How do you exist lol.

Like what do you do for a living? Legitimately curious.

That is one thing a machine could never offer I suppose. Entertainment. Morbid or not.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. You put yourself quite 'into it' as it were, just now.

More broadly speaking, it is a touchy topic. Easy to turn into a purposeless philosophical roundabout through ad hominem. If you want to talk about women as equals, allegedly, you will not use their physical attributes, of which they had no hand in creating or forming, as a form of identity.

In short, if you criticize a male when he is wrong, which though "being wrong" is subjective can become objective (or at least more so) when it can be measured and compared against real world statistics and professed rights and wrongs (morals) of the individual you are speaking to, one is not "out of line" by suggesting you can criticize a female equally.

Now, this is not to ignore the immoral acts that in my opinion have always amounted to mental illness (and now do so legally), ie. (abuse of women, slavery, violence in any form) that to this day impact certain demographics, simply that things are much better than they were before and such facts need be considered.

I like to think we're not actually living, that is to say here and now in the way we're told to believe we are, but rather reaching the stage of half-life that will start the living process. For example, for all biological intents and purposes (some intensive) we're really just dying- only with a steady pulse. Homeostasis is being less and less efficient until it can no longer sustain the heart and lungs. Then we reincarnate as old beings who actually get younger but with the knowledge of an entire lifetime until we either A.) decide to stay when and where we reach contentedness ie. children of God, B.) start it all over if you've been unable to reach nirvana ie. son of Man, or C.) ... simply exit ie. dead in Christ/Bosom of Abraham. Minus debts, of course.

Is procreating and willfully bringing a child into this world, a situation rather, in which their outcome is grim to be called murder, manslaughter, or simple ignorance?

Should it be punished? If so, how?

Law of man is little more than opinion enforced by action that makes one unable to protest or circumvent it, often through inability to even experience or process it, ie. death or incarceration. This changes quite often throughout the course of time. In the scope of this argument, primary use and position of the terms "lawful" or "unlawful" is murder toward any further discussion. The real question is, would this be lawful or unlawful?

The reason for everything is a thing that came before it. — Ree Zen

Not the radius of a circle. Well, actually yes it's just depending on the point you started from (your moment of observation in time) you will eventually reach a point where everything can only be because something comes after it, which also came before it. It's one of the great paradoxes of hypothetical physics and continuity of the universe. I wouldn't try to figure it out though. The last guy who did has to be in a white room 23 hours a day now and requires assistance using the restroom.

Is a black hole pure nothingness? What about anti-matter? Just because the reason for everything is a thing that came before it, does not mean that definition has any sort of correlation or dependence on "nothing". Everything could, in theory, blow up and create nothing. You know why not right. You wouldn't know. Maybe it is an intrinsic quality of "nothing" whenever it exists to create "something" after a set amount of time. Maybe even just a single atom. And over time, we end with entire universes. Again why not right. You wouldn't know. Just because it "doesn't make sense" does not mean you can absolutely rule it out by virtue of your limited understanding alone. Anti-matter is inherently extremely volatile and explosive creating immense explosions from nearly no particles at all. Who's to say... the spirit world or realm or afterlife is one of antimatter that is exactly the same as ours, but better. Here we have water, there we would have anti-water. Here we have fire, there we would have anti-fire. This would explain why ghosts are always exploding when caught.

Furthermore who's to say time is not linear but something of a loop or contained, enclosed and periodically self-resetting system (a universe). You know, just in case things go wrong. Which based on history seems rather likely eventually.

On a side note, domesticated cats have smaller brains than the wild cats. Their neural crest cells had decreased in size as they no longer experience threats like in the wild. — L'éléphant

Um. You realize domesticated cats are exponentially smaller than wild cats, right? That kinda goes along with the whole size thing. A blue whale's brain is 20 pounds yet all it can do for the creature is let it know when to make weird noises and not suffocate to death.

Should we adjust our thinking about intelligence and redefine what it is today? — L'éléphant

Maybe but, naw...

We can't use technology today to argue that we're smarter. — L'éléphant

Oh but we can use it to argue that we're dumber. As Trump would say "bing bing bong".

There's a measure for that that has nothing to do with the intelligence we are talking about here. — L'éléphant

I would hope so, seeing as you've neglected to include any details of it.

Interestingly enough, pretty much. You're not far off. I'm responding more to the title of course.

If you have to ask, I would not recommend it as a main source of income, no.

Higher cognitive functioning.

That or marking our territory with inks and dyes instead of just urine, though I've seen both.

I would say embarrassment but I've seen my dog sulk before when he went on the carpet. Also sigh out of boredom or frustration when I would work on projects for hours on end.

What seems more far-fetched (1) something from literally nothing (2) an infinite past? — Down The Rabbit Hole

"Seems" is a weasel word for perception. Which is dependent on several factors that are ultimately irrelevant to higher understanding. A homeless man high on PCP who runs into freeway traffic thought that avenue "seemed good" at the time.

You feel the need to quantify "nothing" as in no thing with "literally" perhaps for our benefit sure, as if we are unable to grasp the concept. Perhaps you are projecting your inabilities and shortcomings on us? Granted, it is a mind bending concept for most so moving on.

Obviously the "something" was not actually from nothing but rather your idea of nothing. Common human trait, cognitive bias, aka being told you're wrong or in short "no". Makes you question your life choices and simultaneously your sacrifices made. This is a biological survival mechanism, nothing more.

An "infinite past" is again prodding at the idea that your own judgements and beliefs may be incorrect. You will be biologically disinclined to consider this possibility.

In short, it varies depending on person to person. Basic psychology.

I find it interesting how the two sentences are typographically identical yet visibly different. Was this perhaps your point, OP?

Does it make sense to recognize your original post as anything but incoherent nonsense? You have to draw a floor and ceiling somewhere when your mind is functional, such as it is.

Covid variations are nothing more than a desperate effort of the virus to survive. — dimosthenis9

This may very well be the best discussion ever proposed in the history of reality.

It will probably be deleted soon.

So let's not talk about complex creatures like humans and animals. Let's talk about the tiniest forms of life(bacteria, virus. etc) and here are the questions — dimosthenis9

A star has a life cycle that not only creates and destroys entire galaxies but apparently (allegedly) creates what we call life itself. So how can we not talk about all understandings of what life and energy is. Just because you can't detect the thoughts or understand or decode them doesn't mean they don't exist.

What is a unique point that "your book" talks about. Is it worthy of an independent discussion? Why not create one. Again, just typing like as if you and I were having a conversation no fancy links or references to this and that chapter just a simple discussion.

our 'visionary' tech billionaires are riding on the back of a beast they can't control or understand — ajar

I can really appreciate this allegory or metaphor, it is a very good one.

Of course, isn't science? Language? Life itself for that matter? Where does one draw the distinction between something you can control and understand and something worth pursuing?

It is very difficult to convince a large population of people connected by information which includes history and factual information like news as well as sensory stimulation and disruption such as pain and grief that active violence is ethical. Passive or potential violence is more commonly used ie. negligible manslaughter or the law of robotics "allowing a human to come into harm through inaction". "I was doing something more important" and perhaps you can convince others that you in fact, were. Who knows, perhaps as an absolute fact you were. However, perhaps it's an equal fact you knew whatever you were doing would not last or result in a net positive of life so you were in fact just doing nothing intentionally. But that's difficult to prove. After all you know what they say never assign something that can be explained as stupidity or ignorance as malice or intent. Something like that. Is it right? You tell me.

I'm reading a book that describes what happened fundamentally to voting in the US and how disenfranchisement, framing, and resentment have allowed major corporations and political parties to dominate polling groups to vote for their own interests. — Shawn

Maybe they voted for it and therefore were able to reach such an alleged position by again exactly what you said. What is this idea that effort will never equal reward and it never should?

nonphysical pain — Agent Smith

Isn't all sensation metaphysical at the end of the day.

Am I making sense? — Agent Smith

Does it matter? If it does there will always be someone who can make less sense than you yet completely mess with your sense of sense itself. I hope this makes sense.

Yes, it will. The crucial point is danger/threat has to be detected. Pain is just one of many other, less unpleasant, ways of achieving that end. — Agent Smith

Again I ask, will it though. Sometimes the most damaging pain, is that which is not physical and so does not heal with time. Nor can it be detected by the measures which you speak. Otherwise, how could it occur?

Even if pain is removed, we'll still be alright so long as we replace it with a painless danger detection system. — Agent Smith

Will it though. Logic doesn't seem to register as much as a faint blip on the radar for some.

The worst most dehumanizing thing you can do to a person or group of people is outlaw their progression toward your own whilst not just believing (which could be random irrelevant fiction) but simultaneously and publicly continuing to call them inferior or lesser by proxy of moral high ground (which now becomes real world fact).

Is this relevant? The real question is if it's not what is going on between the ears of those who wish to suppress it.

honestly to me these types of replies only seem to reinforce my socialist views: — Albero

The only thing I know is that I know nothing. Except what people who are no longer here that I can't ask for an explanation in greater detail say. I know they know something...

It comes down to incentive. Nobody really wants to get out of bed and go to work. That is to say every man would prefer to wake up at the time of his choosing, greeted by beautiful women (or if you're a chick, beautiful men I suppose) being served an elegant and hearty breakfast and various other delights. Then to be waited on hand and foot throughout the day, lunch, chores, errands, arrangements, entertainment, etc. That's normal. Until you realize every person is a person who wants or at least deserves no less than what you desire on a whim. Without degrading this world any further, and acknowledging all it's potential for pleasure and true contentedness, we live in a world of death, rot, plague, and decay which produces a natural response and that response is often greed, indifference, cruelty, and malice. So. What do we do? Lay around all day, perhaps committing acts of unspeakable cruelty to continue this hell or work and try to alleviate these things for ourselves and others? The choice is clear. No matter your preferred economic model.

people are getting paid enough to live comfortably and do those things mentioned earlier (BBQs, TVs, etc.) — schopenhauer1

Oh look at that I don't have to eat raw meat and sit staring at a blank wall like a box of merchandise in a warehouse until I'm required. Yay!

What would you say to the people in that small business scenario who are content (enough) with their pay, vacations, and healthcare? To them, the hierarchy sustains. The capitalist class CEO has provided for them. — schopenhauer1

Really though, I've always said capitalism is an aggregator of talent and leadership not a muzzle or feedback loop for it. That doesn't mean the system consistently meets its intended purpose 100% of the time, not by far. You can cheat, get ahead as an individual by cutting corners and actually harming the company and its future, which at least for that specific scenario makes said system counterproductive. Of course, if that happens to be the case and the company folds, most CEOs as you say have greater benefits than standard employees and those standard employees can often "just find another job" especially if they have done a great job and have an outstanding record that should and will raise the eyes of potential recruiters and employers. Nobody is really shafted too greatly, at least in an irrecoverable way.

Many of the anti-capitalism arguments seem to involve the whole "daddy's money" ie. inherited wealth/opportunities thing. Someone, regardless as to whether he built his empire from scratch and hard, honest work or not, who has a kid is more than likely to be "very well off" from essentially none of their own doing. This is natural and a very real biological response.


But it's not about the how it's about the why. Just because you happen to be a rich and intelligent, hardworking CEO who made millions out of a few dollars doesn't mean your kid is going to be able to maintain your legacy or even not be abjectly horrible at management. A stranger might simply be better. For the company, your sense of "peace" as you close your eyes and breathe your last breaths in old age (some people need concrete evidence of their longevity to comprehend immortality and thus spirituality, I was like that and in many ways still am so I can't talk down).

Point being, that's why monarchies, societies, and entire civilizations fail. Human genetics are random. Some "legendary fabled leader of olde" has a kid that's just for lack of more adequate words, a complete shite. It can happen. Or a psychopath. Or worse a dumb one. It just didn't work. So with that truth I can say the anti-capitalism argument has plenty of fight left. I'm not convinced personally but the reasons to be are plentiful. To each their own.

Also: I found this draft I pretty much remember typing before the above so just thought I'd include it:

You can't be "voluntarily" poor without not only being denied the side of life given to those who are poor non-voluntarily but also being slung the responsibilities (if not just to protect) those who are not have. Therefore, you are not "voluntarily" doing anything, especially if you can talk to people who will help you out.

Depends on your age. Mental progression, rather. Which is succinct from intelligence or capacity for it.

As purposefully inflammatory as this topic may be, it can extend to many thought provoking avenues. Just because "New Age" or let's be honest if I spent $50 and registered a brand new religion with my government revolving around say.. the idea that every toy we once owned and played with but discarded is now a god and keeper of our original soul and must be worshiped (and perhaps marked up 300% tax free)... what makes that any different from discriminating against a major religion such as Christianity, Islam, or Judaism? Because there's more people and therefore for that simple "nothing to do with anything truly divine" reason, it must be paid attention to to avoid backlash? Is that right? Is that moral? Is that what religion has devolved to now a days, closet atheism that only has any meaning because of the humans that follow it? Or perhaps was that all it ever was? These are valid questions I believe OP, if not unintentionally, asks us and forces us to ask ourselves.

And then what?

I can respect that and see where you're coming from. It's a very popular and very old government mind control tactic. A combination of diffusion and obfuscation. Kinda hard to wrap your head around if you're not a deceptive piece of work, or at least familiar with people who are but it's I suppose at base comparable to The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Let's take two fictional groups, Group A a majority who oppresses, often violently when they can, Group B.

A hangs B from a tree, for no reason. That's bad. People from both groups can see and decide this for themself with simple introspection and self-reflection.

A uses the advantages they gained from oppressing B to get ahead and gain more advantages. This is an up in the air debate that still seems kind of "iffy" to put it lightly.

Note: Keep in mind what I'm talking about has nothing to do with what A does first, rather how A responds to what B does to "neutralize" or make their actions irrelevant or otherwise less powerful. Kind of like how 10,000 people from Group A show up to a rally organized by 1,000 of Group B and essentially mimic them so as to invalidate or otherwise greatly dull if not nullify their point entirely.

Continuing however, A slowly begins to turn use the argument of B in a way that (again slowly and gradually if not insidiously) becomes humorous and comical but most importantly, unconvincing and even crazy. Let's take race for example. You can work your way to saying, let's take a fictional purple race, "purple people who drive purple cars are racist" or let's assume we live in an alternative universe where our teeth are purple when healthy "people who have purple teeth are racist". It gets to that point, sure if you come out with something like that right away it's just stupid but if you gradually work your way to that everyone from both groups begin to think to themselves "ok that's stupid" not just about that example that was stupid, but every instance or sentiment from actual grievances without realizing it.

Do you believe everything you've just pondered and written just now is "just pretend" or a child's game? If so, sounds like a personal problem. But whatever brings you joy.

So a public transport doesn't pollute the oxygen? — L'éléphant

In a region where the people work in eco-friendly jobs that offset their carbon outputs, no, it does not. In fact, it does the opposite. Fool.

I wouldn't say people hate vegans as much as people dislike other people telling them what to do. Or otherwise resulting in actions that require them to do more for what they want (rising costs of meat if production is significantly reduced). We may grow old and are our faces may age, but we're all still children in one way or another.

Can you drive oxygen to work? — L'éléphant

What is work. Something you do to live. Can you live without oxygen? It's a few dollars, sometimes less for a reasonable enough distance to walk after using public transport.

1. Cars are bad for the environment. You like oxygen right? You know that thing that lets you breathe and type this drivel?

2. Rice is cheap. Does good for a major world power.

3. You can get pretty good bargains at the right place. Even new a nice or average "first world" outfit is little more than $50 including shoes. At a thrift shop, even less.

4. Lawsuits galore! I came in for a $50 job and left with $5 million. Not too shabby.

5. Half the people who eat there wouldn't know how to grow a single potato if they ever had to. Lack of luxury = excess of knowledge. Just watch a zombie movie to discover the worth of said knowledge.

6. You face more opportunities to learn how to do things without relying on others. That's priceless.

7. A society is only as good as its most vulnerable. Perhaps we're there to help.

8. That's just you projecting. They act above you because according to your willing agreement to be part of whatever organization or service, at least for the hours of your work, they are. Grow up.

Who's to say our entire observable universe is really anything but a three inch petri dish in some alien stoner's college dorm he made for a project and forgot about because he got high. You wouldn't know. So why do some act like they do?

If you can flip a coin and call it, catch it, then throw it into a smelter, you have just defeated determinism.

Yeah, but your hippocampus is unique for every individual. — Shawn

As are many things an individual is fortunate enough to possess, if not condemned with.

I'd assume it'd be like living the life of immortal plankton in a world that is all ocean, but with no whales. You live, at least you can stimulate all senses to the fullest, more often than not at least, though perhaps this limitation is done purposely by wiser plankton as to fabricate a sense of purpose or perhaps.. individuality? So, if by change you mean eradicate, it's likely.

You atheists never cease to amuse. You've never died, at least not anytime in recorded history. Just moved around some, mentally and physically. :wink:

It is also irrelevant whether you use logic ... or rational argument in whatever you want to say here. As I will explain below, it is about society, the majority, and the individual (the private individual) components of morality. — L'éléphant

That's.. interesting. Logically a democratic society is based on the logic of the majority, however unrefined, base, or simply counterproductive it is to said majority's own wants and needs. You say people do things not because they think they're the best course of action but simply because the guy next to them seems to think so. Kind of a "if all your friends jumped off a cliff" approach to society. It's a fair claim though one might (mistakenly) assume you state that an educated person would refuse to use that education (again no matter how poor, misguided, counterproductive or diametrically opposed to the advancement or placation of wants and needs. both personal and collective) .. even if one fully plans to expand and utilize on it later but simply can't at the moment due to again, being outvoted, and so to remain "in the game" as it were has to "just say OK" again simply for that moment. Is that right?

Or perhaps that people often use their emotions or their personal sense of "what feels right" or even just feels good, more so than what (they know?) logically is best, ie. smoking cigarettes or drinking regularly? A society of myopia, basically. Fair points either way. Plenty of evidence to back it up.

Reality is simply what pattern of actions and choice of mind can best placate the needs of your five senses based on an extremely limited period of observation (your life) and what said period entails you to believe happened before said life and what will after. Nothing more. Though nothing less.

Because you refuse to ask why are you not who you aren't. In most cases this is based on circumstances you did not decide nor have any control over so it renders both questions moot. Or does it? This is for you to decide, and perhaps, just perhaps in this process gain a sliver, just a sliver, of a true sense of identity.