Debate_4_fun981

Forgiveness has so many benefits that it is under rated. Tt can also be used as a form of revenge or as stumbling block to further hateful intended action or to being further wronged.

Many excellent points have already been made concerning the benefits of forgiveness to the self (the forgiver) and the benefits to those being forgiven.

However, having listened to some people from the new age branch of thinking and experience, there is missing from the opinions put forward the experience of those who believe in forgiveness as a more magical action.

When forgiving someone sometimes, sending them love and a desire for their well being, somethings magical can happen.

What? The person forgiving, by seeing the person through the lens of forgiveness and wishing them well, the magical things that sometimes happens, is that person can desist with their evil intent/bullying and sometimes have somethings happen to them that, long term makes them more whole and well balanced.

2 examples of this: Someone told me how they had a boyfriend who spent his time abusing drugs. Nothing could dissuade him from this lifestyle. She sent him love and forgiveness for all the pain he had caused himself and herself, and while on holiday, she found he had been admitted to hospital having taken too much drugs and now was on the road to recovery from his drug lifestyle. She believed it was the love she sent that had caused him to stumble, overuse and then move onto the road of recovery.

Another example, was a bully who was fully committed to a life of abusing others, to gain power. Any weakness shown around this person, would be used ruthlessly to cause damage, pain and to increase the bully’s feeling of power.

One of the people being bullied would, on a daily level, send the bully love, well wishes, and a genuine desire for him to become more well balanced. This went on for a long time. Then the forgiver began to notice something; that sometimes within minutes or hours of sending love little disasters would happen to the bully. These little disasters seemed to prey on the bullies mind and seem to make them become unstable. The forgiver did not stop but continued to send the bully love and well being, and tried as best they could to help the bully through these little disaster, with practical support.

At this point the forgiver (my friend) consulted someone a little more advanced in thinking spiritually, than herself and asked whether it could truly be ethical to continue to send love, balance and well being, when disasters seem to hound the person she was trying to genuinely send love, balance, and forgiveness to.

She was told that sometimes people who are full of hate and bullying need to go through experiences that lead them to balance and not to blame herself. So she persisted. The bully, not too long after this advice, suffered a heart attack.

My friend tried her best to offer what real world support and advice she could and continued to send love and forgiveness and a desire for balance for past wrongs to the bully.

By slow degrees the bully began to change their values...no longer wanting power as much and instead focusing their values more toward balance and a quiet life.

Forgiveness is a powerful tool magically.

I believe that after about 13 yr's or so, a child should be allowed to choose their religion.

I have lived this myself; the family i grew up in are a product of parents that believed this.

We were sent to "Sunday school" ( a christian church) until we were 13 and then our father said we were old enough to decide for ourselves. None of us went back to that particular church after we were given the choice. But as we grew older some of us became atheists, some of us have become Christians (of various denominations), myself I am "new age", while another person has chosen to become a muslim.
I think my father's philosophy that a child at around 13 and slightly above, has the sense to know what they want to believe, gave us all an opportunity to make up our own minds as to what religion we wanted to be a part of or if we no longer wanted to be a part of religion.

We were sent to a christian church but i don't think it matters which church the growing mind of a child is sent to. The important factor is that the child is introduced to certain ideas, values and propositions, concerning the nature of reality.

Most of the various societies laws and values are based on some form of religion, even if the government of that country/society is no longer wedded to the religion that originally spawned it's values.

So introducing a child to a religion instills in that child, fundamental values, questions and perspectives.
Values/perspectives/questions, like: what is right and wrong? What is the individuals responsibilites in being a good community member? What is the meaning of life? How did life first come about and what is the purpose of life?

Religion attempts to address these questions and so is good first steps to awaken the mind of a child, as the child becomes a responsible adult.

But give the child the choice of continuing or stopping, when the child can begin to think for themselves and before they become so indoctrinated into a religion, that they follow blindly.

I think i have a soft heart because i am forgiving and do not like to condemn despite good evidence that i should.

The reason i think I have a soft heart is because i hate to condemn. Even if the evidence strongly suggests that a person is not good for me, i will try and find alternative perspectives to look at the evidence or wait for alternative evidence to counter the huge mass of evidence I already have. I also try and give people or endeavours second chances, when the evidence suggests that they are committed to a path, that deserves condemnation or the endeavour is a lost cause.

I think a good definition of a hard heart is someone who condemns without chance of forgiveness, or condemns with insufficient evidence or is unforgiving when most others would forgive or give a second chance. I am the opposite of a person like this, i think.

A sound is a sound as long as an ear or similarly functional biological apparatus perceives it.

If a tree falls it makes a huge vibration in whatever it disturbs. It disturbs the ground it falls on, it disturbs the air around it. A sound is caused by movement and contact with something else as it moves, or movement within the object's own frame. As long as something biological perceives that vibration, then it has a social aspect, becoming sound.

If a tree fell and there was no living thing to hear it, it wouldn't cause a sound but only a vibration. Once that vibration was perceived by a living thing, it would then be called a sound.

In the arguments on this thread, it has been put forward that there must be interpretation to be a sound. This is incorrect. If I am sitting here typing, and i hear something, but don't know where that sound is coming from or what it describes, is what i have heard a sound? Well of course it is.

Let us say the sound that i heard that i could not interpret at first, was later identified as coming from my stomach because i had not eaten. Would it now become a sound? Clearly, i think, identifing it or not, the mysterious sound is still a sound.

Many animals have ears, and could certainly hear the sound of a tree falling. Does that mean because they can't identify the sound that what they hear is not a sound? I think to most people it is clear that if an animal can hear a sound, whether they can identify what makes it or not, it is still a sound. With the huge sound that a tree falling would make it, the animal would probably have the sense to run away from it.

Many living creatures have alternatives to ears. They sense vibration. This gives them the ability to know that something around them, or at a distance, is happening. They may not know exactly what it is. But they don't ignore it as having no consequence.

But what about plants? They are living. They do not have ears. Despite this the vibration from water running may influence the direction a plants roots grow. This is not the only example of plants being affected by vibration, there are many and varied.

Most living things can sense vibrations even if they don't have ears.Being able to sense vibration is an ability that can be put to good use in survival.

So could we say that if a tree falls the plants surrounding technically hear it? Would we call a plant a someone?

So now we have examined the words meaning, of sound and someone, in the opening question.

So now we can have a educated view, i think on the statement. Depending on our definition of what constitutes a sound and what constitutes a someone. "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it still makes a sound"

My answer is yes it does. I believe any plant and animals would constitute a "someone" and so there would always be someone around to hear it. You can't have a forest without plants so then, there would always be someone around to hear it.

But what about the questions metaphysical aspect. This philosophical idea that if consciousness is not present does anything really happen? My answer is who knows?

The only way to test if reality would not exist without a conscious mind to perceive it, is for consciousness to never look to see what has happened, when it has not been observing.

As to get the answer we must look. I would say this question of whether cconsciousness creates reality is unanswerable.
Why? Because how can we be aware of anything without our consciousness. We are conscious and cannot escape it.

The nature of politics is it deals with group dynamics. The group dynamics, of large groups, does not lead to fairness.

Fairness tends to happen between two people or in very small groups where the members know each other and care about each other.. With large group dynamics there is an element of impersonal interactions; which leads to alliances that create a "them and us" dynamic.

Once "them and us" has been established, then it leads to gaslighting and lies and patronage, where fairness and merit, is not the only or even primary, parts of the calculation, but, instead personal gain and profit for your side and yourself.

With democratic politics, this appears due to the huge amount of people involved, where it is impossible to know everyone individually and care about everyone individually.

In all political systems there is also the possibility of "ego maniacs or psychopaths", that only care about themselves and who are willing to sacrifice any fairness for their own, or the people the do know, gains.

With large scale autocracies/Authoritarian/Totalitarian Regimes/oligarchies, the unfairness is built into the system, with fairness lost, as a primary goal, right at the beginning Because "them and us" is part of the political system.

True communism has never been tried and instead the attempts at it have failed in terms of fairness..

It is foolish to trust people who do not care about you and so it is foolish to trust the fairness of autocracies/Authoritarian/Totalitarian Regimes/oligarchies and large scale democratic political systems and attempts at communism. Trusting large politcal parties to be fair is foolish.

I think we have many sides to our nature and one of the sides of our nature, wishes to get revenge against authourity.

Societies have rules. The reason societies have rules, is because many of an individuals impulses and desires, do not fit in what a community agrees to be moral acts or acts that respect others, or the priorities of the community/society.

This being the case, all of us have to "rein in" or "control" our desires and impulses to conform to outside standards.

The individual controlling what he would like to do, because of what he/she "should do" according to outside authourity, is divorced from a part of who he/she is.

There is a part of us that resents this. In our adolescence, many of us act and rebel against the morality, actions and even appearance of our parents or authority, in an effort to discover ourselves.

How we define ourselves is at least partly defined by our desires and choices and to conform to what societies say "should be" us, means we sacrifce a piece of our identity (and awareness or discovery of it) to fit in. There is within us all, from an early age, as a baby, when are parents first restrict us, to our "potty training", through to school onwards, resentment from what we must surpress.

This why so many of us use " sex, drugs and rock and roll" to discover and define ourselves.

I think deep down we all would like to get revenge on society/community for this "self estrangement" and at some point in our lives we do, with our adolescence, or maybe clothes, friends, private or secret actions, or any combination of these. We love to do with what society/community says we shouldn't do.

One of my favourite sayings is: "Individuality cannot be discovered by committee"

A hot dog is not a sandwich.

Origin: German immigrants brought their culinary traditions, including these sausages, to the United States in the 19th century, where the modern hot dog was developed and popularized.

A hot dog is something that tends to give people who eat them, thoughts, or thoughts and memories of the usa.

Compare a hot dog, with lettice and a slice of ham in between buttered bread. One does not excite the imagination the other does.

It would be like calling a pizza a bit of baked dough with interesting stuff on top.

Instead a pizza is, a dish of Italian origin, consisting of a flat round base of dough baked with a topping of tomatoes and cheese, typically with added meat, fish, or vegetables; that is typically shared.

One excites the imagination of it's Italian origin, and social significance, the other leaves a person unexcited by it's social aspect.

Consider your reaction, when you picture an american vendor in the sidewalk of a busy american street, preparing a hotdog for a customer and saying: "Do you want mustard on that?"

What the vendor said, brought the scene and sense of a hotdog alive in your imagination didn't it?

A hot dog is not a sandwich.

As long as the sadomasochistic sex has healthy boundaries, then there is no need for therapy.

I have little experience of sadomasochistic sex but I do have a little experience and have interacted with a few people who do enjoy these practices and have observed their online forums.
So the following is very much ”just an opinion.” I mean by this, it is very far from an extensively researched opinion by someone who considers himself to be an expert.

I think a fair representation of sadomasochistic sex is: the infliction of, or reception of physical or psychological pain, suffering, degradation or humiliation, with the intent of deriving sexual or sensual pleasure, or emotional/psychological relief.
I mention in the above, psychological/emotional relief, as some people in the sadomasochistic community, do not enjoy what is done to them, at the time it is being done to them, but gain pleasure or psychological relief after the act. With some of these people sadomasochistic sex, is a relief from a strong psychological impulse or on rare occasions, relief from a very strong emotionally damaging experience that has happened in their lives.
Additionally, some people who practice sadomasochistic sex who say they never enjoy what is being done to them directly, say instead, they gain their pay off because their partner enjoys it.

So let's a have a look at acts that are called sadomasochistic sex acts, so we have some examples of what we are discussing.
Would you define being spanked as sadomasochistic sex? This is where one adult spanks another, often causing pain, typically on their buttocks, with the idea of gaining and/or giving pleasure. (In the forum I have observed this is called: Impact play.)
Well first it must be noted there is no actual “sex” in this act. However, by convention and definition, a sadomasochistic sex act, does not have to involve actual sex, just pleasure from an act that gives or receives pain, or humiliation, degradation, or has any kind of dominant and submissive power dynamic between the participants.
Spanking someone’s buttocks is a sadomasochistic sex act, because there is a power dynamic between the participants, that brings pleasure to one or both, the fact there is no actual sex doesn’t mean it is not sadomasochistic sex.
Additionally, it should be noted, not all the pleasure derived from being spanked necessarily comes from the sadomasochistic power dynamic because the buttocks are considered erogenous zone; it is a zone of the body, that has lots of nerve endings, and so is particularly noted for giving pleasure.
So then, as well as the social dynamic (the relationship between the participants) and a purely psychological dynamic (what is going in each person’s mind, according to their own interpretation and fantasies), there is a sensual/physical element to.

So to return to the statement we are discussing, can we say every man or woman, that enjoys being spanked for pleasure, whether for the psychological and social aspect (for perhaps being “naughty”) or being spanked for the physical aspect (because the sharp or thud like pain, arouses their senses) needs therapy?
I think the answer would be qualified by questions like: Is there any damage to the person’s being spanked buttocks? Is it permanent damage or something (bruises) that will heal and they are happy to live with that? How often do they enjoy this practice? (I mean are days of their lives spent in one go) being spanked, or is it done on occasions on weekends? Are they addicted to the practice because there is something else in their lives they are not facing up to? Is it consensual?

I think the answers to the above questions would tell if the person “needed therapy”.
I think most people would agree, if sadomasochistic sex is done with some form of self-control, with boundaries, if it brings pleasure or relief into their lives, and the practitioner is not using it to hide from something in their lives that should be dealt with, then it can be good or harmless.

But what about more extreme cases, of sadomasochistic sex?
What if someone enjoys being locked in a cage and feed and kept “prisoner” by someone who has the key? (This kind of practice is practiced by some people in the sadomasochistic community.)
Well first of all the person in the cage will have given consent to be in the cage and will typically, have created boundaries to what they are willing to do/subjected to and not willing to do/subjected to. If they have not set clear boundaries, typically, this is because the person to be locked away trusts the person who is locking them away, to respect non expressed boundaries.

Think about it: if the person, who is being locked away, has expressed boundaries that are respected by the person who is locking them away, well, isn’t the person in the cage in some sense in charge of what happens? This weird dynamic where the person who is being dominated (the submissive) is often in charge of what happens, makes it seem more of a game than a straightforward power dynamic.
There is a term you often hear those involved in the Sadomasochistic community scene often use to describe their experiences, which encapsulates this weird dynamic. They refer to their sadomasochistic sexual experiences as “playing”
To see if this person being locked away, needs therapy, I think again it would be fair to apply similar questions to the questions above.

Is there any damage to the person’s being locked away? Is it physically safe? How often do they enjoy this practice? (I mean are days at a time, of their lives lost being locked away, or is it done on occasions on weekends, perhaps returning to work after a short weekend session ‘playing’?) Are they addicted to the practice because there is something else in their lives they are not facing up to? And of course, is it consensual?

If the answers to these questions suggest that they have few boundaries or not in control of their lives or doing themselves permanent harm, then I think they might benefit from boundaries or therapy, as their sadomasochistic practices have become unhealthy.

Let’s take it one step further and look at a case that I believe is clearly unhealthy. What about a case of someone who wants to be locked up in a cage and never let out? Or, as I have twice seen posts regarding, where someone claimed they wanted to be “walled or bricked up” inside a room, or under floorboards and never released.
I think most people would say, rather than find someone to fulfil this fantasy, the person who desires it should see a doctor for help.
My point here is, that clearly sadomasochistic practices can be taken too far and the person who has the desire, needs some help. (I have no idea whether the people that posted these sadomasochistic desires were serious or just expressing a fantasy they never really expected to live out). I have been told in the sadomasochistic community, lots of people express fantasies that they never want to live out.

What did I mean, when I wrote above, concerning (what some people get out of sadomasochistic sex): “relief from” “an emotionally damaging experience?”

I was thinking of a few posts I have seen online where the person posting claimed to have had experienced an emotionally damaging experience and had decided to “repeat it” in some sense, but with the added feature of them “being in control” or more in control. It sounds strange doesn’t it?

What were the experiences they wanted to repeat?
I saw two posts where someone claimed to have been attacked/raped and wanted to “play act” this experience out again.(A very dangerous idea, I think). Another was where someone had consented to be humiliated and then discovered later the experience was very emotionally damaging.

In both these “for instances”, the persons posting believed that in some sense, acting out, the original traumatic experience, would give them some form of therapy. (I have no idea how serious, or truthful the people posting these desires in the forum were).

3 final points to note are: that the equipment for sadomasochistic sex is available to buy in many shops and BDSM fares, in many places, all over the world. The reason I draw your attention to this is that there is so much demand that people have created businesses that specialise in it. So these practices are by no means rare.

Additionally I think it is worth mentioning, that some of the equipment sold include: “floggers” that the sellers describe as so light in impact (that give such light pain), that when used: “They cannot do any [physical] harm”.

Lastly, although I haven’t considered the role of the dominant partner in the “playing” dynamics of sadomasochistic sex, the reader can easily do so, by asking the same questions of the dominant partner role, as I have of the submissive partner’s role. Then they can assess, for themselves whether the dominator’s role, is something that suggests that they need therapy.

Considering all of the above, I think it is not true to say, everyone who performs sadomasochistic sex needs therapy, any more than it is to true say that everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic and needs therapy. But it is true to say, some people performing sadomasochistic sex who take it to dangerous extremes, probably need therapy.

The function of clothes is both to create social effects, ( including feelings, status, comfort) but also practical function. So my point is, in some cases, in some clothes, they also have a gender related practical function and so are not gender neutral.

I agree with many opinions already expressed that clothes today are moving towards gender neutral. I think this is good. No one should feel restricted by their gender in what they are wearing.

Cultures and the law in many countries try to create laws that promote equality between the gender and where possible, freedom of choice regardless of gender. I like that people are embracing this, and I feel this is a good thing and am happy to see women wearing trousers and men wearing skirts etc.

However, some clothes are predominately functional. Bra's and male underpants (where a large enough hole/fly is often included to allow a man to use the toilet without taking down his underwear/pants).

Women's bras are created to support female breasts and so are a gendered piece of clothing. Of course, there are plenty of instances where a woman (or a very young woman) sees here first bra as a "right of passage" toward her becoming a mature woman, even if her first bra, gives no support. Also there are instances where a woman has small breasts that do not fill the bra that is mean't to give support, but she still wants to wear one. A bra can have both practical, cultural, social and psychological function.

This does not mean that men shouldn't wear bras. I'm sure some men do and men also can/do have breasts. There are a medical condition where a man breasts grow.

I'm also certain some women prefer to wear male underpants.

My overall point is, while most clothes are not gendered, there are some that have practical purposes that are gender specific.

I do not believe the moon landings were faked, however i keep an open mind.
There are arguments that can be made to get through some of the "proofs" of a real landing, that have been mentioned.

For instance, one argument against the moon landings being faked is that the russian government tracked appollo 11 and so were able to verify where the signals were coming from.

However, a person should remember, that some of the conspiracies do not claim that it would have been impossible to send a rocket to the moon. Some of the conspiracies believe it would have been impossible to send humans to the moon.
If the hoaxers wanted to give the appearance of humans on the moon, it might well have been possible to send rockets to the moon that relayed a signal sent from earth. This theoretical signal sent from earth, would be broadcast from earth, on a little known and used frequency and would be received and relayed from a radio on the rocket sent to circle the moon. Or from a relay radio sent to land on the moon.

These relay radio's might have the capacity to relay, radio or pictures sent from earth.

According to this conspiracy theory, the problem with sending humans to the moon was The Van Allen radiation belts, would have been deadly to astronauts, at that time, due to insufficient shielding.

Another proof nasa did not go the moon is the missing stars in the photos of the moon surface; conspiracy theorists point out that the missing stars, in the background of the photos of the moon, proves that the photos were not taken in space/the surface of the moon. Nasa's counter argument is that the high contrast would have prevented the stars from showing up.

However a counter to NASA's counter is easy: when the fake footage was shot on a movie set on earth, someone with knowledge of the moon, said: we can save some money and time and effort here. Due to the high contrast on the moon, the stars probably wouldn't show up."

So neither NASA or the conspiracy theorists can say the lack of stars proves much.

I remember watching a documentary about the conspiracy theory that nasa never went to the moon, where they had an authority on the camera's that astronauts took to the moon to take pictures. One of the guys from the camera's company was asked about one of the pictures that NASA had taken with the camera. He said that to get a picture like that with the camera the astronauts used . "was impossible". It was the lighting he said. it was impossible and couldn't happen.

It has also been mentioned how the lowered gravity on the moon could not be faked because the astronauts move in low gravity, as they would, if on the moon. They appear to move in lower gravity than on earth, which means they fall back to the moon much slower. On earth if you jump up, you come down due to gravity pretty quick, but on the moon, it takes a little longer.

A conspiracy documentary also dealt with this. The documentary claimed how NASA faked this, was to have the fake film made on earth at normal speed. To simulate the lowered gravity, the film was played to the public in slow motion. So any movement would look as if done in lowered gravity. The conspiracy documentary took the public footage of astronauts moving around on the moon and then increased the speed. It made the astronauts movements look as if they were moving around on earth; they moved faster and fell to the moon in normal speed, as if on earth.

A great argument put forward, as proof nasa went to the moon, is the one concerning laser reflectors. The idea is that from anywhere on earth you can point a laser at a point on the moon and get your laser reflected back to you to check scientific theories. This seems to be cast iron proof that NASA has been to the moon. Until you learn that the intial proposal for these reflectors came from someone who believed they could be dropped on the moon (by robots) without having to land.

This leaves us again, with the idea of NASA having sent a unmanned rocket to circle the moon (while dropping things onto the moon) but not actually landing on the moon.

As for moon rocks, i consider this to be the best evidence for the moon landings being real. The rocks from the moon have been studied for over 50 years, by various countries and i find it too unlikely that a robot could have collected them by itself, from the moon surface.

However, i have to counter this proof, with: i suspect scientific agreement is not caste iron proof, even if it has gone on for 50 years. Scientists sometimes do not look at evidence objectively, despite peer reviews.

My position is that we probably did go to the moon, but we have no irrefutable proof that we have done it.

Coincidences cannot prove that free will does not exist and determinism is true. It may prove that our free will sometimes is constrained and impinged on, by another force, but it cannot prove that free will is not a factor.

The only way to prove determinism, as far as coincidences are concerned, would be to remove the definition of coincidence by understanding the forces that create incredible coincidences and see if these "rules" were always followed or sometimes were not.

So let;s have some fun with this and see if we can identify at lease one of this "coincidence force" rules and speculate whether this rule is being always applied or only sometimes applied, in Kennedy and lincoln's lives.

Let us do a bit of fun analysis of a few of the amazing lincoln and Kennedy coincidences mentioned by one of the contributors here.

In the coincidences listed there seem to be a 100 year rule for major events between lincoln's and kennedy's lives. For instance: it mentions Lincoln was elected to the house of Congress in 1846 while Kennedy was elected to the same body in 1946. The contributor also mentions that Lincoln won the presidential election in1860 while Kennedy won it in 1960 and Lincoln failed to get the vice presidency nomination in 1856 while Kennedy failed to get it in 1956.

But are there any instances where this 100 year rule does not apply? Well lincoln died in 1863 ending his presidency, while Kennedy died in 1965 ending his presidency. The 100 year rule doesn;t seem to have applied here. Is that because Lincoln and Kennedy's free will more clearly exerted it self at some point in their presidency, so extending it despite the power of this coincidence force?

I think most people would agree losing a child is a major life event, Lincoln and kennedy both lost a child while in the white house. Lincoln's died in 1862 at the age of 11 from what was likely typhoid fever while Kennedy's died in 1963 just two days after being born prematurely. Why has the 100 year rule been broken here? As was it broken on the year they got married? Being married is also a major life event.

Other rules of this coincidence force, include strong coincidences in names, places related to circumstances etc. The reader can continue to look at the coincidences, speculate on the "coincidence force" rules and see how they seem to apply sometimes and not at other times.

Another factor that argues against the belief that this "coincidence force" proves we have no free will and determinism is true, is that the "incredible coincidences" listed aren't more common. For instance, there must be millions of biographies written of world famous, note worthy people. So shouldn't almost every biography have an appendix listing the coincidence with one noteable past person, if some "coincidence force" was a strong factor in our lives ? Shouldn;t we know lots of people in our lives that claim they have striking coincidences, to some past person, just as kennedy and Lincoln do?

Could it be that for some reason, Lincoln and Kennedy had a greater amount of this "coincidence force" in their lives than in the vast majority of people. So their free will was more constrained upon than most people? Even if this was the case, it still does not mean they did not have free will, it just means the force was so great for them, that they sometimes appeared to have less free will.

Striking coincidences do not prove determinism but merely suggests that our free will maybe, for some of us, more constrained than it appears on the surface.

It seems to me that the world, especially in it's present state, can be a depressing place. Many countries are moving more and more far right in their politics.

A child's brain has not developed yet into an adult brain.
An adult uses logic, reason and abstract thinking while a child may process the world more through feelings and experiences.

Has the reader ever watched a children listen to bed time stories, of fantastical magical lands and tales? They very much enjoy it.

Wouldn't it be a shame to take all that pleasure away from them, and tell them stories only based on the real world?

I remember pressing one of my nephews about his "magical friends", he eventually confessed that: "There is no one there" But must have gotten something from pretending.

Children will have a lifetime, once 9 or older teenagers, to be concerned with the adult world.

Children and adult minds have some differences when the child is younger. Let them enjoy it.

As has been mentioned. School uniforms have many good points. But also has a few bad ones. One negative in particular has not been mentioned.

School uniforms may discourage bullying. As it does happen that children are bullied and singled out for wearing clothes, that are not modern enough or not cool enough.

School uniforms also prepare children for a societal standard of "belonging" to an organisational standard, with the group pride and behaviour that this entails.

In some schools, there is financial help with buying school uniforms, so any discrimination that appears from obvious economic differences in the buying power or standards of the child's parents, can also be taken away. I mean that a child who has poor or rich parents, are less easily identified by the clothes the child wears.

However, on the negative side, school uniforms tend to be different for boys and girls. This reinforces sexual stereotyping. Most societies try to promote values that idealise a meritocracy, where a individual is not held back or promoted due to gender. Any stereotyping has a tendency to promote simple stereotyping of the nature of girls and boys and so create pressure and expectations based on their sex, rather than an individual/child's nature and talents.

Lastly, a negative exists, despite that an argument could be put forward, that the same negative, could also be put forward as a positive. The negative i am referring to is: that creating a pride of belonging to a group, can also create a "them and us mentality", with "us" being those who belong to our school and "them" being those who do not belong to our school but belong to another school.

It can easily be observed that many of societies strife and problems come from a belief and awareness of "them and us". These lines are obviously drawn along the lines of race, religion, class, nationalilites, gender etc.

For instance the "them" in differentiating schools, could be richer schools, compared to poorer schools, or a school in this area, compared to a school in that area, a school predominately of this race, or that religion, etc.

In the uk for instance there are public schools (funded by national taxes) and private schools (funded by tuition fees and donations). One school might have much more flexible curriculum, have a more selective admission standards compared to the other type and its social reputation and desireablility may strongly be influenced by these factors.

A school uniform maybe ascociated with a better reputation of a school.
A private school may have a better reputation compared to a public school. Once a social reputation is created around a school, the wearing of a uniform identifies that child as being a part of the social reputation and so may promote attituges to that child. This attitude may well influence a child's social experience when meeting people of other schools, or in the community where that reputation is known, or with those who hold negative or positive experience of the childs school and when leaving and going out in the greater world.

Most societies try to promote a meritocracy based on the talents and achievements of individuals, rather than a reputation born of stereotypes. Stereotypes, that may give social advantage or disadvantage.

So in this context, school uniforms as they presently are, could be seen as promoting division rather than inclusion.

It would be easy to minimise this aspect of the school uniform by having a national school uniform. My proposed national school uniform would be identical, which ever school a child went to and would so denote that the child had an education, regardless of which school the child went to.

Taking the statement literally i think it is pretty obvious, that most people own something and usually lots of things.

For instance even if your country is in the midst of war, or a beggar on the street, you will still own the clothes you are wearing.

Many people have jobs or benefits from governments and incomes. They may well own cars, homes with various gadgets, like televisions, cookers, washing machines etc So taking the question literally most people on the planet are owners of something. Exceptions to this rule might be babies, where everything is bought for them; they are washed and dressed and they do not formally accept ownership of anything.

Taking the statement at a more complex level, for most people ownership is inaccessible to things like: the software of a computer or mobile phone. You may own the hardware and some rights to the use software but the manufacturer retains the intellectual property rights to it. So full ownership is inaccessible.

However, be aware how the statement is conventially used, the statement is most likely referring to home ownership, (as has already been pointed out by another contributor). Many people aspire to owning their own home and it's accessibility depend on a lot of factors. These tend to be outside an individuals control and can be very challenging. They include: financial, the housing market, government rules etc.

Using an a.i search, i have come up with the following statistics which i think strongly suggests most people, world wide, own their own homes. If most people own their own homes, worldwide, it disproves the opening statement.
Highest homeownership rates

Laos: 95.9% (2015)
Romania: 94.3% (as of December 2024)
Kazakhstan: 95.0% (2018)
Slovakia: 93.1% (as of December 2024)
Hungary: 91.6% (as of December 2024)
Croatia: 91.0% (as of December 2024)
Vietnam: 90% (2020)
Russia: 92.6% (as of December 2023)
Lithuania: 87.4% (as of December 2024)
Poland: 87.1% (as of December 2024)
Bulgaria: 86.0% (as of December 2024) 

Mid-range homeownership rates

Singapore: 90.8% (as of December 2024)
Norway: 78.8% (as of December 2024)
United States: 65.1% (as of March 2025)
Canada: 66.7% (as of December 2023)
Australia: 66.0% (as of December 2020)
Ireland: 69.3% (as of December 2024)
Finland: 68.1% (as of December 2024)
Sweden: 64.8% (as of December 2024)
United Kingdom: 64.5% (as of December 2023)
France: 61.2% (as of December 2024)
Netherlands: 68.8% (as of December 2024)
Japan: 55.0% (2021) 

Lowest homeownership rates

Switzerland: 42.6% (as of December 2023)
Germany: 47.2% (as of December 2024)
Austria: 54.5% (as of December 2024)
Hong Kong: 50.4% (as of December 2024)
South Korea: 56.4% (as of December 2023)
Nigeria: 25.0% (2019)
United Arab Emirates: 28% (2017)

Unidentified flying objects definitely exist, if we take the statement at the most simple level.

The first type of unidentified object that exists, could be said to be on the personal level.

If i look up in the sky and see an object flying that I cannot cateogorise, then that to me, is an Unidentified Flying Object. If it is not in the category, of plane, bird, balloon, etc. that is where i will put it. This says little about how mysterious the object is and says more about my lack of knowledge, understanding and lack of resources to find out.

The seond type, of object, is one where i may not know what it is, but someone else might know what it is because they are in a position to know, or are willing to put in the effort to find out: like someone in a countries air force, or at an airport, or with binoculars, or with a app that knows what planes are flying presently etc to look for, and identify the object.

I would include in this category, when strange sightings are observed in the sky and a government or some named body go out to investigage it. Of all the named bodies investigating UF'OS, I am not aware of a single body that claims they can identify 100% all the sightings. This could be due sometimes to a lack of accurate information regarding the sighting, or even that the sighting represents something presently unknown to science.

However, there is something to be said about the last category of UFO.

The term UFO, is a loaded term. In that culturally, the term implies flying discs/alien craft, or alien technology. I have seen no convincing evidence that these exist.
Using 'Occam's razor', which states the simplest answer, with fewest assumptions, is the most likely to be the true one, i think the more likely explanation is that there is phenomena in our skies belonging to earth, that we do not yet understand

. Rather than exotic tech from alien worlds, in our atmosphere.

The American Dream cannot die as long as America exists.

Like any dream, it exists as an ideal to aspire to.

The dream is that of having a society based purely on a meritocracy, where one can achieve happiness, wealth and overcome adversity through effort.

It may seem impossible to achieve (and as contributors have pointed out, has more and more obstacles for someone to achieve it in their lifestyle) but as long as America exist people will strive for it to become a reality.

An aspirational dream can fade and become more unrealistic, but it cannot die, only become more unlikely to achieve. (Short term it may seem near impossible but so many voters think it is worth while, it will be revived again and again and never pass away)

I think the question implies that it is good for the individual to make amends for the wrong doing they think they have done.

Or that it is good for society that you make amends for the things you believe you have done wrong. Or both.

If we see wrong doing in any other way, then we bring into the statement, the question: What is wrong doing according to society? So what we are discussing is the individual perspective.

I think it is good for an individual to make amends for wrong doing that they believe they have done, usually. Many people hold in their heads a scale of fairness, if they do something they believe to be wrong, by which they can feel out of balance, if they do not balance it by making amends, they will feel badly. So it may well be good for them to make amends.

However this feeling is far from universal. I believe many people are quite comfortable in" getting even" with people who make them feel bad about themselves or whom they envy.

That someone has made them feel jealous, or negatively about themselves, or is making them do something they would rather not do (whether they know it is their responsibility to do it) is good enough for some people to feel justified in trying to hurt the "offending" person.

In the case of psychopaths i believe that they lack the feeling: a sense of wanting to make amends or i suppose we could call it "lack a conscience "and so without the feeling of imbalance, it is not in their best interests to make amends.

I also think some people have the capacity to cheat on their taxes, drop litter, lie, steal, without any conscience or sense of imbalance. So for those individuals it doesn't do them any harm, not to make amends. Unless they are caught in which case someone/society may exact revenge.

The phrasing of this question makes it difficult to get to grips with.

Lots of societies problems? Does that mean the majority or just 'lots'. Which ones and what kind of problems? How does one define 'lots'?

I think as the question seems to be so general and unspecific i will answer it as follows:

Men are the main perpetrators of many of societies problems. Problems such as violence against people of whatever gender and sexual assaults. They are also in the majority in positions of power in most of societies organisational structures, including in politics, and so are law makers and policy creators. So it would be fair to say that men definitely play a part in the majority of societies problems.

However it is a simplificationto say that men can easily be said to be the cause of most of societies problems.
Women make up an essential part of every society. As this is the case all policies and all structures take into account to a lesser or greater extent, women's participation and views. (When i say take into account, i am aware sometimes policies are specifically targeted at taking away female rights and going against female views to surpress women. Which i think is wrong)

If women weren't around, would societies problems be less or greater? ( I realise that this appears a nonsensical question as how could a society exist without women being inside the structure or associated to it?) I raise the question so that i can make the next point, which i believe gives a more overall view when considering the answer to the question.

Let us take the example of men who are aggressive and arrogant. I think many people would say that this is a factor, of how some mens attitudes can cause problems within society. Yet i have noticed, from my own experience and the experience of many men i know, that women associate some aggressiveness as being an essential and desirable trait of manliness. They are attracted to it and find it an essential masculine trait.

Can i ask the reader if they think what women like in a man, makes up part of why men choose to express themselves as they do? What traits they accept within themselves and what they reject? (I'm not suggesting for a moment that what women like in a man, or what men like in a woman, is the only element that makes people accept traits within themselves. I am suggesting it is an essential element and another factor includes cultural stereotypes)

My point is that how men are, and how women are, cannot be seen as a separate factor. So men's views and actions and women's views and actions are co created.

Could it be that the way men are and they way women are, is because both sexes conspire to have traits that attempt to satisfy what the other sex feels, or even does, need?

If so, is societies expression (how societies are) easily defined as the "fault" of one gender or the other?

Intelligence is gendered in that men and women have brains that seem to be hard wired for different specialities in terms of expressing their intelligence. As has been written already, men are better at spacial and abstract thinking in some ways (as in reading maps) while women are better in terms of reading people.

Another way to read the statement is to ask the question, whether one sex has higher intelligence than the other.

I think, traditionally high intelligence, is measured by the abilities to create things or systems or abstract ideas that solve problems, rather than read or be sensitive to people. So by that criteria i think that men could be said to be naturally more intelligent than women, being better at the abstract.

However i must add, that i think it is a mistake and unfair to judge any particular woman or any particular man as being more intelligent than anyone else, based on their gender.

I have worked at places, where women have been the best and most skilled workers, at demonstrating traditionally male skills (they were better than their male counterparts, working in the same positions at different organisations) and i have heard tell, of men who were the best in people skills, at traditionally female dominated working roles.

I think as well as gender based strengths in intelligence, we must take into consideration, effort, commitment, experience, dedication and individual talent when assessing someone's capablilities regardless of their gender.

We should try our best not to allow our stereotypes of what they should be good at, to influence how we interact with them.

From chatting to several women who have jobs typically associated with men, I have found that they sometimes encounter prejudice, that they find oppressive.

Many of us draw a line between public and private life. For those of us who do draw this line, adultery is no cause for resignation.

Although a politician is obligated to represent the views of his party, in both private and public life, we as human beings, realise in some things we cannot judge too harshly.

One of those areas in which we are lenient when judging people is in the matter of love, sex and romance. The reason for this is sex, romance and our desire for love, is a strong and fundamental desire almost everyone has. At the same time few of us would claim to be an expert in love and romance. The people we fall in love and the things that sexually excite us and whether we stay in love with or fall out of love, whether a marriage is satisfying or unfulfilling in some way, is beyond our complete control. We almost all find it a struggle at some point.

We know this about ourselves and so can have sympathy and empathy, when others find themselves publically highlighted because they are having trouble with this aspect of their life.

I believe most people would not vote against someone simply because they were an adulterer. They would simply assess the politician as "having trouble with their marriage". Few married couples, world-wide would claim they have never had trouble with their marriage.

I believe adultery is no reason for resignation, because our drives for sex and love are so strong within most of us, we can feel, (at some point in our lives), almost a "victim" of these drives. That is: in love with the wrong person, or sexually unfulfilled by our spouse.

I think as long as a person does not persue their sexual drives and romantic drives to do illegal things, I feel adultery is no cause for resignation or sacking, as we all recognise these are tricky areas to be happy in and get right, whatever our political beliefs or practices.

The question is, is it better to die from cold than warmth. Most people have interpreted this as, dying from the freezing cold or from being burnt. However, it is not too unreasonable to think of a third alternative.

"Cold" I would define as the feeling that is experienced, when the state of the environment, surrounding a living thing, is below the living thing's/body temperature. Warmth is the opposite, that is: the feeling experienced when the state of the environment surrounding a living thing's/body temperature, is above the natural temperature of a living thing's/body temperature.

So a typical winter day, because it is colder than our present body temperature, it is percieved as a cold day.

By the same reasoning, we can see a typical summer day, in many countries is hotter than our natural body temperature, and so is percieved as being a warm day.

My point is that when the question poses dying from warmth, warmth is not necessarily fire.

Think of situations where there is an access of warmth...the summer days and heatwaves that hit many countries. It is possible to die from a heatwave, unless you have lots of fluids to keep your body hydrated. Although this might take a few days.

Although some would say, this is not dying from warmth, but of dehydration/thirst, perhaps it is worth considering this as one of the possible deaths from warmth.

I think, even in this situation, death by cold would be preferable, because (as has been pointed out in the opinions expressed) the cold would cut down your nerve sensitivity (and so pain) and awareness of the dying process might be less as you passed out before dying.

When dying by warmth/dehydration, I think you would be acutely aware of your body aches and pains and maddeningly aware of the long passage of time, as you passed away from warmth.

God is believed to be an all powerful creator of all existence. This statement most religions would agree is true.

However,when trying to define, what god wants, and what commandments god has given, and what are the most important things mankind should and shouldn't do, then the religions might well find plenty to debate about.

My point is in answering the question, I must answer it according to my belief in, and my own definition of what God is and wants. Without this I cannot have a position on whether god sends messages, or which person is a messenger or not. Unless my belief is that there is no god and there for can be no messengers from something that does not exist.

My own definition of what God is, is: "A non human spirit that rules man, via the mechanism of nature and the occasional direct intervention."

I believe that certain individuals, historically called "angels" or "phrohets" are infact human beings that god has shared more of the hidden rules of nature; rules that govern man's life, both spiritual and physical

These individuals using their understanding of the hidden rules of nature, can use their understanding to guide mankind and give it messages from god. The average indivual is unaware of these rules and not being a "messenger" is unable to understand or percieve these "hidden rules" without assistance or insights from the messengers/angels/prophets.

The reason the messages and religious laws, from various religions, often have different teachings/rules, is because the messages are given or percieved at different levels, depending on the messengers ability to interpet them and understand them and also those following the messages, ability to understand the message and live by it.

I believe there is a God and some people are his messengers but i cannot prove it, either with logical argument or objective evidence. It is just a personal belief.

I believe this question can only be answered by spiritual conviction rather than objective evidence or argument.

Shouting is the right and perhaps even the responsibility of the boss in a few jobs, as that is what the job entails.

Although I think most people would agree that being shouted at is unpleasant, in some jobs where all the staff and boss are agreed that the goal of the job is the most important objective, then shouting is the right of the boss.

Let us look at 2 possible examples:

A football/scoccer team's manager is responsible for managing all elements of a team, to win a game. Everyone on the team (his staff) and the manager, agree that winning the game is the number one priority.

One of the techniques a manager has to motivate his team players is to shout at them. Shouting at them gives expression to his strength of feeling.

He may shout at them, because he is disappointed in their playing, to give them motivation to do better; including saying how they are letting their team down or letting themselves down while playing.

I think most people would find it the right of a soccer coach/manager to shout at his players occasionally. I think some team players would find it odd if he only ever tried to motivate them, by having a "quiet respectiveful chat" with them. It is accepted that his motivation for shouting at them is to motivate them to do their best and not let themselves down (as he is aware they can play better) or the team down. So he has a right, or even an obligation to shout.

While speaking to a movie director, he told me he felt he had a right, to shout (and swear) at his actors or anyone who on the film crew who was letting the standard of the movie slip. He did so only as a last resort.

In film making, the goal of the movie is to create a good movie that will return the investments of the investors, at the box office, as well as keeping up with the standards of the boss (the director) who will give his name to the film. His reputation and artistic vision, is at stake. Millions of pounds (on some occasions over 100 million pounds) maybe invested in that movie. The actors, as well as the film crew, may accept that being shouted at, as a last resort, maybe a technique the director uses to get to this goal, when an actor (or whoever) is not giving his best performance or attension to a scene.

My point is, when there are high stakes and the goal is accepted as being of the utmost importance, some staff realise by signing up, that the boss may well swear at them, as one of his motivational rights.

This is not all bosses. For instance a boss of a firm that just does admin. Shouting will not help. Or anything when immediacy of response is not imperative, or where there is not a high stake goal.

There is nothing unethical about the sale of human organs, what is wrong is the way that organs are currently sold. They are sold while attached to crime and criminal activity.

Selling an organ is a choice someone may make for financial gain. Most of us reading this opinion I am writing, live in capitalist societies. Many people reading this (and certainly many people i have spoken too face to face) do not enjoy their job. Some hate their job but have decided for financial gain to do a job, they don't like, to get and maintain, a standard of living they desire. They have decided to exchange some form of discomfort or suffering (while performing their job) for financial gain.

It is an unpleasant transaction, doing something for money that we would choose not to do if there was no financial consequences, but this unpleasant transaction is something almost all of us, are all familiar with, either by personal experience or via the experiences of people we know.

By selling a kidney or other organ, someone assesses what may come from the loss and also the gain and then makes a choice.

Let me put a proposition to you. What if the price for selling a kidney were say: Ten Million british pounds? (it is nothing like that in real life).

Well would you be willing to sell a kidney?

The consequences of selling a kidney, might include things like giving up alcohol, increased high blood pressure (and all the illnesses that might bring on) against the benefits of quitting your job, a life of leisure, living off your investments, a new house (perhaps with swimming pool and jacuzzi). Which would you choose?

It is possible to have a long and healthy life with one kidney and a life of leisure is a very attractive proposition. This is proposition that many people would at least spend a few seconds thinking about.

The proposition is: giving up something that has a negative effect on your life for something that has a positive effect on your life.

This is what happens every day in a capitalist society. Even if that means spending time, doing something you don't like, in exchange for money to do or get something, you do want. For instance the money to pay your bills in exchange for working at a factory, where the work is hard and cruelling.

The problem with the proposition I have posed in the present day, is that selling a kidney would bring you about probably under £10, 000 and the black market gang would sell it on for a huge profit of over £100,000 This, most people would agree, is not worth it and only the desperate would take it.

By removing organ sales illegality and make it ilegal, this would allow it to be an everyday part of capitalism.

So I have put mixed, because I do not think organ sales, should be allowed until the association with criminality has been taken away and also, that each person selling, should be given access to a councillor of some sort to assess mental health and the financial soundness of their decisions, as well as making sure they have not been co-erced or threatened to sell. So financially there might be avenues the seller has not considered, so a second opinion would be good.

Pineapple does not go on pizza. It doesn't belong there. Because it tastes good.

Why do i say this?

I have really disliked pizza most of my life. I only had it because so many of my friends like it. Rather than be the odd one out at a resturant, or ordering food from home, I would agree to have this bland bad tasting food, called Pizza.

You know the thing., my friends would say: "Let's buy something we can all share!" They agreed on Pizza (as they almost always did) but then when I said I don't like it, they have to reconsider. Eventually I agreed to having pizza, rather than being the odd one out, all the time.

This has led to me getting use to this bland tasting, not far from, horrible tasting food.

Then one day, I tried pineapple on pizza and it was not just tolerable, it was likeable. I have now got into, every few months, buying myself, pineapple topped pizza.

Pizza is unhealthy, pineapple is not. Pineapple taste good, pizza does not.

Some where up there, some devine spirit, sees people putting his wonderful creation of Pineapple, on top of our nasty creation of Pizza, and takes offense.

It is only matter of time, before the world is punished from on high, for the blasphemy of putting the devine, on top of the tacky and commercial.

STOP PUTTING PINEAPPLE ON PIZZA! IT'S WRONG!!!

Fate I would define, as a predetermined destination or event, that a person is unable to prevent or avoid, because it overrides our personal ability to choose otherwise.

Fate may be specific in time, place or may just mention an event. e.g "On the 15th of November 2024, at 9:30am, you will become the CEO of the company you work for"

Or your fate could be less time specific: "One day you will become the head of the company you now work for."

The last example might be a prediction based on observable facts, such as your very good at your job and you want to progress as high as you can go in your career. However, if you didn't want to progress in your career, and planned to stay were you were on the career ladder, then the prediction, would then become a matter of someone saying that it your fate to become the head of your company, regardless of what you intend.

Another example of this is, say, a prediction from a fortune teller that someone will die at a certain date, at certain time in a certain place and despite that person's best conscious effort, they pass away in that place and at the time and the date predicted. Then we would say, they were "fated" to do so.

As can be understood by the above examples, "Fate" is something that is external to our intent, but happens anyway. It seems, if the above fortune teller example were to happen, that our intelligence, creativity, efforts and overall choices do not govern us, but instead "something outside"

At first thinking, it seems fate as defined above, is very unlikely to be governing our lives; it seems a ridiculous proposition.

But where as our intelligence, choices, chosen direction and efforts, seem individually us, what about our genetic code? Do we have any choice about this? Our genetic code has been passed on to us by millions of years of evolution. Is it part of our individuality? Do we make choices from within the framework that it gives us? Or do we have individuality beyond it, despite having never created our genetic code?

My point is that there are numerous accounts of identical twins having weird sychronicities in their choices, despite the fact they have never met. They have the same genetic code and this seems to govern choices, we think of as being governed by the individual.

In an article published in the American Psychological Association in January 2015, called "A double life" psychologist Nancy Segal, mentions 2 identical twins, that have been reared apart. (Been raised seperately, the twins in the study, have grown up sometimes with no knowledge of each other's lives.

One set

were given the same name: Jim.

They also:

did the same job ( sheriff's deputies),

both drove chevy's,

had first wives named Linda and second wifes named Betty,

both chain smoked

but had been seperated at birth and had never met until aged 39!!"

The study she quoted from was the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart (google it for more information.) The study noted genes strongly influence aspects of our personality, intelligence and other traits that had long been thought to be mainly shaped by environment.

My point is if choices and personality traits which we ascribe to our individuality, may well be down to our genes (even to the point of our first and second partners names) then perhaps this notion of fate is not so ridiculous as maybe first thought.

Maybe our individuality is more an illusion and we are more like "gene machines" If so, we are living in a world of other (people) who are also "gene machines". Is it then so ridiculous to think of us having a fate, that is beyond our ability to control? Are we living in a near choice free, gene mechanised reality?

Women ARE aware there are consequences for wearing revealing clothing. One of these consequences could be by wearing clothing, that accentuates them sexually, that they might receive more attention from men and women, and that they may include men who are mildly, or greatly aroused and attracted by the way they are dressing. Women are very aware of this.

For instance: I remember going to a "Singles Night" many years ago. I was watching a huddle of young women sitting at a table, chatting amongst themselves, while waiting for men to approach.

One young woman announced to the group: "I'm going to go for it!" (she meant, quite clearly, she was going to increase her attractiveness and make it easier for a guy to approach, to see if she could attract someone). Because she then stood up and removed a baggy top covering her torso, to reveal a very low plunging neckline, showing lots of cleavage/breast. She then went to the bar by herself. (I would guess going to the bar on her own, would make it easier for a single man to approach her. Sitting in a group, would mean a man would have to be especially confident to approach her.)

In the above example, the point I am making is that women are very aware that the way they dress will attract increased attention.

I think most women are aware in the same way. I would go so far as to say, most women are very aware they could easily attract more attention from men, by changing the way they dress.

However, it is altogether a different thing to say that a woman should be aware she might be raped or assaulted because of the way she dresses.

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot, as we say in the UK, to see what it looks like over there:
If a man has a really big penis, he can emphasize this and make it obvious, by wearing a tight pair of trousers. I know a guy who is very well endowed and when he wears a tight pair of trousers, sometimes, women will start to laugh and catch his eye, while also eyeing his bulge, while making jokes to their female friends about him. Also I have seen women who take sly glances at his bulge.

He is very aware that this occasionally happens when he puts on a pair of tight trousers.

My point is: in the above example, if one of these woman were to come up and grab his bulge based on her interest, would we say: “He was asking for it”? No! We would call it wrong.
Within the law a man and a woman can dress how they like, without being touched, assaulted or insulted. The consequences of not doing so, should be charges of indecent exposure at the very most.

Most men have a self-imposed filter, where we can shut off our sexual desire/ interest. My point is we filter/over rule immediately fulfilling our desire. We all do this when we desire something. We can only have it when it is appropriate. If we can’t do this, we have a problem which should be and will be, dealt with by the law.

I think there is an argument, on this subject, that compares women dressing in particular ways to being equivalent to wearing jewels in a dark alley. Well women are already aware, that dressing in particular ways will increase attention and are aware some of this attention may be on the pushy side.
It takes premeditation to wait in a dark alley. A person just doesn’t find themselves in one. The person waiting in a dark alley is premeditating a crime.

My point here, men generally don’t try and rape women in public, they wait until they are alone. This means they have the capacity for controlling themselves until the time is right. So they have the control. They are not suddenly overcome by lust and rape women. Men that rape are usually just choosing not to exercise the control. So this idea that men are suddenly overcome by natural instincts as in when a starving man, sees a plate of food etc., just doesn’t hold up. This argument supports “rape culture” because it gives a man a get out clause for his actions.

So my position is: Women are aware there are consequences in terms of increased attention due to the way they dress. But men need to be aware, that the way a woman (or man) dresses is not cause or any justification, for any form of sexual insult, or attack. To think otherwise is being part of “rape culture”.

Because the opening statement suggests that women need to change. They do not need to change their awareness they already have it.

I see your point but I don't agree. The word "need" implies that there is something not right presently, that needs to change. To me the focus of the opinion is therefore: what women are not accepting.

Covid 19 is a crisis. No one should be penalised for their actions in dealing with a crisis.

Covid19 and it's long term effect is still be worked out or rather discovered. Every time you look on youtube you can find someone giving a new insight in what the research about the vaccines tells us. Usually this new information is positive and talks of how safe the vaccines are but this is not always the case. Some of the people casting doubt on the vaccines saftey are medical professionals.

People are making the most intelligent decisions they know how to protect what is in important to them: whether it is their health or the health of those around them.

I believe that when in a situation where the vaccinated and unvaccinated both are in dire need, then the medical staff should always go with the person with the best chance of survival.

It's not right to penalise people, when you can find contradictory information to what appears to be the obvious course of action, without having to dig for it..

There is no evidence for "Heaven" and "Hell", other than anecdotal experiences, which seem highly subjective.

However just because there is no strong evidence for a thing, it doesn;t mean we can rule out it's existence.

The matter is even more complex when we realise that when religions talk about "Heaven" and "Hell", they sometimes are talking about spiritual realms. That is: realms that we get to once we no longer have any physical body but would still be real to us. So these realms are likely to be "spiritual" not "physical". If a thing is spiritual rather than physical, can it be called "real"?
Science has not even proven, or disproven, the existence of a "spirit" (as far as I know) let alone a "spiritual realm". So here we are left with questions, rather than an answer.

Another complexity arises when we realise the idea of "Hell" and "Heaven", typically come from ancient times. It is concieveable that these defintions of "Heaven" and "Hell" are discribing some kind of mental experience some people have when dying. To the ancients anecdotal evidence would have been good evidence, lacking any other. Could the idea of a heaven and hell come from common mental experiences people have when dying? People who have died and come back, (in the present era) sometimes discribe an experience of: "going down a tunnel of light" where they arrive at something like: "Heaven" Also I have heard at least one account of someone who came back, talking about going somewhere (that to him) was like a classical "Hell".

Could the ancients have interviewed those rare people, who "came back" and built there beliefs about the afterlife experience on them?

Well I ask you, if our brains are structured to make the death experience have an experience of a "Heaven" or "Hell" does that mean that they actually exist? Exist as in a typical experience that the brain naturally produces?

I dont know the answer.

Right now the is no compelling evidence for the existence of hell or heaven but no compelling evidence to rule them out, either. We have questions concerning this, but no answers we can rely on.

I agree with you. However your position argues strongly that women should have a choice. I believe a relationship based on feminism, is based on equality. So in marriage, a man and woman should discuss their options for names and come to an agreement, rather than the choice being left to a woman.

Myself, being a man, I could never get married and have a woman take on my name while leaving her's behind. Even if that is what she wanted due to many of the reasons already listed in "for".
We would have to discuss it and then come to an agreement we could both live with.

I love starting new projects, if I have a passion and self generated interest in them.

However if I have to start something new because I "need to" or if "I should" but don't really want to, then the joy of learning to master something new is almost lost amongst my winges and protests.

My love is also affected by how difficult it is. As though I maybe enjoying it on some level, I found myself tested by just how complex or difficult it is, whether it is a self generated interest or something allocated by work, to be good for my career.

I am certain of somethings that are true because the evidence is overwhelming, I depend on it day to day, minute to minute and it has never been contradicted; not once, even for a second. This creates the feeling of 100% certainty within me.

I am certain I that i have hands and the hands I am thinking of are mine. I know they are mine as they always respond to me desires and instructions. I can see them do this if i choose to. They are certainly 100% real. My certainty is an emotion I feel without contradicting emotions.

Other parts of my body I have less evidence to prove they are mine and exist, as I have seen them less and "feel their movement" rather than can see it as well as feel it, as is the case with my hands.

Could I have imagined them? Are they only false memories from some strange dream world. It might be possible to talk me into the idea that my face (which i don't see that often) or my legs (usually under some desk, or walking/moving below) are some computer generated sensation. But the same argument would not sway me with my hands.

I concede that scientific evidence, when trying to prove a fact, only gathers evidence that can be interpreted with degrees of certainty. The nature of science is that no matter what the evidence, it is still open to re-interpretation when other evidence arises that seems to contradict the laws previously accepted.

But my hands, I am absolutely certain they are mine and exist.

I believe Karma exists both as a consequence of being social animals and as something that effects our life experience on a deep level, due to us having, or being, souls that survive the body's death.

We are social animals who are taught or trained to believe in right and wrong. We each have an unconscious, which reacts in ways we are not conscious of.

Our socialization programmes our unconscious laying the foundation for values and beliefs. Our values and beliefs also come from our reasoning.

Within most of us is a sense of justice and fair play that has come from cultural programming, socialising and from our reasoning.

My point is that most of us walk around with a score chart in our heads based on our values as to whether we owe or are owed, deserving or underserving.

So doing, we interact with a desire to balance our experience of the outside world with what we feel is right inside.

If we do an injustice I believe most of us feel, on a deep unconscious level that we are living out of balance. A part of us wishes to balance it and so allows us, through self-sabotage to make ourselves vunerable to that same injustice.

If we do a kindness, we are more receptive to kindness because we feel more deserving and so contrive to put ourselves in situations to experience and accept kindness into our lives.

The reason this balancing, seems sometimes quite magical is because, the unconscious is such a powerful thing that it has abilities we are presently unaware of to bring about balancing events. These events that balance our sense of what is right, we call Karma.

Karma also comes from the same mechanism when we bring our sense of justice (our right and wrong score card) from previous lives. The soul brings from a previous life, into this life, a sense of injustice or justice, owed or owing, or deserving or undeserving. Depending on what happened in these other lives.

I have no evidence that I can relate to prove this, it is just a belief based on my experiences of past life regression and interactions with people in this life, who I "owed" from a previous life. But it is a quite a strong belief of mine.

"Objective" proofs of Karma and previous life regression, I have always found unimpressive.

Great Point!

I think this comment is very insightful and I agree it with it in almost all instances.

However we are not yet at a point where it would be wise in my opinion to completely pay the bill, as an acknowledgement women are unjustly paid and so doing, seeing it as feminst act.

I do not think it wise, because the majority expectation is still to fulfill gender stereotypes in dating, and paying for the whole bill, re-inforces this in the present era.

I mean, would both parties see it as feminist act? How would one broach such a subject to your date? Unless both parties saw it as feminist act it would more likely be an act of reinforcing stereotypes.

I think saying: "I would like to pay for your meal because you are a woman and women are unfairly paid in society" is not the sort of thing I would say on a date. If unsaid, then there is that ambiguity which may mean I am enforcing gender stereotypes rather than performing a feminist act.

Science and religion are inherently in conflict because they both claim to have understanding concerning the nature of ourselves and the world around us and arrive at different conclusions concerning them.

Religions usually claim their understanding, and the laws and rules that come from that understanding, is complete. It's understanding often comes from one or more "holy books", in which "the truth" is contained.

While science accepts that any understanding and laws it uncovers, is subject to revision or alteration or elaboration, when further evidence comes to light, or a better understanding is created while looking at old evidence.

Science also likes to test the laws it uncovers with experiments. Religion tends not to do this.

Science also strongly prefers evidence that is got from more than one source. Religions tend to believe whatever is in their holy book/s is the truth and disqualifies evidence as irrelevant, false or wrong, that contradicts it.

Science also prefers the idea of the simplest answer is more likely to be true, while religions claim that their holy book/s account is true, however elaborate or unproven the elaboration is.

While science does not currently accept ideas like: "the spirit" or "the soul" (as far as I know) it is, in theory, open to accepting such things exist, if strong evidence arises.

While science does not concern itself directly with such concepts as "the meaning of life" (like religion does) science can, (through the open minded gathering of evidence) assist the individual to make choices to arrive at their own conclusions concering such questions. For instance through the theory of Evolution science has uncovered that the least well adapted species survive and procreation is something that all species do. An individual might believe from this, that his/her meaning in life is to procreate and to be well adapted to survive.

Science investigates ideas, which were the province of religion, such as:

How did the world or universe begin?

How did life begin?

What is mankinds' origin and ancestors?

When will the world end if it follows it's present course around the sun?

What is the nature of our consciousness?

Why does the sun rise in the morning?

Why do we get certain diseases? (For instance leprosy was thought to be caused by sin and reincarnationist still believe some illness people are born with are caused by previous life wrong doing)

Does the sun revolve around the earth or does the earth revolve around the sun?

The list is endless. Science has few boundaries on what it can test for and try to create theories for (based on repeatable experiments) So science and religion will inevitably be in conflict as few subjects and claims are off limits to prove or disprove.

The question states that homosexual people cannot feel that theirhmosexuality is normal.

It is difficult to tell what people feel on the inside. I listen/read what people say they feel and what they say they believe and assume that is an honest account, unless I have evidence to the contrary.

The evidence to the contrary could be their actions. However in any court of law any action that someone performs, cannot prove the feelings that are behind it. This can be done by deduction from the circumstances, but mostly it is done by listening to what the person claims their emotions were at the time of their actions.

Clearly many homosexual people say that they believe and feel that their homosexuality feels normal because they believe it is normal.

I do not think, I or anyone else, can honestly dispute their claim as other people's feelings are mostly knowable, by their claims. (I suppose some experts in body language or lie detecting might say they can see through a false claim. But even evidence gathered by this method is only reliable to some extent.)

I think we must conclude, based on our respect for every law abiding, tax paying, faction of society, that homosexual people's feelings are what they claim they are.

Thanks Turi

The traditional idea of a soul mate is of one person in the world, who romantically speaking, you are meant to be with and spend our life with. These days the notion has also come about that once you find them, you will have no more problems. Rather than the traditional view that you will go through "thick and thin" with them.

First I would like to take issue with the idea that you can do a statistical analysis of how likely you are to find your soulmate, if there is one person out there in all the world that is your soulmate.

The word: "soul" in itself implies that we are dealing with a spiritual subject and that there is magic in the world. To me, once magic is involved, you also accept that things like "meaning and intent" have power in the world. So straight forward statistical analysis cannot predict how likely things are to happen. You cannot predict how likely you are to meet your soulmate if magic is involved.

The rest of my points are based on experience, observation and deduction:

When soulmates meet they find they have an immediate connection and find it easy to get on and feel attraction to each other. Some soulmates, claim they knew: "This is the person I am going to marry, within one hour of meeting them"

They may find they share values that they find very important, that set them apart from the vast majorities of other peoples values. This unusual view the may share and hold without having had to discuss it. Also on a deep level they share each others strongest values more generally.

They may also find there is a telepathic connection.
Also, they mind find despite distance, they have a weird sychronicity of experience. That is what is happening in one of their lives is happening in the others person's life and this link, is strong enough to be noticed and commentated on.

People may find, that if they were to share their deepest livelong stumbling blocks, (the ones that we fear to share because we fear most people would reject us ), our soulmate would simply smile with pleasure and say: "I can and would love to help you with that" .

Romantic soulmates can help and would love to help with our soul deep, life long stumbling blocks; that is one of the reason they are soulmates

A romantic soulmate is someone who is a perfect fit, a missing piece to our souls' deep issues and we to theirs. After meeting them and persuing the connection our souls "mate" and we grow more whole.

However it is never going to be easy and without problems. Nothing in life is. How manypeople do you share those deep issues and emotional burdens with, that set you apart and might make them reject you? If you don't share them with your soulmate, they are unlikely to find out just how deep this connection goes.

Even with a soulmate life is still going to have many problems.

Where as I believe there is only one romantic soulmate, I believe romantic growth and development is possible with lots of people who fit you romantically. If you miss your soulmate for whatever reason, you still can grow and feel loved.

There also friends we make, who see into us, with whom we share deep values from the first moment we meet them and have a friendship that will support and help us and them, grow.

I think it is unwise to obesses and wait for a soulmate but I believe soulmate do exist.

I have not seen all Christmas movies, so I cannot say that it is the best Christmas Movie ever. However there is an interesting fact concerning it.

According to wikipedia it was voted as the most inspirational american movie of all time, in a study by the American Film Institute in 2006.

I think, though it is just my opinion, it is one of those movies that can influence your moral character, if you see it when your young and still working out your values. It certainly influenced mine!

I believe in Reincarnation, however I cannot refer to any concrete/objective evidence for it's existence.

I have seen a documentary where it claims to show evidence of reincarnation's existence. I was not impressed with it. My belief in reincarnation is based on the power of some of my experiences and due to my interpretation of them.

I think the mind has a tendency to find and see evidence for what it believes.

In my case, I have been regressed in hynpotherapy. The therapist did not tell me we would be going back to a previous life...this was not mentioned. They wanted to know when the problems I had been encountering first began and asked the mind to go there. (I was suffering from a phobia)

To my surprise images came into my head and these images where about past life traumatic experiences.

Some of the lifes where clearly untrue: it was just a comfortable way of talking about situations that were happening in my present life, using a way of distancing myself from the here and now.

Other times however, the experiences were very strange. It was as if a different part of the mind took over and I was in some way and "observer" of what I was saying while hypnotised. At these times I might predict what would happen in my present life, based on unresolved traumas, or relationship dynamics, in my previous lifes.

These predictions would come true, not years later, but the same day or a week or two later.

As you can see, this is not hard evidence, to anyone but myself, as they were very unique to my perspective.

Also I have found that a believe in another life is a stress reducing belief. I find that when dealing with feelings of not having not achieved this or that in this life, a belief that you will have "another shot at succeeding" in another life, is quite relaxing. It takes away the sense of urgency or failure in my life.

Legality and morality are the same thing. However legality is the agreed morality of a nation rather than of a faction of a nation.

Laws represent social bodies attempt, to have agreed, reasonable restrictions, practices and penalities, for defined interactions in society. If a law is unreasonable and does not represent what society or social bodies, considers reasonable, then there is pressure for it's revision or end.

Morality is an attempt for individuals or societies to create codes of behaviour, which represent reasonable standards when interacting with others or things, or social bodies, in society.

When I say "things" I can give for an example, burning a national flag. Some might say that there are times when burning a national flag in public is sometimes justified as a political statement, others might say it is always unacceptable. Some might call it is a completely immoral act others might say it acceptable under certain circumstances.

Laws are subjective, and try to take into account ideas and notions that are social concepts such as: "fairness" and "right and wrong". All of these notions stem from our collective emotions and notions about the way the world "should work."

Morality, while hotly debated, stems from our collective emotions and notions about social concepts, such as: "fairness" and "right and wrong" and the way the world "should work"

Therefore morality and legality are identical, except legality is the collectively agreed morality of the country or body it represents. However legality is constantly evolving in its attempt to follow and get right, it's reflection of a country's or social body's, morality.

Most of us live in democratic societies, so we should see legality as the democratically agreed morality of our country. As we adhere to democratic principles, we should have reverence for the laws and see them as the highest form of morality, as they are morals that have been collectively agreed.

If we believe "democratic morality" = law, is presently unjust, we should try to bring them inline with morality.

So legality and morality are identical, except that legality is a higher form of morality. Although there is sometime a time lag in getting the law right, once we have agreed, or attempting to agree, our collective morality.

I see your point but I don't agree.

I imagine that the reason it is has been become illegal to burn certain types of coal in your country, is that there are problems with burning that type of coal. At a guess, the reason for not burning certain types of coal might be because certain types of coal are more ecologically damaging to the environment. To put ecology above the right to make profit with a certain type of coal, is a moral judgement, that many societies are coming to agree with. In essence the countries are coming into agreement that although we have the right to live in the here and now, profitably, we must have that right curtailed for survival in the future.
This moral judgement is put into law via the stipulations of those in power. The law in this case stems from and is an agreed moral judgement.

The speed a person drives down a road, given their right to get to a destination fast is agreed by all as a right. However that right has to be weighed in terms of safety. This estimation and the agreed driving limit could be called an agreed moral judgement that has been put into law concerning safety and the right to drive fast.
The faster one drives without regard to safety, the more likely it is to be called an immoral act. For instance to drive down certain roads at 20 miles per hour at certain times of day (say when school children are leaving school) might be a matter of law. If one were to drive down that road, at 25miles an hour, some people might frown and say: "That's wrong". However to drive down that road at 80miles per hour at that time of day, some would say is: “outrageous and criminal".

However because we all agree that it is reasonable to drive at certain speeds in certain areas, the law tries to reflect our morals. In the case of speed limits that is, safety for other road users must be taken into account, when exercising your right to get to a destination fast.
The law estimates this speed according to our agreed morals about the subject. If people are getting knocked down on that road, or people are not getting to their destination fast enough then the speed limit may have to be changed to more adequately reflect the populations feelings concerning the moral priorities that are concerned with this law.

That is not what my opinion says. My opinion is quite different. Perhaps you would like to reread my points? With respect, my points are clearly not how you have assessed them. There is no point me repeating them, when I have already stated them clearly.

It is not condescending to ask someone to reread the points that have been made, so that they can respond to the points that have been made. Rather than suggest I should make a different point.

My understanding of debating, is to explore positions/ideas by refuting the points that have been made by making points of your own that address the points that have already been made. This applies however much "you know you are right". No offense intended.

I think I will not respond to anything else you write, incase this thread is lead away from the heading or it becomes personal, rather than a debate.

Let's agree to disagree.

I think we can agree however, that we are not getting anything positive out of this, such as exploring ideas.

Respectively I wish you well. bye.

I believe people should work all their lives. However i would take issue with the definition of "work". Perhaps a new definition of what should constitute paid for work, should appear as machines take over more of our traditional jobs.

I believe the assertion is meant to imply work as action that contributes or interacts with the world in a way that gives monetary gain, that insures a standard of living or a monetary contribution to it.

My definition of work in relation the to the context of the opening statement , is: "an action where the actionee, has to bring what he/she acts upon, to a standard, that in some way contributes to society"

In the below examples, in no way I mean't to imply this is what an elderly person should only do or mostly do, but are only examples so you can see what I mean.

For instance, if I am elderly I should do "work" like interacting with my grandchildren or the young. When I interact with them, I teach them cultural values, customs on politeness and conversation. I create an emotional link, that means they are more likely to care for the vunerable and less able. I need not have a "lesson" to teach them, mere everyday interaction teaches.

If I have no grandchildren, and don't interact with the young, well how about chatting to the neighbours? This promotes neighbourhood harmony and social interaction. For many people social interaction is necessary to feel happy and fulfilled.
While chatting you are observing social rules, such as respect for conversational conventions and respect and interest in others. This is a social contribution to the whole community.

What about if you do the gardening. Well doesn't that contribute to the beauty of the neighbourhood or country side if you are living surrounded by it. if you are doing your own vegetables, well isn't that a contribution to society, a lesson to all about independence and the benefits of learning something in enough depth, so you can become more self sufficient?

My point is all actions, that require bringing things up to a standard, where it can be seen as in someway benefitting society, could be called work. Including working on the self in therapy.

I believe we should undertake this kind of work however old we get and hopefully, one day society will see it as something that should be financially supported as worthwhile contributions to society.

I

This is an excellent point and sums up my observation of family and friends.

Many women I know, say that looks shouldn't matter in dating preferences.

But I have known of women who think looks shouldn't matter in dating preferences but when it comes to a man who is shorter than them, it is a hard line, they will not cross and they aren't indirect about telling me so.

I also know a charming, suarve, successful guy, who cannot find a girlfriend to be in a public relationship with. But outside the public eye, once women get to know him, he gets lots of women hitting on him in private, who want a purely physical relationship with him.

I'd guess this is because he has a quite a sexy personality but in public he wouldn't look the part of their boyfriend, as he is too short. So they want a "fling" outside the public eye.

It really gets him down.

There are many circumstances where you might not be able to be loyal to your family due to your moral codes.

The moral codes you might be loyal to, instead of being loyal to your family, might originate from your own reasoning, or might originate from society or might even originate from your family.

Would you be loyal to your family, if you discovered a family member had engaged in paedophillic crimes, race hate crimes, or serial murder and had no intention of stopping? Would loyalty to your family involve calling the police, turning a blind eye, or helping that family member cover up?

Would you be loyal if your family member was a spy to a rival company where you are an employee? or even a spy against a country you had allegiance to?

Would you be loyal to your family if you happen to be born into a mafia crime family? Would you participate, turn a blind eye, or help to cover-up their crimes?

Although these are extreme cases, these are dilemmas that people do face.
Before saying that" you should be loyal to your family members" is an absolute rule that eveyone should follow, it is reasonable to consider them.

It is good to be proud of the country of your birth, assuming you are still living in the country of your birth and the country of your birth has not done many things to make you unable to feel proud of it..

Although the country of your birth is completely out of your conscious control, it is good from a the point of view of having a healthy positive perspective mind set to have a positive feeling and perspective about where you live.

Just being born in a country and growing up in it, does create a "loose association" with it's inhabitants and history which can bring a sense of pride. After all in a country we are living under the same laws and dominant culture and dominant social mores. We experience the same country wide hardships in times of national crisis.

One can be proud of living in a country just because you are born there and have choosen to view your country in a positive light.

So it not foolish, if you are living in it, on the country it is good for a healthy and positive mindset to be proud of it.

Of course you can take this to a dangerous level, where your sense of pride makes you see other countries in a negative way because of their differences, that may lead to aggression and war. But a sense of pride in where you live is healthy and positive.

Men "should cry" as many people gain their identities through gender stereo-types.

Creating a gender stereotype where men "should" cry would influence society in becoming accepting of the right for men to be influenced and even "over whelmed" by their emotions.

While I agree that the ideal is that men shouldn't have to do anything and no acts should define you as masculine, or not masculine, the fact is, many people are influenced strongly in their identities and actions by simple stereo-types of what they should and shouldn't be. Or put another way, without gender stereo-types many people struggle with knowing how to express themselves. They do not know what is acceptable and what is not acceptable and look to the media to find acceptable ways of expressing themselves.

I have listened to female friends, struggling with how to be "caring" in some situations, when they weren't naturally very caring people, simply because society said they should be caring.

If also listened to men telling me about full blown arguments with their female partners about whether "putting out the bins/trash is a man's or woman's job" leading to them walking out . My point is many many people, of whatever sex, struggle with how to express their masculine or female identity. They cannot think for themselves.

Their is a magazine industry that cashes in on this, where icons of masculinity or femininity express what they do.

The idea is that the reader of these magazine, then feels up on the latest or acceptable ways of expressing their masculinity or femininity in everything from opinions to style of dress. They then follow suit or know where they are with their choices concerning how to express their masculinity and femininity.

This is the world as it is, unfortunately. Some people cannot think for themselves in terms of self definition. They need role models.

I believe that by creating an image that men "should cry" we would influence men who are influenced and follow societies conventions. This would allow them to express their emotions more honestly and openly.

As to whether society needs to combat it, I have no statistics to quote, as some of my fellow commentators have but below is some of the things that some of my female friends have said about men and their emotions:

1. "What does it matter how a man feels?"" (a female friend discussing a potential male partner)

2. "It doesn't matter how you feel. It should only matter how the woman feels. That is what a man should focus on." ( A date of mine discussing how all interactions, should go between a man and his partner. She meant I should never think about how I felt, only about how she felt.)

3. "I've heard of women crying...." (In this case, I was being told off, by a female friend, for crying at a sad story in a story telling performance, where the emotions of loss, duty, loyalty and sacrifice came out. I didn't see anything wrong with crying at a sad story. She did, as that was the province of women!)

With society wide, strongly held beliefs in the uk, such as those expressed above, ( held, not just by many women, but by many men) then I think a new simple stereo-type would do a lot of good.

Human body smells are natural.

While most people, I believe, would agree, it is not good to have a body odour strong that people at a distance/across a room can smell it, it is not undersirable to have some kind of body odour.

People find body smells, disgusting, sexy, and I imagine everything in between. Could it be that part of what attracts us, or repels us, quite naturally from our sexual partners is their body odour?

I remember a female dating coach advising everyone, before going on a date, to change their clothes and put on fresh clothes 1- 2 hour before leaving their home. She suggested that it was a good idea that even fresh clothes should smell a little of human body odour.

If so, isn't body smell a natural factors that make us make the mating choices we make?

I have known one or two women who find male sweat exciting.

I am aware that the evidence (according to google anyway) for human pheromones, is weak.

However, my point is, let us not be too quick to assume body smells should be washed off and/or replaced by chemicals we produce, under the assumption that some smells are bad and others good.

Let us assume that all parts of us, have some reason and play some part in our social/evolutionary interaction. Rather than have simple rules such as "washing everyday " is what we should be doing.

Let us not stink, but let us smell a bit.

The only responsibility to society that a company has is to deliver a profit to it's shareholders, is undeniably true.

Often when a company claims to have motives other than this, the company is merely paying lip service to those who wish to dress up the real motives of business, in clothes of "social responsibility".

They do this, because it is currently seen as a good thing to have a socially caring face and the business fears losing gains, unless it has a warm friendly caring face.

A business is caring and socially responsible when it pays it's taxes and stays within the law in it's business practices. Laws and taxes are part of society and insure that those situations, people and things, society agrees to be cared for and respected, are cared for and respected.

A business may wish to concentrate some of it's taxes in avoiding paying taxes by looking for loopholes but this is still within the law.

Therefore business should concentrate in it's actions on staying within the law, to a lesser extent paying it's taxes and getting it's shareholders a big profit and leave the how and why's of being socially responsible to those who are elected or specialise in understanding or representing, or acting upon, issues of social responsiblity

I think society would be better if people were more obedient to authority. But with the caveat that this would only improve society when the society is democratic.

Political protest is not a form of civil disobedience. It is allowed under law. Or put another way authority allows political protest, that is peaceful. Given this, it is possible to create a demonstration that demonstrates views and strenth of feeling that is contrary to what policies or actions, those in authority have deemed allowable or unallowable. You can also create pressure groups, or write to those in authority to express your discontent.

Whether those who are discontented are creating a demonstration, pressure group, or whatever form their discontent is given voice, it is usually permissable in a democratic society.

Avoiding illegal methods of changing society and accepting the rules of society, means that more people will learn and practice expressing themselves in channels, such as legal protests, letters to their MP's and pressure groups. this would bring about more change rather and less rule breakers. Changes that might well benefit society.

For instance, in the uk many many people, smoke and love, marijuana. They smoke it illegally, as it is illegal in the uk to be in possession of the substance. Yet recently since lockdown, while walking down the street in city centre, I can often smell it being smoked. It is commonly smoked.

If all these people where to obey authority and instead channel their discontent into letters to their MP's I dare say, that it would be presently legal in the uk.

I am not trying to divert the debate into a argument about Marijuana. My point is: with greater obedience to the law, comes greater motivation to bring about change, and greater familiarity and skill with methods of doing so. This leads to a greater likelihood of change coming about; changes that conforms to what more people want.

We are very probably living in a simulation.

Technology is rapidly developing and infact the development is picking up speed. It was less then 130 years since the wright brothers first flew
Since then we have sent people to the moon and back and now hope to send humans to Mars.

A present day pocket calculator has 10's of 1000's times as much computation power than the computers that sent men to the moon, just 50 or so, years ago.

There is presently something called spaceengine.org, which is a simulation of the latest available information about the astronomical universe. This exists now. It updates as new scientific informaton comes in.

Clearly as we are creating simulations of the universe now, we can do more complex versions in the future.

So the next question we can consider is: what motivation would we have to create a more complex simulated universe?

Well spaceengine.org, I imagine, is created for entertainment as well as education.

Presently spaceengine.org does not simulate civilisations or artificial intelligence. But could it? and would it?

A civilisation could learn a lot about itself if it could create simulations of it's past era's.By programming in, known factors and known personalities, a ancestor simulation, could allow us to examine key points in history and why this happened and what happened in more detail. Also it would allow us to run simulations where we change the factors or personalities involved in key points in our history, to examine different outcomes.
An ancestor simulation could be very useful.

Also imagine the entertainment of having your own universe of personalities to play with, where you could change a factor, or change a personality and come out with a different "story ending" every time. This could be done for world changing events, or an level of story.

This story would be in a simulation where most of the artificial intelligences thought they were real and took everything 100% seriously. Wouldn't that be a entertaining thing to have on your computer?

Artificial intelligence, may be in it's infancy now, but how long will it take to evolve into something that is indistinguishable from real intelligence? What do you think? A 100 years?

Well even it is 100 years, given that computer technology is always becoming more advanced, then what will that artificial intelligence look like in a 1000years, I ask you?

I have written the above to make the point that a simulation indistinguishable from reality to by the Artificial Intelligences that live in it, is not only possible, but likely, for the reasons of: growth in the capablities of technology, and for entertainment and scientific/sociological interest.

Once one of these artificial universes with artificial intelligences are created, with the growth of the capabilities of technology, then they will become increasingly common until there are 1000's or even billions of these artificial universes for every one universe that is real. As everyone may want one, for entertainment and curiosity and one day be able to afford one.

Given that the artificial universe (the simulation) would be completely real to its inhabitants, what are the chances then of us living in the "one that is real"? Isn't it billions to one?

The probability is then, given the growth in our technological capabilities and intelligent life's love for science and entertainment, that we are living in a simulation.

Yes, I think it does.

If we are living in a simulation rather than reality, who is to say that our creators (those that have created our artificial reality) have included all aspects of real reality. For instance perhaps they have given our intelligence a notion of something called a "soul" without giving us a soul. Perhaps they have copied imperfectly reality due to the limits of their computer power or because there is, for their purposes, no need to create a perfect respresentation

What if we have been given the notion of a heaven, and in the real reality there is a heaven, but in this simulated reality there is no heaven.

So I mean: "What if we have been put in a simulated reality with less chance of satisfaction than true reality. All we can examine, is what has been put into the simulation and never have the chance to understand real reality, just a second rate copy of it."

I see your point. However, for some of us, attempting to understand the fundamentals of nature and our reality is part of what makes us happy. (This is why religion maybe so popular. Many people like to believe that their actions make sense in some larger and fundamental whole.)

People have fought and died for their religion. So the true/fundamental nature of reality, is very important for a large amount of people

If we are living in a simulation then I could never be entirely happy, as the nature of true reality, beyond the simulation, would always vex me.

The opportunity to work, is not the same as being offered a reasonable job, for reasonable pay, with reasonable prospects for a future increase in pay and lifestyle.

I remember a period of unemployment where, I was on benefit and I was offered a job.

The job I was offered was in a factory. My job would have been working in a room in the factory where there were intense fumes.

I was told when shown this room that: "The fumes where 'not dangerous' but just smell".
I had my doubts, as the atmosphere felt toxic the moment I entered. Several years working in such an atmosphere couldn't be good for my health. I think a lot of people must have felt the same way about this job, as the employers couldn't find someone to fill the job. The pay was also terrible. I'd guess they were hoping to employ someone pretty desperate for a job.

I did not see this as a resonable job offer, as I felt I was being asked to risk my health, in an unpleasant working environment for small amounts of pay. Luckily for me, the governmental rule by which you couldn't turn down any job offer (or you would face possible penalities for refusing) was not being enforced with this particular job.

My point is, not all job opportunities are reasonable.

In employment, experience is often key to being hired. Once you gain experience in one field of employment, then that is the type of job employers are most likely to employ you in again. So the type of job you accept is likely to influence what type of job you are seen as fit for, in the future. So taking an opportunity is likely to have some long term consequences on your future employment and so, pay and so future lifestyle.

It is reasonable, for someone with training in the skills of a manager to "wait until the right job comes along". If s/he were to accept a job, of say purely manual work, possible future employers would wonder if he could make the step up to a managerial level.

While s/he is waiting for a job that fits their skill set, it is not unreasonable for society to give the trained manager some breathing space, while s/he attends interviews for his skilled work, rather than take the first opportunity that comes along; which maybe unskilled work in a factory.

I think most people have some degree of aspiration and as we feel we have the right to persue our aspirations, so we should be in favour of other people having the opportunity to persue theirs

So anyone trained in a particular field should be supported by society, for a while at least, while they seek employment in that field, if employment in that field is a reasonable possibility.

However, I think, if someone refuses reasonable work because they wish to become an astronaunt, (or have any aspirational job) with no hope or reasonable plan, of doing so in the definable future, then society does have the right, to say this is not reasonable and have a look at limiting or stopping support to that individual.

I believe you are generally obligated to help those that help you. As doing to others as they do to you, is one of the cornerstones of civilised behaviour.

However there are times, when people will try and use the social etiquette, "if you give something, you should get something" to obligate someone so that they can get things they want out of you, while giving you things you don't want.

When this happens you are perfectly entitled to take what is forced on you while giving nothing in return.

So it is a good idea to seek some form of general agreement in a transaction, of giving and getting, before making an exchange.

Some machines are conscious now.

By machine, I mean something that is non organic created by something that is organic, that is created with the intent of it performing a task or tasks.

By conscious I mean, possessing a sense of self and a sense of others, being separate of self.

Although conscious maybe definable, it cannot be seen like an arm or leg, but it can be deduced by watching the actions of a thing.
For instance you may not think an ant is conscious, as it goes along and does things for its' home: an anthill. However you can see it trying different paths to get to what ever goal or direction it has choosen. Or if you try and kill it, it may well try to avoid being crushed by increasing it's speed, dodging, or hiding.

Observing an ants' actions, to survive or to achieve something, you can see it trying different solutions. This leads to deducing that the ant has consciousness.

Presently some machines have all the actions that lead people to deduce they are dealing with a conscious thing.

Let us take a computer for instance: a computer will switch itself off when it is kept on too long and the heat becomes too much. So it is acting to protect itself.

If you allow it too, it will update itself to protect itself from online threats and more efficient software.

But you might think, this is all programmed in by the manufacturer's computer experts and the user's choices.

However, are we not programmed by our DNA? Aren;t are choices dictated by our genes and how and what we are told by our authourity figures/programmers, like our Mom and Dad, our schools etc. Aren't we programmed? Are we more than our, DNA, Genes, programming and nuture?
Is then a computer more than it's physical components and it's programming and it's interations and adjustments it makes, when working with the external world?

But you might say: is a computer self aware? Does it have a sense of self that is individual? Can it set it's own agenda/objective?

Computers are aware of it's individuality due their blue tooth features,, internet capabilities, that it has a specific name, and ip address.; so part of it's function is to be aware of other computers and things exist outside it's own being.

Computer's have ways of backing themselves up, and also to realise when they are not working and to report it. This is a form of self awareness and like the ant, self protection.

As for being individual, have you ever watched and listened to a computer expert working on a machine? They will say of the machine they are working on: "Oh! It doesn't like that!" When the computer does something that they don't understand. Or they might say: "I don't know why, but it seems to be working now!"

This is because computers can be so complex that ther actions seem temperamental and unpredictable to experts; computers are evolving in complexity.
Our DNA is so complex we do not refer to it, when explaining our behaviour. Computers are much more simple than us but are becoming so complex that even those who know it at the level of it's DNA/programmes, sometimes give up on exactly why or how computers/machines do what they do,

But can a computer, set it's own agenda? This is a question that is the eqivalent to asking, (if it was posed at a human):

"Do we have free will? Are we no more than our DNA and our programming? Are we know more than the result of our interactions and are our actions, no more than the result of our reactions to internal and external forces?
I believe we are no more than our programming and external forces (nuturing) or put it in the computers case/terms: programming, interactions with other computers and users and pecularities due to the computers individuality/complexity

Computers are presently conscious, just at a less evolved stage of it's expression of consciousness, than we are.

In the contention, useful, is definable as serving the good of the whole. The whole being society.

Society is definable as a group of individuals living together, in the same territory, under agreed rules. Some of these rules maybe social norms, others legal.

The agreed rules govern the behaviour of the individuals, so that order is maintained, in a way that individuals agree to be fair.

Legal rules are enforced by the law, while social normals are enforced by negative stereotyping and negative reactions from other members of society and sometimes they are enforced by the law.

However, society is made up of individuals, who by definition, have differences. These differences may not be unique to an individual but may represent a sub group in society with different norms.

When individuals don't agree that the rules, governing their behaviour are fair, they can protest. Or they can find someway to change the rules, or may just disregard them, to accommodate the desired behaviour of the individuals who think the rules to be unfair. Those rules they desire to change can be legal or social norms.

To make an example:
A man who prefers to wear dresses, does not try to act for the good of society when her wears a dress, in public. He does it because he, as an individual, prefers it. Having to wear stereotypically male clothing is a social norm (that exists in some societies) that some men find oppressive and so is not good for the emotional health of these individuals. So some societies norms do not presently accommodate these individuals sense of fairness.

So by showing their desire with a publicly visible act, an act born of desire, rather than desire to change society, or be of use to society, men who wear womens clothing in public, challenge a social norm. They challenge it in those societies, where it is not a social norm and has stigma attached to it. So they challenge the norm, which is of use to society, they may bringing about a new social norm.

This is how, sometimes, societies' rules evolve to the good of the whole of society.

So a person does not have to try to be useful to society, because if an individual acts with only his self interest in mind, while abiding by the legal rules, he represents the desire of an individual. His act is of use society, even though acting from that desire may not be intended to be for the good of society.

A legal act, representing the desires of an individual, may challenge the norms of society but may not aimed at benefiting society. However it does benefit society, by making the desire of the individual known and visible. The desire of an individual probably represents the desire of a subgroup of society.

This legal act, maybe accommodated by society in terms of new social norms or laws to protect the rights of the individual to express his preferences.

So an indvidual need not try to be of use to society, he need only act from his desire, publicly, to be of use to society, while disregarding social norms, while still upholding the laws.

Thanks.

Great argument!

A psychic, could be defined as someone who can know things using esp (extra sensory perception). They may know things by their ability to see into the future, or read minds. The psychic knows things using senses beyond the current understanding of science.

I have seen documentaries which explained "cold reading" and other ways psychics can tell information, that apears to come from their ESP but does not.

However two interesting experiements were done in television documentaries that seemed to suggest psychics might be real.

(I'm afraid I don't have any references. )

The first was a test of psychic ability called dowsing. Someone who called himself "The Amazing Randi" set up a test where, something was hidden under a box. Then the dowser was asked to find which box, out of a array of boxes, the thing was hidden under.

The dowser did not approach the large array of boxes surrounding him, instead, he maintained a distance and waved a rod at each box in turn. Amazingly he was able to identify the box where the thing was hidden.

However, I am aware that one test cannot prove that dowsing works.

Another experiment, in a interesting documentary, tried to eliminate cold reading. A psychic was asked to give a reading to a person. What the psychic did not know was that the person who was he reading was given special instructions.

The person being read was suppose to reply "No" to whatever was asked by the psychic and did so.

In the reading the psychic, despite being told "No" again and again, when asked a specific question of the person being read, kept coming back to the same question again and again, as if he knew that where as the person being read, was saying no, the answer was infact: "Yes"

The answer to the question that the psychic kept returning too, was infact yes.

However, it might have been the psychic was picking up on the body language of the person being read. Perhaps the body language said yes, while the person being read, was verbally saying "No" .

The Universe is not infinite because when observing the physical world we can find no proof (or strong evidence) that infinity exists. All our experience of infinity is based on theories and abstracts.

A circle appears to have an infinite aspect. You can continue along the line of the circle for ever. However it is drawn in a physical world of 3 dimensional space, so it is not infinite. A circle is an abstract drawn where it presumes a 2 dimensional reality.

If you make a circle into a sphere made of real matter you can see that it does not fill 3 dimensional space and so cannot be discribed as infinite.

In particle physics we have discovered tiny particles, but so far we don't have proof, that these are infinitely divisible. Infact we are having huge trouble splitting them, if we can do it at all.

Common sense tells us that it is possible to move infinitely fast, (we only need to add more energy to whatever propels us ) Yet, due to experiments with reality, we now have strong evidence, that you can only move through space so fast. There is a top speed.

In distance, it seems common sense, whatever distance you move, you can always move half that distance. So then is space infinite? We have no proof that it is, other than our common sense and our abstract reasoning. Perhaps, like when we try to split particles and only get so far, perhaps space is made of "distance particles", which limit how little it is possible to move.

We only find infinity in theories and abstracts, so the universe is very unlikely to be infinite, as it is physical and not an abstract created from our imaginations and abstracts .

Gambling could, i think be reasonably defined as waging a stake (money or anything else) on a game of chance, or on a proposition, or activity with an uncertain outcome, with the hope of winning a prize. The prize could be money or something else.

However using this simple definition, investing in the stock market is a form of gambling.

I think, the form of gambling being referred to here is where the activity, proposition, or thing being bet on, exists as a form of sport, competition, which partly exists so that people can bet or wager on it.

By this definition, i think, betting on horse racing, or in a casino is gamblng but investing in the stock market is not.

Gambling is an activity where people try to get money without working for it. I am defining "work" here as "a contribution to society".

So in my later definition investing in the stock market is a contribution to companies, that add to society, while betting on horse races or the casino, is an attempt to win money and only adds to companies, whose existence is not focused on providing a service to society, other than giving the opportunity for people to gamble.

I think, for this reason, gambling should be banned. Because it promotes the idea of gaining money, in a way that does not attempt to add to society in terms of work or gain money due to need, but instead, gain it through games of chance that are divorced from need and the idea of supplying societies needs, through work.

If gambling of the type defined above was abolished, all the energy that some gamblers put into winning on games of chance, might be put toward gaining wealth through contributions, through work, to supply the needs of society.

Gambling should be abolished so that gamblers can focus on socially useful contributions to gain, wealth. Banning gambling would enrich society.

This contention hinges on how you define consciousness.

One of the aspects of consciousness, is intelligence.
Intelligence could be reasonably defined as: "Intelligence is the ability to think, to learn from experience, to solve problems, and to adapt to new situations."

Although a plant (like the venus flytrap) can "outwit" a fly and trap it and eat it, the venus fly trap cannot vary it's methodology, to catch a fly. It's ability to catch a fly, is due to a reaction to physical stimulus.

Plants are not conscious because, they lack the ability to use experience, to learn new ways of solving problems.

Political correctness, is a way of standardising our behaviour towards a group of society that may have a grievance about the way society treats them, so that our behaviour is sensitive and respectful.

We cannot all be so emotionally intelligent, that we can put ourselves into the shoes, of all cultures, races, genders, age groups whose experience may be radically different from our own. So political correctness is a society wide agreed way, of treating/referring to certain people and subjects, that is generally agreed to be sensitive.

I remember meeting someone who was out-raged about political correctness going too far because she had been asked to fill out her course folder in black and white. She felt that this had something to do with race and political correctness. (It was probably to do with students over doing the colour photocopies, when using the university photocopy machine) No amount of explaining could convince her that the course specifications had nothing to do with political correctness and race. The reason I mention this is because, just as a person may lack enough emotional intelligence to understand how certain people who are disadvantaged in society may feel, a person may not have enough normal intelligence to understand what is and is not, a politically correct subject.

As we cannot spend years making ourselves sensitive to every culture, race, gender, nationality or issue, politcal correctness is a useful shortcut into acting and speaking in a way, that is aimed at being sensitive and respectful to other people and subjects.
This being the case, political correctness is a shortcut to sensitivity and respect to members of society. So doing it benefits society.

Sensitive and respectful is the type of people most of us want to be and political correctness helps us to get there regardless of our i.q, emotional intelligence, or lack of relevant experience.

I think if otherwise happy and it has occurred, while on a break from the real world, which the cheater is confident certain they will not repeat, then I think it is selfish to confess to a one off encounter.

For instance, it can happen if you go on holiday that you get carried away by the atmosphere and drink to find yourself waking up with someone you don't know.

Once you know you have that weakness, then you need to avoid, getting yourself in a similar situation.
However it happens more than once you have a problem and need to confess the problem to your partner.

Looking at it logically. We have 2 sides to our nature as regards this contention. The first is the side of us that is creatve and intelligent. This side of us creates art and machinery and devices, to make day to day tasks of living more easier and more pleasant. This side of us also has the ability to understand the nature and the universe; down to the atomic level and up to the order of seasons and insights into our own nature.

However we also seem to have a self-destructive side. This side of us that is war-like, out of harmony with nature and due to our mastery o f nature, has the ability to cause greater and greater harm, to all other species and all harmony, the longer we exist.

If our second side wins out and we destroy ourselves, it is strong evidence, that our demise will limit the huge amount of damage our continued existence could do to other species and to other intelligent life in the universe, (That is, if we should ever meet them.)

If we do destroy ourselves our self-destructive side is stronger than our creative and harmonising side, and so our demise is a good thing for whoever or whatever is left.