Hopefully that sexual jokes and innuendo is a normal part of life, and that one won't shrivel up and die if one hears a sexual joke, or offends someone for telling a sexual joke. Personally, I enjoy sexual jokes, double entendres, snide puns, innuendo, and all that stuff. — Bitter Crank

Matter of taste, I guess.

You have expressed your concern over sexual jokes before, and it's not that you've been ignored. My view is that this board is an adult oriented board and that the discussions contained on this board are not intended for children. The mission of this board is not to create any particular sort of impression when it comes to sexual jokes and whatnot. If there are children wandering about the internet unsupervised there are far less safe places they could come across than this philosophy forum. — Hanover

I'm not concerned deeply with it, due to most of the pee-pee and poopy jokes happening in the shoutbox as a moderator mentioned already. I guess I'm very puritan about sex and talk about it.

My only concern is with sexual jokes and innuendo's given that the audience can be composed of teenagers, kids, and adolescents. I mean, what kind of impression are we trying to give? None?

I've read that Solaris can be better understood if one assumes the planet to be the 'self'.

One of my favorite films.

Is there any correlation between social spending and homogeneous societies?

Homogeneous societies and social welfare.

Do go on, please.

(b) the Nordic are far homogenous ethnically than the US. — ssu

What does that even mean?

Thanks. That really seems to have answered the question.

Although it looks like Posty McPostface is more concerned with the welfare system, so perhaps he's asking more about successful welfare states? — Michael

Yeah, social spending and welfare seem to be linked together.

Well, Trump did sign a directive just today, now how much money is the real question though.

Aren't we taking things a little too seriously here?

Yes, so a wet fish is a senseless proposition, almost a trite tautological truism, and thinking it has meaning is nonsense. Is that right?

Not getting your drift. Enlighten me, as I seem unenlightened on the matter.

What is it? — Πετροκότσυφας

Isomorphic? Redundant? I don't entirely know.

Is it reasonable to pull the rug upon which we stand?

Regarding isomorphism, I don't really have a grasp on what that is. It would be as if to say that language is an attempt at describing reality, yet at the same time stating that it really doesn't, and saying that it doesn't is senseless (or nonsensical). So, there you have it, a paradox, no?

It's the same thing with language games and family resemblances. I can see that they are similar; but, trying to say that they are is nonsensical. Again, a sort of paradox.

Wasn't this Jamal's point? — Πετροκότσυφας

I'm not sure.

If it is our usage of language that produces senselessness, it is us that have failed language. — Πετροκότσυφας

How can one fail language? I don't understand that concept. Hence proposition 7 in the TLP?

Yeah, so a fish being wet is a tautology.

It's only when we treat it as if something that has meaningful content, that nonsense arises, no?

3.03 Thought can never be of anything illogical, since, if it were, we should have to think illogically.

Wittgenstein, TLP

This thread, to my eye, presents an exact analog of how philosophers work. — Banno

So, nonsense seems to be the issue here.

As in, asking the fish how does the water feel?

EDIT: I think I just Banno'd the Banno.

See the previous comment.

Why has language bewitched us here?

The fish is wet but we don't need to say so. It's bloody obvious. That's the solution. — Baden

Seems good to me.

So, what's the issue with language that produces such befuddled statements, as I'm keenly interested in this state of affairs that could arise in other domains of language and conceptualization?

So, is this an issue of ambiguity or something more fundamental than that, as I feel we are digressing.

Perhaps there is no solution, no?

So, a qualifier was needed for the ambiguous quality or property of being 'wet'?

Not necessarily in an informal language. If we want to remove the ambiguity then formalizing the property of being wet would seem of use or economy of speech.

No, it genuinely seems like a fallacy of composition...

made apparent by ambiguity of the property of being 'wet'.

I feel as though language has failed us here, just not sure how.

Then if they want to pursue those things, they clearly do want to work. — Agustino

So, doesn't that mean that someone who doesn't want to work is devoid of any desire to want anything material in the world? It would seem that that could be an argument against the notion that there are swaths of people who just want to live on welfare and would only be a drain on the economy. I mean, even welfare participants are consumers, no? At the very least, you can reference Keynesian economics to justify giving people money to stimulate the economy. I think, Milton Friedman thought along these lines, or not since I haven't read his argument for Basic Income.

What do you mean you have no idea how to deal with that? With what? — Agustino

Well, assuming that it's true that some people would only want to be on welfare and not produce or create anything of value, then the Pareto principle states that at least 20% of those people would account for 80% of the negative outcome, as in, wanting to be on welfare but not doing anything productive with their time. Assuming, that to be true, then there's really no means to prevent that from happening, or is there?

I mean it would be unfair for someone who can contribute to not contribute and freeload on the back of others no? — Agustino

Yeah; but, what if they hate their job and want to educate themselves or go back to college, or pursue areas of interest that don't entail an immediate return on material investment, like arts, history, or music?

I do agree though, and think the Pareto principle would apply; but, have no idea how to deal with that.

So, are facts only exclusive to the correspondence theory of truth?

I'm wondering.

So, what are facts in a coherentist view of meaning and truth?

Regarding that, has there been any progress between the coherentist view of truth and the correspondence theory?

I'm on the fence.

No beaches, forests, wildlife, rivers, cities and towns, habitable land, mainly sub-zero desert landscapes with poisonous atmosphere. Nothing much wrong with it apart from that. — Wayfarer

I think, de gustibus non est disputandum, would be apropo here.

Hah. Your OP is flawed in taking it as intuitively obvious that we would want to be spacefaring. That’s hippie thinking. But it’s funny to see the same old dickheads still police physics forum. Russ and Evo are just deeply unhappy people. Intellectual wannabes. Laugh and move on. — apokrisis

Well, I can see your opposition to the thread. It would in principle deny the actuality of entropofication of social institutions or civilizations as they grow in complexity. Or am I misunderstanding your sentiment here?

I posted this same thread over at PhysicsForums too, and I'm kinda surprised the whole thread took that turn.

Guess my English is really that bad as I'm at the threat of being banned for a substandard post quality.

I have no interest in being a heroin addict. But if I had to choose that or being shipped out to a Mars colony for life, then heroin does seem the rosier option. — apokrisis

I don't understand your prejudice about living on Mars. What's so wrong with that I wonder?

I think you’ve fallen for some romantic notion about space travel - that it somehow represents humanity’s best side. But exploration is just the precursor to exploitation. It isn’t noble even if it makes sense to big up those willing to take a risk on behalf of the masses. — apokrisis

Who's going to be exploiting whom on Mars or on the moon? I mean, if you really think about it, there's probably no person that is immune to exploitation, in entirety.

The cynicism is strong, here.

Rocketry had been perfected to the point needed to rain nuclear warheads down on any point of the planet. Colonising the Moon, or heading on to Mars, was a crazy waste of money from the point of view of furthering any national interest. And still is. — apokrisis

No comment.

You’d have to be an oddball to want to live on another planet. It’d be the same as living in the middle of a desert or top of a mountain or down in Antarctica. All those are fun to visit. But hardly desirable residences. The commercial real estate opportunities of the Moon or Mars would be even less. So unless it was all about mining, what could pay for it as more than a token kind of business? — apokrisis

Yeah, and if everything comes down to a matter of what provides the most amount of utility to me, we would all be heroin addicts, yeah?

We walked on the moon in 1967. In 1968 MLK and RFK were assassinated, the cities burned, and in the following years the country realized the government was lying to us about the war in Vietnam. US society has never been the same. Vietnam was the beginning of a long slide. People think this was a long time ago but Nixon's henchmen Cheney and Rumsfeld were key players in the Iraq war. In retrospect the 1967 moon walk was the high water mark of American power. — fishfry

Yeah, so business as usual for the wolves that hide in sheep clothing under the guise of neo-liberalism. What else is new? Care to address the topic?

Yeah, I was referring to that report, but I edited my post because I couldn't find it.

Disregard