Sidewalker

Never thought about it.

Same here, didn't know that, so never wondered why.

So I will look it up...But keep it to myself.

I didn't even have a guess, so I looked it up too.

Ah.

Yeah, kind of interesting, I guess.

Hey man, good to see you are back!

We were worried about you, there was even a thread about it, Debby denied having you chained up in her basement, so I was afraid PolytheistWitch turned you into a newt.

I'm glad you got better.

Welcome back.

Transwomen commit more rape per capita than cis men.

Nonsense, this is just a figment of your warped, creepy imagination. Transwomen are 400% more likely to be the victim of rape, they are no more likely to commit rape.

THIS is why the 19th amendment might get repealed; because women shown how much they lack foresight they are for choosing the bear.

LOL, the only place where the 19th amendment might get repealed is in your twisted creepy little mind.

You epitomize the creepiness that makes women choose the bear.

Yah, not a word you typed justified the blind acceptance of the 20 percent side on most 20-80 issues.

I understand that this "20-80 issues" thing is part of the MAGA indoctrination, but other than just proclaiming it, can you list some of the major issues that it applies to?

The actual quote wasn't about AI, it was about television, the quote McLuhan popularized was:

“When you consider television's awesome power to educate, aren't you thankful it doesn't?”

It actually came from a New Yorker cartoon; McLuhan just made it famous.

Trump loves you.

Thank you for sharing what Trump thought for you, and I'm glad it makes you feel smarter..

Its funny to think about. No matter what trump does, his core base will say hes exactly right. He could have done the exact opposite thing to what they think hes exactly right about, and either way, they'll think he's exactly right. I dont think his core base has enough awareness to know they do that.

It's a personality cult, it is not formed around issues, it is formed around a personality. Truth isn't about correspondence with reality, it is about their cult leader, Trump is what's right and true to them, and Trump brags about it. In the early days Trump said he could shoot someone on 8th avenue and he wouldn't lose a single vote, I thought that was one of the most preposterous things I ever heard a candidate say, it's insulting and demeaning to his base to brag that they don't care what he does morally or legally, he simply owns them. But that been proven to be one of the only true statements he made as a candidate, and time has proven him right, they really can't think for themselves, he really can do anything he wants, and he won't lose their vote,

I find it amazing that he can brag about his base in such an insulting manner, not just the 8th avenue thing, but common statements he regularly makes like “I love the poorly educated” and “Smart people don’t like me". He constantly brags that his base is morally bankrupt, "poorly educated", and "not smart" and they don’t care.

The Trump cult just can’t separate fact from fiction, and it looks like they never will. To the cult, knowledge isn’t in my head or in your head, it’s in Trumps head and we are blessed that he shares it with us. Apparently, being part of the Trump cult’s community of knowledge makes them feel as if they understand things they don’t, and the understanding that Trump has, or claims to have, makes them feel smarter.

He can do, or say anything, and they will mindlessly follow him, it's not so much that he is simply believed, it's that he is worshipped.

The other related issue is trans men playing women’s sports, which Americans are overwhelmingly against, but that seems like a no brainer to fix, mandate that anyone getting gender reassignment surgery and wants to play sports, must play in the gender they were biologically assigned. 

That’s an easy fix that almost nobody would oppose, there is clearly no "right" to play women's sports for trans men, just make that illegal, and there is no problem.

I live in Georgia where there is a bitter campaign for governor happening, the negative campaign commercials among Republicans running in the primary are common and intense. If you go by the commercials, there is only one issue at stake, Gender Reassignment Surgery for Minors. The three primary republicans running for Governor are all primarily promising they will put a stop to reassignment surgery for minors, as if there are no other issues upon which we can vote for Governor, they all say they will make it illegal when they become governor.

Fact is, gender reassignment surgery for minors has been illegal since 2023 in Georgia despite the profusion of ads from the front three republican candidates claiming they will make it illegal. Two focus their shock ads on putting a stop to gender reassignment surgery for preteens, something that has never happened in Georgia and nationally. It just doesn't happen.

This campaign issue is simply “made up”, it is not an issue anywhere, nationally, the number of preteen gender reassignment surgeries is zero as it is for under the age of 15, and for 16-17-year-olds, the rate of occurrence is 2 per 100,000 transgender people. That’s almost nothing, and almost all of those are corrective surgeries, not elective surgeries.

How is it that people have been fooled into being outraged about something that doesn’t happen, and Republican Candidates present it as the most important issue in politics. Is it just that they have nothing else? Is it that in issues that matter, the Republican positions are overwhelmingly opposed by the American People?

Can anyone explain why this non-issue is supposed to be such a major political issue?

Are these just imagined issues used to justify hatred and hostility towards transgender people?

If you do have this irrational hatred of transgender people, can you share why?

Savant,

Do you actually have any kids? I raised three, and they were self-destructive all the way through their teen years, when you are doing it it seems like a parent's primary role in caring for a child is to check their excesses and protect them from the bad choices they make, especially when they are teenagers. It's a full-time job too, no way the government could handle it.

PS I speak as one who knows too, I happen to be the world's greatest Dad, and I have a coffee mug to prove it.

With Vance being the Vice Demon himself, he should know if UFO phenomenon is caused by demons.

IJCMU...IHGAC

IJCMU - I Just Crack Myself Up

I think shifting the responsibility for children's well-being from parents to the government is a terrible idea.

The government is already controlling what kids do and don't do, but it's doing so via parents. And the parents are the ones voting for the government as well. At the end of the day, adults are controlling what kids do, I'm just saying they should control slightly less.

Do you really think the government can do a better job than parents?

Our government has already encroached on our personal lives way too much

I don't think the government should tell kids what to do, I just don't think the government should legally restrict kids from practicing a particular religion because it conflicts with their parents' beliefs. Maybe this will be unpopular, maybe it will require an amendment, but I think it's preferable to the current system, even if it's unlikely.

Oh pulease, the government does not "legally restrict kids from practicing a particular religion because it conflicts with their parents' beliefs". Sure, there are parents that restrict kids about religion, but there are also parents that encourage their kids to think for themselves. What is certain is that increased dependency on government systems and a reduction in parental accountability will result in a less responsible population and an erosion of our civil liberties.

the government's appetite for totalitarian control

If the government gives kids the right to do [x], that's reducing the total amount of totalitarian control. Totalitarianism can come from parents—I mean, you don't trust the government, and it's the parents voting for that government, no? Abusive parents exist, just because the control isn't directly coming from the government doesn't mean it can't be totalitarian.

Parental authority is not inherently totalitarian, it can become "authoritarian", but totalitarian really only applies to government. Again, there are certainly bad parents out there, but in general, parents are going to be better than government at raising responsible, well-adjusted kids in a safe and supportive manner. You can never detach authority from responsibility, parents are ultimately responsible for the welfare and upbringing of their children, anyone who would abdicate that responsibility to government control is a bad parent.

In the end, I think we need to minimize government intervention to avoid dependency, enhance personal responsibility and limit bureaucratic influence.

I think shifting the responsibility for children's well-being from parents to the government is a terrible idea. No parent will support such a move, even if it's by baby steps. Sure, there are some bad parents out there, and we need laws to protect children, but beyond that, the government needs to stay out of our private lives. In general, government has no business taking any degree of control from parents, there are only a few things government is good at, and parenting isn't one of them.

The first amendment forbids government to get involved in the religious issues you mentioned, and on everything else, the fourth amendment protects our privacy against unwarranted government intrusion, no way should we allow government to get involved in how we choose to raise our children. If they don't have enough evidence that a crime is being committed to get a warrant, then what we do in our home or family, is none of their damn business.

Setting boundaries that limit government involvement in our personal lives is critically important if we want to protect individual liberty, foster personal responsibility, and promote economic prosperity. Our government has already encroached on our personal lives way too much, our country was founded on the principle that legitimate government exists only by the consent of the governed, with the Constitution establishing specific boundaries to prevent abuse, which seem to be weakened every week under the current regime.

Especially now, when the government's appetite for totalitarian control is so exposed, we need insist that the primary role of government is to secure rights, not to manage society.

.

Not sure what it means to be British these days

Historians have found that Liberace wasn't really gay, he was just very British.

IJCMU

At an atomic level we are mostly empty space.

Do tou suppose that's why we lack substance.

Well, on the happy side of the question, I like to reminisce about past moment sometimes.

There are funny, beautiful, interesting moments in life.

Sometimes useful moments.

There are also embarrassing, intimate, and private moments in life, minimally you'd want the ability to turn it off when you want..

I'd settle for an unobtrusive bodycam, or camera/mike on some glasses.. . .

Even unobtrusive and automatic, it seems like you still have the POV problem. I'm retired now but in my career, I was considered a great public speaker, motivational and all that, people would tell me I seemed very comfortable on stage, some would tell me I could be a motivational speaker or TV Evangelist if I wanted. But...when there were cameras, I would fold like a lawn chair, just knowing there's a recording completely discombobulated me.I think it was my POV went from focusing on the audience and content, to the audience is focusing on me now, it really threw me off.

On a less happy side of things,

I sometimes worry how many abusive moments or people there might be in life.

And whether living without any privacy, in a type of human hivemind, might be better for people.

Yeah, it would be great to deter crime too, but that raises the privacy issue, which is the biggest concern, I don't trust the government to respect my privacy, and if you can turn it off, then criminals would just do that.

Also people with mental illness of drug use,

'Recording of events maybe would help convince 'some of them to degrees.

Good point, one of my roommates in college would have absolutely no memory of when he was drunk, if he wasn't with us we would start calling around to find out where his car was, what he did, etc. He could have used it. But it does seem that the times it would be most important are the times when people would be most likely to turn it off.

Maybe not, so much of our life is recorded now, maybe privacy is just a thing of the past.

I often think people ought video and audio record their entire lives.

The human brain memories seem too fragile, subject to invention and distortion.

Flaw of course, is that digital and electronic recordings can 'also be edited. . . Hm, to a 'degree, possibly ways around that and safeguards to mitigate tampering.

I don't know what the benefit of that would be, but I think the cost is huge.

There is a big difference between being fully engaged, living in the moment, so to speak, and recording the moment. When I see people doing taking selfies in front of a beautiful sunset, I think it is a shame that they aren't enjoying the sunset, rather than focused on telling others that they saw the sunset. The POV is all wrong, when you are recording, you pretty much have to assume an "external" point of view at the expense of the internal experience, which in the end, is where reality takes place for us. If you are recording everything, there is no time to stop and smell the roses, so to speak.

For sure, we are what we are and are what we have become...There's no denying that.

Though in the end we will be freed from this madness. - Sergeant Lynch.

So recreational sex is the pinnacle of human endeavour for you?

I certainly didn’t say that, that is a false dichotomy. You said, “the point of sex is procreation” and “recreational sex is essentially pointlessly going through the motions”, and I responded half-jokingly that “as far as pointless activities go, it's the best one.” That is a far cry from claiming recreational sex is the pinnacle of human endeavour”. I really am challenging both premises, that procreation is “the” point of sex, it is “a” point, but not “the point”, there is much more to sex than just procreation.

In reducing sexual activity to a single dimension as if its only goal is to produce babies, you are eliminating love from the equation, reduced relationships to a simple means of reproduction, and reduced women to baby making machines. I will contend that sex is much more than a means to the end result of childbirth”.

Sex is a sensual act of emotion and connection; it is the fulfillment of the ultimate act of intimacy between two people, and not simply a baby making process. It is an expression of love, an act of attachment and bonding, an intimate sharing of love in physical union.

And in the end, it is LOVE that is “the pinnacle of human endeavour”.

Though I'm not sure that recreational sex is the greater purpose of the organic computer and materials management device...That's if there is a greater purpose of course.

Of course there’s a greater purpose, and it’s up to us to define it and then bring it about.

Chance or purpose...Such is the dilemma.

Human endeavour is what turns chance into purpose.

The point of sex is procreation.

Then you are doing it wrong.

Whereas recreational sex is essentially pointlessly going through the motions.

It may be pointless, but as far as pointless activities go, it's the best one.

Just being held to ransom by internal systems that do not require intellectual input.

Human beings simply are not "reducible" to something that the words intellectual, logical or rational can circumscribe, we are much more than that, those words are essential, but they are by no means exhaustive. We are not just rational beings; we are also sensate, emotional, and spiritual beings. Because of the uniquely human way that we experience reality, we live in a universe imbued with values, meaning and purpose.

Consequently, a strictly intellectual, logical, rational, or scientific "worldview" is in principle impossible, it just isn’t comprehensive enough. The worldview that is "natural" to Man is one that includes everything that it means to be human, one that gives full expression to the complete range of human sensitivities. It is a worldview that speaks not just to what we are or what we have been, but also to what we ought to be, and most importantly, to what we could become.

Though being human we will always exaggeratedly overthink the issue.

"There are two things you can count on people to do, 1) take a good idea and run it into the ground, 2) take a bad idea and run it into the ground." _ George Carlin

Such is progress.

"“A man needs a little madness, or else... he never dares cut the rope and be free." - Alexi Zorba

Morality and moral responsibility are concepts relative to concepts relative to the evolution of the organic processing unit...Which is to say, that morality and moral responsibility are made up for a reason....So one assumes that they are necessary, if one assumes that everything is necessary...But of course, there is no way of knowing if everything is necessary...Nonetheless, as an intelligent species we seem compelled to run with it.

And for sure, cause and effect.

Effect and cause?...Nah...Doesn't work, does it?

We have been graced with a mind that can grasp the intellectual constructs of relativity and quantum theory and the proper response to possessing minds like ours is to use them. I just don’t think a mind capable of comprehending the counterintuitive world of subatomic physics and the cosmic realms of curved spacetime, should find something like morality as so incomprehensible that we should throw up our hands and declare that we just don’t have any real basis upon which we can figure out what we “ought” to do. That’s just nonsense.

Do you think free will requires that you could have done otherwise under the same conditions, or is it enough that the decision comes from your internal processes, even if those are fully determined?

It is overly simplistic to define Free Will as the ability to have chosen differently under the same conditions, that is abstract and completely hypothetical. To meaningfully address the topic requires a deeper and more concrete understanding of what Free Will entails.

The real free will debate should be about whether we have the cognitive ability to conceive of future courses of action, deliberate about various reasons for choosing among them, determine our actions on the basis of such deliberation, and control our actions despite the presence of competing desires. If we do have these abilities, and we can exercise these cognitive abilities to act without our actions being unreasonably compromised by external pressure, then we possess free will and human beings are morally responsible causal agents.

Are our choices fully determined by prior causes/environment/biology, and if so, how should we define morility/moral responsibility?

Consciousness has causal influence due to its content, not solely because of the physical aspects of its material correlates. A conscious state includes a desire or intention, it includes the ability to envision a future state and establish a strategy for attaining that state, it includes the ability to foresee the consequences of one's decisions, evaluate and choose among alternatives, and then act upon those choices. That makes it more than a purely physical state, it is a conscious state with reference to a future possibility, and no such reference is part of any purely physical state. Such conscious states can have causal effect to bring about further states for the sake of values and purposes, and intents. Values, purposes, and intents are not reducible to the purely physical state of the determinism argument.

If determinism is true, then every choice you make comes from causes you did not choose. Your biology, your environment, and your past experiences shape every decision.

Almost every argument against Free Will presupposes determinism without establishing determinism as a fact. Determinism is not a conclusion of science, on the contrary, it is directly contradicted by our two most successful scientific theories, Quantum Physics and Relativity Theory resoundingly refute the idea of "determinism".

The philosophical doctrine of determinism is nothing more than an archaic and failed concept that is unscientific and completely faith based. Initially it was nothing but a “thought experiment”, and in the two hundred years since, it has never made any credible advance beyond being an abstract theoretical “thought experiment”. By “any credible advance” I mean evidence, evidence that it is something more than a thought experiment, and there has been none whatsoever.

Two centuries ago, what Laplace proposed was, IF reality is completely circumscribed by Newtonian mechanics (and it isn’t), AND the motion of every particle in the universe can in principle be predicted from exact knowledge of its position, momentum, and the forces acting on it (and it can’t), AND everything occurred within a single, universal reference frame where an absolute Euclidean space and an absolute time that passes uniformly (it doesn’t), AND that as such, time and space are autonomous and independent aspects of reality (and they aren’t), THEN “theoretically”, all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by purely physical causes such that, there is one and only one possible effect for a particular cause or set of causes, (there isn’t).

The attempt to deny the self-evident experiential reality of human consciousness and the associated fact that we are morally responsible causal agents is a very extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the unfounded and completely faith-based belief in determinism doesn’t constitute extraordinary evidence by any stretch of the imagination. It follows that there is no logical or scientific reason to think determinism is true.

If all of those factors were exactly the same, you would make the same choice every time. That means you could not have done otherwise in any real sense.

The strongest argument for the existence of free will is that we all observe it during every conscious moment, it is always a fundamental and significant part of our experiential reality, hence it is self-evident. Consequently, the denial of free will is necessarily a rejection of the very concept of empirical evidence, and the argument against Free Will becomes a rejection without “proof”, which eliminates induction as valid. These two aspects of the approach clearly reject the very basis of science and scientific knowledge, leaving nothing but detached abstractions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the real world. 

Philosophy is concerned with saying something which is true or significant, science with doing something which is effective. Science is about the real world, grounded in perceiving and doing, the argument against Free Will is completely abstract and invalidates both perception and doing, it is a complete rejection of science as valid, and philosophically it amounts to a rejection of the very basis of truth and significance.

In the end, there is no valid basis upon which the rejection of Free Will can be said to be true of reality.

If that is the case, then moral responsibility has to be redefined. Instead of saying people deserve blame or praise, we should focus on outcomes. Punishment should be about preventing harm and shaping behavior, not retribution. The goal becomes managing causes, not judging people as if they created themselves.

On the contrary, “If that is the case”, then there would be no reason to redefine moral responsibility, in fact, there would be no reasoning at all. The very idea of scientific or judicial objectivity, as well as of ever reaching philosophical truth, requires human beings to be free and responsible causal agents. Thus, if we're engaged in this enterprise of learning about truth and distinguishing it from falsehood, we are committed to the idea that human beings have the associated mental freedom to choose among options. Determinism renders a devotion to intellectual integrity meaningless, it renders morality, science, philosophy, truth as meaningless concepts. Reasoning and logic require freedom to choose among alternatives; determinism is just not compatible with objective truth seeking. If all beliefs are predetermined, then there is absolutely no justification for claiming that anything is true.

 said nothing about that Goddess that I would see as a negative thing

OK, good, just be careful when you are on such a sacred subject.

We have an unstable and unpredictable situation in the Middle East because we have an unstable and unpredictable President.

The unpredictable situation is currently in the USA....Commanded by their Jewish overlords...And a need for control of Earth resources.

Who told you about our Jewish Overlords?

Damn it, that was supposed to be a secret.

I haven't insulted Alyssa outside of a Mafia game where I was scum and had some incentive for making her think less rationally than she should.

I was talking about Salma Hayek.