The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Belinda wrote:Ormond whether or not you do your wordmanship professionally you know that people like me will have to tackle whatever nasty ism you might reveal through it
You seem to be having a problem with the phrase "happy hunting". Is guys hunting for girls now a "nasty ism"? How about girls hunting for guys, is that bad, bad, bad now too? Should I throw myself weeping upon the ground racked with guilt because I didn't contact the femi-nazi politically correct police before posting so that they could provide the currently approved word to replace "hunting"? Or is it happiness that bothers you so? Do we need approval from the morally perfect on high for that now too?
Ok, ok, I want to be reasonable, so here's a compromise. You gals can take over the world and tell everybody how they should be perfect like you, and we guys will leave you gals alone and go shopping for sex dolls. Ok guys, let's get shopping!
No, it was simply the word "prey". Light -hearted exchanges because unconsidered and usually spontaneous thus disguise implicit attitudes. I sympathise with men and boys too. Men and boys ,not only women and girls, are disabled by sexism.
If "prey" can be rendered innocuous of aggression, please tell.
This word was introduced as an exaggerated joke AFTER you began complaining. You were looking for someone to play the role of macho sexist butthead, and so I tried to give you what you seemed to want. But of course, whatever I do it has to be wrong, otherwise I can not be declared guilty, and you morally superior.
Light -hearted exchanges because unconsidered and usually spontaneous thus disguise implicit attitudes.
My attitude is not disguised at all. You're trying to play the control men with guilt fantasy moral superiority game, and I'm calling you on it.
If "prey" can be rendered innocuous of aggression, please tell.
Ok, here's how that can be done. Observe yourself being the female politically correct manipulation by guilt predator in this thread, looking for a sucker male prey.
Sadly for you, I know the game you're hoping to play, even if you don't. Luckily for you, many millions of guys will play the part you wish them to play.
Ok, the sex dolls link failed to outrage you so how about a little Bill Burr?
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Ormond , prey is something that's exploited. I don't believe that you yourself exploit anyone. If you use the word unthinkingly about relationships impressionable people will be more inclined to think it's okay to view others as prey.
Belinda wrote:If you use the word unthinkingly about relationships impressionable people will be more inclined to think it's okay to view others as prey.
Ok, so what you're saying is that you're STILL trying to keep me on the defensive. Somehow I must be found guilty of something or another, or you can't play the role of morally superior politically correct teacher etc etc. Well, there's no doubt about it, you must be punished with another Bill Burr video...
Ormond, I certainly don't want to keep you on the defensive and never did want to. I don't like
that sort of thing and never did. My objection to "prey" in the context under discussion was and is partly due to a conversation I had in real life in the past couple of weeks about how only four decades ago a medical doctor could get away with a sexist remark to colleagues, about a patient ,which would today certainly have , not one, but all his colleagues objecting.(True story).
Apart from the fact that I am an annoying person don't you agree that sexism is bad?
Belinda wrote:Ormond, I certainly don't want to keep you on the defensive and never did want to.
Don't believe this, but don't want to pound it to death either. It's really not a big deal, I'm just playing the debate game. I might however pound you to death with Bill Burr videos until you agree he's hilarious. He has some on religion topics too which are quite funny.
Apart from the fact that I am an annoying person don't you agree that sexism is bad?
You're not annoying, we're just doing what's done on philosophy forums. Somebody types something, and then somebody else says it's wrong. And anyway, I am The King Of Annoying, so stay off my turf.
Is sexism bad? I guess that question requires a definition of sexism. I'm unwilling to sign a blank check against anything anybody wants to label sexism. As example, what got you started above was the phrase "happy hunting" (you switched to prey when that seemed an easier target). Point being, there are many gray areas involved.
When it comes to speech, I think we'd all be wiser and more logical to focus on that which we have some chance of controlling, our own experience of what we hear and read etc.
As example, as we travel the Internuts we are going to meet all kinds of people, and some of them will be annoying rude buttheads etc. Which of the following is the more logical response?
1) Try to change every rude butthead on the Internuts.
2) Try to change our own internal experience of rude buttheads.
Political correctness in society at large, and moderation on forums too, tends to validate and fuel our fantasy victim poses. I suppose some of this is necessary, but it would be better if each of us focused on taking responsibility for our own emotional experience.
What worries me more than rudeness is the way we humans tend to hide behind layers of poses that essentially make real connection impossible. Excessive politeness is a problem too, just like excessive rudeness.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Ormond wrote: we guys will leave you gals alone and go shopping for sex dolls.
I don't think sex dolls will gain popularity over women untill they bring one out that can cook and do the ironing, so, for the time being, the "gals" have nothing to worry about.
Alec Smart wrote:I don't think sex dolls will gain popularity over women untill they bring one out that can cook and do the ironing, so, for the time being, the "gals" have nothing to worry about.
I realize you are being a smart alec as usual, and given that the OP has abandoned his thread leaving us to abuse it at will....
Fantasy is going to take over our lives to a degree we can not yet even imagine. Here's the reasoning.
Consider the friends and lovers you've had over the course of your life. Did you select them at random? Of course not. Out of the thousands of people with whom you've crossed paths you chose to focus your time and emotion upon a select group who meet some criteria which is meaningful to you. That is, you attempted to customize your internal experience by managing your external environment.
What happens when machines can meet your criteria better than humans? What happens when it's easier to customize your internal experience with machines?
What happens when software entities in future social media can discuss exactly what you wish to discuss exactly the way you like to discuss it? How much longer after that will you be willing to participate in human conversations where whatever interests you most is routinely ignored?
Judging by the site linked above, sex dolls already look and uh, so forth, remarkably human. What happens when they can carry on a conversation with you too, exactly the kind of conversation you prefer, for as long as you want?
Interactions with our fellow humans is a never ending negotiation, typically with each party hoping to receive more than they have to deliver in return. What happens when machines remove the need to negotiate, and you can simply have whatever it is you want without compromise?
It's happening already. Consider the incredible popularity of dogs. Dogs excel at sharing affection and they willingly accept our leadership to a degree few humans can match. Dogs are friends who obey, at least far more than human friends. Do we care that our pooch is not human? Nope, not so long as we get what we want.
Porn will probably be one of the leaders in moving our society in to these virtual realms because the needs it addresses is both powerful (ie. profitable) and relatively simple and straightforward.
PS: If mods find this video unacceptable, please delete with my blessing and apology.
PPS: This post was approved by the American Association Of Sex Crazed Sexist Annoying Buttheads.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
However non-existence can be preferable to existence. ... Is this logic flawed?
It's not flawed logic, it's not logic at all. To compare two possibilities and prefer one over the other, one most have known them both. What is your experience of nonexistence?
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Felix wrote:It's not flawed logic, it's not logic at all. To compare two possibilities and prefer one over the other, one most have known them both. What is your experience of nonexistence?
I would vote it's flawed logic, in that the question seems to assume that existence and non-existence are two different things, without first establishing that to be so.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Ormond, you are not the King of Annoying, perhaps merely one of the senior annoying people on this particular forum. The true royalty of irritation don't get past probation here, trust me on this :). So I see you as more of a knight of annoyingness, ostensibly charging into battle for your annoying causes but usually slipping out the back of the castle when everyone is distracted by the heat of battle to find damsels to annoy.
Felix wrote:
However non-existence can be preferable to existence. ... Is this logic flawed?
It's not flawed logic, it's not logic at all. To compare two possibilities and prefer one over the other, one most have known them both. What is your experience of nonexistence?
The usual answer here is deep sleep or coma, but it would seem a long way from non-existence. The states are unthinking, but the body is still 1) existent and 2) processing copious amounts of information, just less frenetically than during waking states.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated—Gandhi.
