what does that tell someone about Marcell Ozuna's batting average in 2024? Nothing. He's got the 5th highest average in baseball. — LuckyR

If I may. I think he's suggesting the fact that Marcell Ozuna happens to have an exceptionally higher batting average than the rest of his teammates is a rarity. Out of all the Atlanta Braves team members, any given one would likely be much lesser and closer to .244 than to be in the 5th highest average. In other words, if you picked the Atlanta Braves (batting average of .244) and were to make a bet that a player, selected at random, assuming you don't know the identity or batting averages of any of the players, would be in the top 5 highest averages, over say, the team with the highest batting average, that would be considered foolish as it is much more likely for a randomly-selected player from a team with a much higher batting average to have a higher batting average than one from a team with a much lower batting average.

I realize this is a sub-discussion that happens to be about racial tendencies, which I find iffy, but context-aside, for the sake of the larger, more general discussion not about race from which this one is derived from, that is the bare bones logic as I see it.

If we consider evolutionary scales, very little time has passed from the moment we stopped living like our ancestors in the wilderness to today. — merloz

I would like to add, in addition to this, even less time has passed since when we wanted information or entertainment or education we would A.) take a long perilous journey to a "master's" house in another town, often undergoing a series of quests or trials B.) travel by carriage or bicycle to a local library often spending hours at the destination to make it worthwhile C.) for entertainment, go to a weekly or bi-monthly live performance show such as opera or Shakespearean play. And so on.

Information overload is a term I hear being used often to describe the sudden onset of modern communications now starting as young as when a child is able to walk and talk (see baby apps on tablets). I don't know whether to feel a sense of wonder and gratitude or revulsion and dread. Regardless, it is fundamentally changing the way human brains develop, some argue to a detriment as in simple terms having everything at our fingers or using "Reminder apps" makes us "think less", and if you know evolutionary mechanics, if you don't need something, it soon vanishes. Definitely something to ponder. Great thread, OP.

Do you think psychiatric medication belongs to the common person's future? — merloz

I find it difficult to bring myself to respond in the positive. Though, perhaps one could have said the same about alcohol. The difference is that seems to have been around for 7,000+ years and is more or less natural, per se. I suppose it depends on the medication but anything that fundamentally and artificially alters (as in was manufactured specifically with the intent to alter) the fundamental way in which the brain operates or creates artificial chemical states/blockages of chemical receptors does not seem to be without possibility of risk. Not sure how "valid" this claim is but I've heard something along the lines that many "mass shooters" were on anti-psychotics. Though that could easily be pointing to a symptom of an underlying cause while ignoring the underlying cause that could be the true culprit altogether. Even still, perhaps psychiatric medication is still in its infancy and as such remains experimental and so "mistakes will be made", something of an innovation learning curve, similar to how the first Model-T car was basically a deathtrap leading to countless deaths but was eventually perfected to a standard that we consider more or less safe and a worthwhile, now-essential invention.

what are they fighting for? For censorship and repression? — Linkey

From a general non-political non-specific state of affairs:

The "censorship" angle would hold more water if it weren't always the most awful uneducated POS' advocating for it simply so they can be better awful educated POS' and annoy and irreparably damage society with impunity. They sully their own argument, reasoning, and purpose without realizing it, and so, the best option for those who oppose them is, well, continue to let them do so!

It's not the young articulate scholar with innocent, nontraditional or nonconforming ideas who is being censored, it's the again, see above, types who in their weakness and malleability allowed themselves to be molded into a destroyed state of being by the other negative persons in their life and society who can now only do the same unto others. It's a disease, plain and simple. Disease requires quarantine. Spies or "apolitical" "anarchists" are a real thing. People who couldn't care less about the words or ideas they're attempting to make themselves seen as associated with or advocating for, but the political results and end goals they are attempting to achieve, which is instability along with fear and paranoia among a given populous with the intent of weakening patriotic resolve with again, the goal, of weakening or perhaps better yet, toppling, a nation state.

At least, that's the counterargument. And from, again, a general, non-political, non-specific state of affairs, remains solid in truth. There's also often a religious angle ("the way God wishes man to be") ie. (presumably) a state of peace, charity, understanding, and well-to-do nature toward fellow man. Anything or anyone opposite of that might cause God to turn away from said nation or for it to "lose favor" and fall. So, anyone who deviates from this "divinely intended way to live" is a literal life-and-death existential threat to the survival of millions. So, whatever must be done, must be done. "For the sake of the children", of course. And who couldn't get behind that? "What are you against children?" Check plus mate. mate. :smirk:

In short, your idea, while noble in intent, falls short and remains both woefully out-of-touch as well as out-of-date as far as any hope for a strategic change in any ongoing conflict or state of affairs. And no I'm not ignorant of the fact that totalitarian regimes are a bad idea, even when initially formed truly with all the intent and purpose they were purported to be, defend, and stand for. Simply for the reason they never last, rather corruption is the natural state of man and without checks and balances and outside input and restriction, will inevitably return to said state. Never fails. Just informing you of how other people think.

Maybe I feel this way because of the way literature shows "ugly people" as evil and untrustworthy, read Dickens, Fagin was not beautiful. — Rob J Kennedy

Hopefully not getting off topic but this is something I've pondered fairly often.

Is it because people, especially the non-wisdom-inclined, we'll say (ie. the majority), tend to treat people differently based on appearance, sometimes outright cruelly, and as such often makes the character of otherwise kindhearted people who happen to be unattractive/short/etc into such? I think so. As opposed to the stereotype you mention being of an independent and intrinsic nature. That would explain a great many things I've experienced. See "short man syndrome". Basically to say, people like that are like that because they've been made like that (were treated poorly or otherwise unfairly [which I've observed can have a snowball effect leading to paranoia and aggression which leads to a persistent mindset of purposeful mistreatment when it is in actuality not present in a given situation]).

predatory sexuality [...] high cheekbones — Vera Mont

:eyes:

Pretty sure "high cheekbones" are an ethnic, genetic trait. Not a "face" or "expression" one makes, let alone has any conscious control over. Supposedly associated with attractiveness. Ergo, sounds more like wishful thinking on the eye of the beholder. :sweat:

one that suggests treachery (blonde hair, clearly defined, symmetrical features). — Vera Mont

That's an interesting take. :brow:

Sure, Europeans have their reputation, but it was my understanding dark-haired people, epecially when bearded were "considered" or "painted" to be mischievous and untrustworthy or to some "look evil". Google "dark hair untrustworthy", for example. Or this article which states: "In popular culture, people with very dark hair are also stereotyped as sinister, untrustworthy, and wicked. Like the "good witch and the bad witch"." I find all that rather silly but regardless, the stereotype is there. Perhaps you watched one too many Bond movies. :razz:

(further "evidenced" by this Simpsons clip)


Other than that your spot on, I agree. Just felt the need to point out my observations that were in conflict, for some reason. :lol:

An excellent question. That begets an unfortunate discussion. The answer, and no it is not mere opinion but rather measurable and observable fact time and time again, no matter the sampling, no matter the sophistication be it a global consensus and lab setting with years of planning and research behind it or any random grouping of people on the street in a minute's notice, is a resounding, Yes! As far as "do people?", as in, the majority of society.

One could go on starting from the biological markets and "drives", mechanisms and physiological securities and inner workings and what not, perhaps that is after all the best place to start being a largely-influential factor. No doubt compounded by the fact media and advertisements feature "beautiful people", those with flawless skin, seemingly divinely-chiseled features and jawlines. It becomes "normal". And like anything that becomes "normal" that which deviates from said normality activates the discernment or discriminatory functionality in the brain. Naturally, perhaps one who has pierced the veil so to speak, who discovers firsthand often painfully that no, dear child, not all that glitters is in fact gold, they begin to see vanity and beauty for what it is, a skin deep characteristic independent from that of any moral or substantiating worth. This takes time and experience of course. Some never discover this truth. Call them blessed and fortunate, call them unfortunate, living a shallow life with all the depth of a thin layer of congealed fat atop the rich and hearty soup that is the examined life where virtue and character are sought after and appearance is instead but a minor side affect completely independent from beauty, true beauty that is in fact only producible, discoverable, and knowable when one shuts one's eyes to the vain and woefully predictable physicality of this world, instead embracing the value and virtue that comes from one's innermost heart and desire manifested via action and engagement toward fellow man on a true heart-to-heart emotional level instead of false valuation of that which one has little control over and did not a thing to gain nor does a thing to maintain.

Edit: Just caught how you mentioned "beauty in people", as to make it only a side point or but one of many avenues of discussion, considering the fact "goodness" is basically a quality restricted to persons or intelligent beings, not say, architecture, or a well-thought out idea. That would be "soundness", not so much "goodness". Still, from there, take a beautiful song or masterful piece of artwork depicting an old, rundown house. These things would be "visually satisfying", perhaps even mentally or spiritually, that is to say they "hit all the intended marks" or check all the desired boxes, per se. That I suppose is equatable to "goodness", though lacking in any of the fundamental meanings typically associated with such, I'd say..

But I am asking whether some people here do believe there is a smallest number. — TonesInDeepFreeze

That's a good question. As a relative simpleton who's been trying his best to follow along with the recent arguments, I would ask: why could you not take the smallest number (my rudimentary mind imagines something along the lines of 0.0[insert a bajillion zeroes here]1) and divide that by 2? And divide even that by 2? And so on? We can't "run out" of numbers, per se. For that is there design. Though I'm sure there reaches a "hard point", a threshold if you will where a certain degree of number fails to appear or exist anywhere in the known universe thus ceases to become of use or mention. I'm sure there's a term for that- somewhere. :chin:

They could never execute me. — fishfry

:eyes:

Fun fact: Socrates was imprisoned for his own safety. Just about everybody who knew him either wanted to kill him or make him "go away". And eventually succeeded, mind you. You don't happen to have access to any wild hemlock, do you? :smile:

"Never assume malice for what can be adequately explained by simple ignorance and misunderstanding (or earnest and genuine albeit unrefined or naive curiosity)." :cheer:

Were it not for those who follow this sacred principle, I likely may have not lasted the years myself. :grin:

Adult — Captain Homicide

What is an adult? Is it legally set by the State? Or biologically by puberty? What if one is a eunuch and does not go through "puberty" per se? Or has some other condition where the biological process of adulthood does not occur? Does a person require mental faculties and sanity to be considered an adult? What about an adolescent who has seen and been through more than most adults can and will and has an IQ of 200 and has physically developed to full physical and mental maturity? If that person is not an adult then it means "adulthood" is set by the State and very well could be declared tomorrow that being eight years old is now an adult.

human — Captain Homicide

What is a human? What if one's brain has been altered to fundamentally operate as an AI or replaced altogether with an AI brain? What if science reaches the point of head transplants and one becomes just a brain in an entirely robot body?

female — Captain Homicide

This is simply glossing over and rephrasing the term that is currently under scrutiny, is it not?

The question remains why do some people become dependent and others do not? — Tom Storm

Surely genetics must play some role, if not the occasional cameo. Not to suggest willpower or simple availability of the thing (convenience meets opportunity) isn't a factor, however.

Psychedelics are not without danger. They are very powerful and can exacerbate or cause mental illness. They can also do some really, really wonderful things. I've experienced both aspects and feel ambivalent about them. I generally don't recommend them to people. If you are inclined to explore such territories, you will go there of your own accord. I suppose it's like scuba diving or mountaineering. There are amazing things to see, but some people drown or crash on the rocks. Others find much of value. — petrichor

it seems like a shortcut for desired revelations about one's inner-life. — Shawn

This I admire most about this thread; I wonder the exact same. Turned out great btw, very highly intellectual and compelling non-biased descriptions of psychedelics here. Primarily by the quoted poster and @Joshs, IMO.

I guess to springboard off your question, if not add to it, particularly for those who have experienced psychedelics, is the profoundness really something that can't be experienced by reading or watching a really really good book or reading a good piece of detailed writing (something Nietzsche-level the average writer cannot convey in words)? I feel any physical experience is exactly that, a physical experience. Sure it's "crazy", surreal, mind-bending all that. But at the end of the day it's just a sensation overlaid by irregular thoughts overlaid by visuals. I'm sure I'll get the "no bro you gotta try it, I left my body and became God. I could hear colors and see sounds, bro" kind of verbal kitsch, but really, as an intellectual, if you can't put it into words you simply felt really weird and your making a big deal out of it because its something you never felt before.

So while I don't think its necessarily a "psychotic break" that perhaps is transient in nature altering your identity and concept of self, no different than a first time vacation or sightseeing trip would do if you lived in a small village your whole life, I think its a bit overblown simply based on the facts. People exciting themselves over a temporary period of irregular brain activity leading to a very base level change in perception that just so happens to barely constitute a "changed life perspective". Nothing a movie, in theory, couldn't replicate, if you truly immerse yourself into it.