Leaning

On this site I don't mind general debates,

I think people ought debate that which interest them,

For some people, that's broad debates.

But, if you don't cover yourself in the description, it's leaving the debate open for people to debate something you weren't intending.

Whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Evolution is Wrong,

I'd 'really hope they include 'what they want to debate Evolution being wrong about in the description.

I suppose I'd assume they think it's wrong about enough of it's claims, that it not be considered a fact or reasonable theory.

Debate would primarily end up being on Pro I think,

As it's 'easy to come up with this or that true in Evolution.

Pro would need to bring up various and 'enough claims, proof, logic by Evolution as flawed for it not to be true.

But that could be hard, as even if something is not 'Right, it's not always 'Wrong.

Additionally, I think theories often try to 'limit the number of claims they make to a few specifics.

Then again, some theories make 'many claims.

(Shrug) Maybe someone doesn't have something 'specific in mind of Evolution, but want a broad debate that they might have to do a broad reading and understanding of Evolution and other competing theories.

"the ancient Greeks tried an experiment making all crime punishable by death, and nearly destroyed their civilization." #23 partial

I've heard the same about Chinese Legalism,

If the punishment for a minor and major offense are the same,

Why not just attempt the major offense.

Especially in instances where the major offense might mean escape from punishment.

Death for the military commander in being to slow in travel. We the government ask that you turn yourself in.

Military commander decides to become a bandit or rebel.

. . .

I suppose America War on Drugs had similar problems.

. . . Then again, Some argue it has worked better in the Philippines.

Is there a difference between Nomads, Raiders, and Migrations?

"Penguin Classics Tao Te Ching

Chapter 80

Reduce the size and population of the state. Ensure that even though the people have tools of war for a troop or a battalion they will not use them; and also that they will be reluctant to move to distant places because they look on death as no light matter.

Even when they have ships and carts, they will have no use for them; and even when they have armor and weapons, they will have no occasion to make a show of them.

Bring it about that the people will return to the use of the knotted rope,

Will find relish in their food

And beauty in their clothes,

Will be content in their abode

And happy in the way they live.

Though adjoining states are within sight of one another, and the sound of dogs barking and cocks crowing in one state can be heard in another, yet the people of one state will grow old and die without having had any dealings with those of another."

"reluctant to move to distant places because they look on death as no light matter"

I would figure Nomads 'have lands of their own, the same circle they tend to tread, not the entire 'world treading.

'World treading, I'd figure is migration, too many people to support in the Nomad circle, so they intend to create another, or take up sedentary cities as new homes.

Raiders at times, end up as Migrations maybe, these people are so easy to Raid, be easy to take 'all their land, so they encourage a Migration.

. . .

Nomads often warriors, often fight maybe, fighting over herds and horses,

Easy to shift into Raiders, from Raiders easy to shift to Migration conquering.

. . .

Course should Raiders 'fail, result between states is Retaliation, and unhappy blood letting on both sides often. Maybe.

As long as the title gives one a good implication of what is being debated, title doesn't matter too much in my view.

So long as one covers oneself in the description of the debate, to prevent misinterpretations of the debate topic or Burden of Proof.

I don't think vague or general debates are 'bad,

But if one 'wanted a specific debate, then sometimes it is good to be specific about that.

When? Where? Goal? X in what way?

(Why carry ridiculous stories with a lack of evidence)

I don't know of other countries, but my opinion of the USA.

I'd suppose the situation has been better and worse. Depending on time and location throughout history.

Depending on technology, laws, society values, Goals.

I vaguely recall reading of the recent TV era, of there being a lot of control on the networks, censorship of sex and curse words for example, or even 'suggestive of such scenes.

Films as well, used to have more censorship and oversight, I 'think.

. . . I don't 'think it was 'cheap to produce the news. Though even without a ton of money people could hand out or sell pamphlets or pool their money for an ideological paper.

. . . I've heard of Communist pamphlets and newspapers in history, I don't remember Communist Radio or TV, until they managed to take over a country.

Not that Communist Radio or TV did not exist before they took over a country.

In America, I think TV News at least, worked a lot more hand in hand with the American government, until maybe Vietnam, where there was a break between the two?

I'd have to read up on it.

I think that was also around the time of Civil Rights.

As I think about Civil Unrest, now I'm just speculating, I'm sure News and Government had disagreements before Vietnam, but during and after Vietnam is also the Hippie Era.

Audience change.

The two political parties also used to be more in step with one another, Tip O'Neill I've read about before.

Polarization of politics, Politicians don't work together to control the news,

They use the news as weapons against each other.

Not that they 'didn't fight before, but situation became worse maybe.

Every time a standard falls, other standards fall with them, sometimes.

And then we have the internet,

'Every User 'Is the 'News.

Competition, maybe it could have gone two ways, higher standards, or lower standards.

Lot of 'News Companies, I wouldn't even 'call News Companies, they're talk shows.

But concepts bleed into one another.

But I think the News wants to be heard first, not heard as most correct.

Not to say that there are 'no standards, or 'no good news companies.

But standards over time have fallen, and market is bigger. I think.

I wonder if one could elect an AI to any position of government?

Could be more 'representative of the voters, than some humans.

Suppose homework required a student to wear one of those virtual reality helmets? Limiting outside sight and sound.

If the student cannot access their personal phone, they cannot use their personal AI, and certain capabilities on the headset could lock during certain assignments.

Removing the headset would be recorded as a fail of the assignment. HA!

Course, students could still learn braille or touch based Morse Code.

To quote a Reddit comment,

How many of those people confused it with resurrection?

It's also questionable how 'new the idea is,

It's quite possible there's 'always portions of 'all groups in the world with divergent beliefs.

New 'Religion, I also find a bit questionable.

'Fad maybe, as seances have been popular at times,

'Belief maybe, but without doctrine and Reincarnation Churches, I'm doubtful of it as a 'Religion.

What does AOC mean?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/08/president-trump-is-delivering-on-his-campaign-promise-to-make-d-c-safe-again

Was/Is DC dangerous or run down?

On the news people seem unhappy about the recent police actions in DC.

From a pure function point of view,

Some cities might 'be better off with a cleaning.

Areas with falling buildings, homeless, and graffiti everywhere I mean.

But of course people aren't 'so easily moved or their property appropriated.

. . . Not to mention the 'size of some run down cities in the world.

. . . Not that people 'aren't moved or their property appropriated at times, just isn't always 'easy or 'right of the government.

Maybe functionally not the best method of fixing the problem either.

Popular Culture understanding of the word karma,

Isn't the same as Hindu understanding of the word Karma.

A lot of people understand karma as probabilities.

Someone who goes around killing others with a sword, is likely yo meet such a fate themself.

Because they keep getting into dangerous situations and creating hate in other people.

'Many people use the word karma in such a situation,

Or those YouTube karma videos where someone is being a jerk, then moments later something bad happens.

They don't mean that a Mystical Energy Karma source is righting the scales of existence.

As I said, it's just language and culture mixing.

Polls and Statistics are often flawed,

I don't think asking someone if they believe in karma is the same as asking them if they believe 'specifically in Hinduisms 'explicit concept of Karma and Reincarnation.

What did you think of the Torah, Quran, and Tripitaka?

As fauxlaw says "association of two, or more, separate effects does note necessitate linkage"

Just because some Communists use X 'bit of Capitalism, doesn't mean they believe in or practice other Capitalist Doctrines.

Additionally I'd argue that some concepts are so simple as to be discovered separately.

Cause and Effect for example.

Karma and Reincarnation are simple enough ideas that one wouldn't have to hear of them through Indian religions.

When someone says they believe in Karma, it doesn't necessarily mean they believe in Hindu defined Karma.

It's just language bleeding across culture to describe similar concepts.

"Karma is a concept originating from Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, referring to the principle of cause and effect where a person's actions influence their future. In these belief systems, good deeds lead to positive outcomes, while bad deeds result in negative consequences, often across multiple lifetimes through reincarnation.

In contrast, the Bible does not explicitly mention karma, as it is not a concept rooted in Judeo-Christian theology. However, the Bible does address the principle of sowing and reaping, which bears some resemblance to the idea of karma. This principle is articulated in several passages, emphasizing that actions have consequences, both in this life and in the life to come."

https://biblehub.com/topical/k/karma.htm

I'd imagine dogs might give some people more a sense of purpose, feel as though their dog 'really 'needs them, likes them.

Though I've seen some pretty friendly and needy cats before.

Dogs also seem to me more likely to obey commands, do tricks.

A cat, I think would be less likely to run home and get help if you broke your leg hiking.

Less likely to fetch something that you point at and say fetch or grab that.

My family had a dog, Jack, that knew how to fetch his leash when we said we were going to go for a walk.

Very endearing.

. . .

Course, pets are often limited to what you 'do teach them.

I've seen videos before, where someone commits burglary on a house, and the guard dog is just wagging his tail friendly as the burglar talks to the dog friendly.

. . Depends though, I'd 'imagine some other dogs 'would have bitten or barked.

And even nicer dogs, can be enough to ward some people, I'd imagine.

Don't know.

I've heard that Red states tend to be more rural, I'd imagine that might have an impact on education.

Maybe rural kids were/are more likely to have chores, less likely to have as much internet.

Maybe homeschooling, small schools, certain curriculums differ rural vs city.

I wouldn't say they're 'more civilized,

But they do 'tend to be quieter, less needy.

Though some cats are needy, wanting to be petted or played with.

Some cats scratch up furniture, drapes, and hands. Poop and pee places they're not supposed to.

. . . Course 'most people I'd hope, housetrain their pets.

Dogs can be trained too.

Dogs lick themselves too, and some cats get litter stuck to their tails in older ages.

I 'do think dogs usually require more attention and effort.

. . . It's also 'harder to take a cat on a walk with you, than a dog.

Comforting to have a deco- er I mean 'companion when hiking a trail with possible mountain lions. Or human strangers, many walk locations.

I'd imagine 'some dogs can be pretty quiet, people who carry little dogs around like purses.

It should be easier to search YouTube videos in various ways.

Every video ever published, oldest to newest for example.

With more and more AI content, I yearn for older videos.

Same with other sites for art, photos, stories.

Date verified content before AI, is 'worth 'more now I'd figure.

Cool.

Companionship, entertainment, habit.

. . . 'Varying degrees of safety.

@philochristos

Fair point,

I can only think of the 'one Metaphysical, Lack/Disbelief in God/s.

I still have more thoughts, but they ramble so much I'm not sure they're worth reading.

But I sometimes dislike deleting something once I've 'tried to coherent thoughts.

@MyRambling

Even if an atheist has metaphysical beliefs that amount to religious beliefs, unless those metaphysical beliefs are somehow part of what it means to be an atheist, the fact that they are religious in nature doesn't mean atheism is religious in nature. What metaphysical beliefs are both religious and entailed by atheism? philochristos #88

Philosophy is a tangle of threads, for me anyhow.

. . . I admit some people are pretty monotone with what they mean when they say they are an Atheist.

. . . . . . You are arguing that any metaphysical beliefs ought be separated from the term Atheist?

Given that Atheism is only making the one, that they either do not believe in God / Or lack any belief in God?

I suppose one might not call Theism a religion.

Nor Deism perhaps.

. . .

I suppose it's the undercurrents that one looks for.

As well as the need to identify, classify, and sort.

During years, movements, cultures,

I'd argue such undercurrents emerge, though maybe I am wrong, and they are merely stereotypes?

. . . But then not even all who claim to be Christians act perfectly the same. The vague identifiers are necessary.

During the Communist Revolution Years and Fears,

If someone said they were a Communist, it hinted something at their other beliefs and how they might act.

Even though the term Communist can not 'truly inform us on the 'Individual.

When someone says Atheist, what many other people infer for example (Not that their interference is reality) is that they also do not believe in Objective Good and Evil.

Even though the term Atheist can not 'truly inform us on the 'Individual.

. . . .

It's funny though, glancing at DART, Theism isn't an option for religion, though Atheism is.

. . .

"Why not just say there are some atheists who treat their atheism in a religious way rather than making the broader claim that atheism is a religion? Not all atheists are "religious" about their atheism, are they?" philochristos #18

I can imagine some ancient people, Romans for example, coming to some new land,

Inquiring on what the people believed.

"They do not believe in the Gods, my General."

Culture. . . Cults. A Cult is a 'bit synonymous with Religion, Though it is 'not.

Is what matters then whether one 'says their highest value is X?

Why must they 'explicitly say it?

Yet we have in the modern world perhaps, an odd dilution of Culture and Beliefs.

Easy travel, talk anywhere, ideas everywhere.

. . . If it were not so, maybe a number of American Atheists would be called Dawkinists.

But then even Zenoism/Stoicism required more than a 'single claim/disclaim, I think.

The Romans would see even vague beliefs such as no Gods, or Gods exist but we know nothing about them, as Religion perhaps.

Significant Idea/s, Culture.

@NobodyInParticular

"Grand Moff Tarkin: The Jedi are extinct. Their fire has gone out of the universe. You, my friend, are all that's left of their religion."

-A New Hope

Writing before one has the entire plot, sure makes for a strange looking glass.

Ought one take it as Jedi and Sith both possess the same belief in the 'existence of the force, even though their 'interpretations is different.

Science or Metaphysical claim?

Both maybe, to differing degrees.

Well, the trick might be in the word "requirement".

'Ideal situation, I think is less people, maybe most practical solution would be to relocate humans from vast swathes of the Earth.

But even though I think 1st world countries 'could do so (By power),

I don't think they will.

One for morals/ethics,

Two because populations are power.

. . . Three, because many 1st world nations are still sensibly Tribal and guard their land/ethnicity/culture.

Lot of the first world is also big on individual rights.

'Bit harder to push one or two child policy in America I think.

Even 'with green energy, lot of humans have a lot of power requirements.

'Maybe could force them green, government monopolize technology and power, force everyone else Amish.

. . . But, I imagine there is a 'reason the USSR tried so desperately to modernize, industrialize.

. . . . .

There's no escaping catastrophic circumstances I think.

All countries 'ought be planning, is how to minimize the damage to 'themselves.

Wall up their borders, wall up their cities, more surveillance.

Create bunkers, store up food, supplies, and material.

. . .

Well, in the sense of what 'nations maybe ought do.

Individuals might feel different.

I know I do.

And dislike a lot of government spying on citizens and annoying 'real IDs.

That 'does sound kind of cool, chatting with a book.

Could ask it questions while it tells the story.

Yeah, but get's buried, diluted, and forgotten over the years.

If you don't use it, you lose it, as people say.

I kind of wish I'd kept a list over the years, of every book I've ever read, and my thoughts on said books.

I own the Dresden series up to Ghost Story, but there were certain plot points around that book I disliked, so, that's where I stopped reading.

I tried reading the Dune series, not sure if I finished the first book, but certainly just couldn't get into the series.

That was years ago though, maybe I'd like it more now.

Never read or wanted to read anything by Richard Dawkins.

Not that his writing is necessarily 'bad, I just didn't care for the approach of New Atheism.

Not sure I ever 'finished reading Ulyssses by James Joyce.

I didn't care for it.

I think there's an interesting post on DART or DDO about it.

About the type of people it was written for. Heh, I'm not one of them.

. . .

Eh, few books I own I want to have read

The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan

The Bible

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville

Various writings by Nietzsche

. . .

Books I'd 'recommend to other people, in no particular order

Three Kingdoms by Luo Guanzhong

White Fang by Jack Londen

Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky

Ciaphas Cain series by Sandy Mitchell

Les Miserables by Victor Hugo

The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas

Cyrano de Bergerac by Edmond Rostand

Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion by Tolkien

Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl

Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson

. . .

I've only 10 more pages/chapters, and I'll have finally finished reading the Tao Te Ching.

If I had the space, I'd be a hoarder.

Though 'ideally a hoarder of material that is well separated, labeled, and often sold.

The 70s huh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1965

Might have a fair bit of silver.

I can't say I remember any 'long bouts of pain I've ever had.

Whacked my knee running down a mountain once as a kid, knee was swollen for some days, unpleasant.

Ganglion Cyst on my left wrist, get's irritating sometimes, but not usually noticeable.

Went with local anesthesia when my wisdom teeth got removed, though I 'was a bit curious about what it'd be like to get knocked out or awake but sleepy drugs. Easier just to get the local, rather than get another person to help me home.

Felt gross when the wisdom teeth got removed though.

Have a bottle of Tylenol, if I ever have pains, but luckily have no long term pains yet.

And small pains pass quickly enough not to bother with Tylenol.

Long term pain looks like it can wear on people, their happiness and temper.

I can't say I 'remember any of the discussions on books we were forced to read in school.

I'm not even sure how much discussion there 'was.

I do 'vaguely remember some of the books.

Senior year?

Some book about a mammoth hunter, some book about a woman from a Native American reservation, book about some rich girl from Mexico whose family ended up losing their land and money somehow and moved to America poor.

(The books that year didn't really interest me any)

? Years?

Read the Odyssey (Might have been an abridged version),

Catch 22 (I hated it back then, found the sexual scenes uncomfortable, though I came to enjoy the book and it's commentary on the military, later in life)

Grendel by John Gardner (Book had a deeply negative effect on me from what I recall).

Might have had to read Lord of the Flies.

. . . I really think parents ought to be an 'integral part of education.

Be cool if the parents had/would 'also do some of the schoolwork that their kids do. Read the same books, talk with the kids about the books some.

Not 'do the kids homework, but they ought have an eye and an ear on what their kids are reading.

@SergeantLynch

Yes, but then I might have notification after notification of people posting to the thread.

Besides, the random thread on DART is my main reason for glancing at DART now and then.

@Skipper

Did this post notify you of it's posting?

Some Paganism was descriptive, I'd suppose.

Had spheres of responsibility that included God of the Harvest or of God of Weaving.

Maybe if certain Pagan Gods had continued to be worshiped, they would have been updated through time,

To God of Antivirus, or God of Airplanes.

I've 'never looked into Patron Saints before, but I've heard them mentioned before.

Patron saint of this or that, and they keep getting created by the church I 'assume.

Even Patron Saints of various modern activities such as flying in airplanes. I 'think.

Not that I'm sure a religion 'needs strong centralization.

. . .

Or take the Norse Gods, big concept with them I think, was duty of the host not to harm any who ate food in their house.

Laws of good hospitality.

Most people don't let strangers into their houses or halls anymore maybe.

. . . Course one 'could 'expand the meaning.

But maybe Pagan Gods haven't been updated in a while, not that they need or need not be.

But by 'not being updated, their appeal lessens maybe.

. . . Though the appeal 'also strengthens, for people with a love of the old world, maybe.

. . .

I've often read of how a number of intellectuals and nobles in ancient societies, would not actually 'believe in the Gods that their people worshiped. Even though the nobles often acted as priests, or the intellectuals used the Gods as useful 'concepts or ideals.