Intoscience

Yeah, I'm of a stance that life is likely to be abundant throughout the universe, though technological capable intelligence to be rare. The problems with distance and time increases the likelihood that communication between any interstellar species is going to be extremely difficult if not near on impossible. So the combination of rare intelligence along with distance and time means that even if we are not alone then we just might as well be anyway. So for me, advancements in scientific knowledge, especially around the fundamental laws & QM, that might improve the odds is exciting to learn.

I pretty much share the same understanding as your answers so can't really add anything to them. Each one however could be subject to many lengthy discussions, ideas and hypothesis outside of the mainstream view. Some more philosophical in nature, others more scientific. I personally have my favourite questions which I'd really like to see answered, with some certainty, within my own lifetime. Q3, Are we alone? being my favourite of the bunch. I have heard mentioned, regarding Q7 Why is there stuff? That the reason there's stuff is because "nothing" is unstable.

Is this a statistical fact? Cause if so, I'd say that's a pretty good success rate @ 0.001% failure. I know of 2 people within my community that were repeat offenders. I actually grew up with one and was good friends with him for a short while. He had no interest in rehabilitation, the thrill of doing the crime was his motive and the "soft" approach from the justice system just encouraged him more so. He would often say to me that when he gets caught he just plays the system. He had an excellent upbringing, education, came from a nice family, his siblings went on to have good careers and families of their own. There was no excuse, it was just the way he was, he had no issues other than he enjoyed breaking the law. Fortunately he never committed any real serious stuff (though I can't be sure if this is the case now cause I haven't seen him for 30 odd years). He had countless counselling, psychology sessions, the complete shebang... He is/was a lost cause, there are countless like him, many that commit atrocities.

Oops we thought the person was rehabilitated and fit to re-join society....Try explaining this to the 2nd victim's parents! This is not a broken part that can be just fixed and if it breaks again we try again. The consequences of getting this wrong could be potentially the loss of another innocent child's life. If we took an engineering approach and did a risk assessment the part would be condemned to the trash, the risk of failure is too great. If we get the wrong person, which does happen I admit, there is always going to be a certain amount of collateral damage. This is where the justice system has to be clever and considerate enough without taking a gamble. I'm not a fan of the death penalty, even though a person that commits such a crime, in my personal opinion doesn't deserve to live. I would hope that on the very slim chance (modern investigation with forensic science tends to be much more reliable these days) that the wrong person has been convicted, they have the chance to appeal and be freed if found to be innocent. Yes I pity such people, but I pity the victim's family much more. The loss of the family far exceeds the loss for the wrongly convicted who is jailed.

I haven't had the need to forgive such an atrocity, though I have forgiven people who have done wrong doings. Correct, no one knows the future, however a freed criminal can commit again, a jailed one can't. So in my example you can only guarantee that the perpetrator cannot harm ever again if you deal with it accordingly. But you can't guarantee it if they are freed back into society. Prevention is better than cure would you not say? This just boils down to my initial point on justice and punishment should be dependent on the crime and the threat.

I do envy that stance, inner peace is a very attractive state to gain. I don't think I would gain inner peace just from forgiveness. Not forgiving may not be able to change the past but it might change the future for the better. E.g. Possible scenario 1 of many: A person rapes and brutally murders a child. The person is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment into a mental facility aiming at rehabilitation. 20 years later the perpetrator is deemed rehabilitated and fit to re-join society. All is forgiven and the person is set free, new identity... 1 possible outcome: After a few months in society another child is raped and brutally murdered by the same person. Possible scenario 1 of 1: A person rapes and brutally murders a child. The person is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life or sentenced to death, no forgiveness, with no chance of freedom. No further children can ever be harmed by this person, society is safe from this person forever either way. In my opinion such a person that commits such an atrocity deserves no second chance, regardless of forgiveness, its not even worth the risk. Both, No excuse. She should have had empathy and sympathy for children who face similar experiences, found a path to help such victims. Not create more victims just because she was once one.

Then that person should know better than anyone what its like to be a victim, so should have more empathy or sympathy for other victims.

I mentioned religion because the focus of many of the readings I hear from religious texts (at least in Christianity) focusses around forgiveness, as though, forgiveness is the path to all things good. My point being that I forgive based on the context, remorse and the reasons behind a wrong doing. Why would I forgive an atrocity such as the rape and brutal murder of an innocent child? If a person is capable of doing such an atrocity then that person deserves not to be alive, let alone be forgiven.

Unfortunately I don't have an answer, I don't think there is just one solution that fits all. Like I stated earlier we are all different, have different feelings and views. What might be just for one may not be just for another. Maybe we just need not lose sight of what is best for society. Again not a simple answer cause we may all have different opinions on what is best. I think I would prioritise, safety as my main aim, then investigate deterrents... not an easy task which is why we end up with systems that don't always work. It worries me when I see my culture and society evolving into this "wrap everyone up in cotton wool" mentality. This softly softly approach is damaging to mental wellbeing. We are evolved animals that had to learn harshness to survive. Its built in our genes and we develop many of our social skills, compassion, sympathy, empathy etc... from tough experiences. Take these experiences away and you can breed socially inept people that can tend towards criminal activities.

I'm not sure everyone could find peace in forgiveness. I'm not a religious person, I don't believe in god or an afterlife or any other mythical/supernatural condition. I do however believe in morals and fairness, goodness, looking after the planet, animals, people and society. But I'm also pretty tough when it comes to right and wrong within my culture and even have opinions on other cultures, but I won't go there. I believe in natural selection and that nature, sometimes cruelly has a way of ridding the weak. We as civilized humans have the capability to control this and rightly/morally in general do so. I struggle in my mind though to comprehend forgiveness for a mindless atrocity that severely harms, or worse, another human being. Especially if that human being is an innocent child! I think maybe in this situation I'd be more at peace with "an eye for an eye".

(my bold) Doesn't matter, what matters is the means by which Hitler tried to achieve his personal belief on what a better world should be. This is one of the absurdities of war in general, each side believing they are the good guys. Even though in reality "an eye for an eye" is not necessarily the best course of action, there is in it, an almost romantic notion that fair justice has been served, even though we know that life is not that simple.

I think there are levels of consideration and pity that apply here. You cannot take the same approach with every criminal act or perpetrator. After all we are all different, though we may share many traits as humans, each person has their own identity and personality. There should be no excuse for a crime, though some crimes you can see why they are committed and you can sympathise and sometimes empathise with the perpetrator. The level of the criminal act and danger this may pose to society should be what drives the considerations for punishment, rehabilitation etc... Thankfully, in the western culture this (so I believe) is the case. Do I sympathise with a petty criminal who is down on their luck, desperate? For sure. Do I sympathise with a criminal that has had a poor upbringing and/or abused. Yeah (even if the crime is to some degree serious). Do I sympathise with a criminal that tortures, abuses, rapes, brutally murders... No, regardless of their problems or excuses, mental illness's, environment... To inflict such horrific things onto another human being is despicable and should be dealt with by society accordingly, regardless of rehabilitation or pity for the aggressor, this person has taken from another human being what cannot be returned. If anyone inflicted such violence to any member of my family I would expect at the very least, severe punishment to be given. Failing this I would not hesitate to deploy my own "justice" and end up a criminal myself, at least then you can pity me.

Unfortunately, I will be no help cause I suffer with the same problem. It becomes problematic at work when I have so much going on, it then deters me from finishing each thing in any sort of order. I was advised once to try meditation or similar, but I found this very difficult. The premise being that "empty your mind", - yes... well that's the problem mate, I can't! I also suffer with racing thoughts, in that my mind often zips around like an old projector going from still to still at high speed. Only each still is not associated with its predecessor. This keeps me awake at night quite a lot. I do now refrain from going on my computer, reading books or watching documentaries in the evenings and stick to comedy or fictionally entertaining tv that doesn't require my brain to engage in. This does seem to help with my sleep. The only thing I would suggest, which I try to do is write your thought down straight away and keep it as brief as possible. I suffer with anxiety and never really associated it with racing thoughts. Nice post! @ dimreeper Maybe you have some other issues or even trauma that sparked off your current condition?

What is justice? reading through this thread just shows how ambiguous the definition of justice is, and what, if anything, is the best approach to acting on it. In simple terms, justice for me is about retribution that fits the crime. The punishment however doesn't necessarily have to be pain or suffering, but rather education and learning empathy. Someone breaks into my house and kills my family. I want this person tortured and killed. Someone breaks into my house and steals some valuables. I want this person locked up and made to pay back my loss. In both scenarios I would feel that justice has been done. However in reality the events have happened and can't be changed, so understanding the motives behind both and maybe learning from them to help to prevent similar happening to others makes more sense. Is there potentially a threat to the public in either scenario? One is an obvious yes. Turns out that the murderer has severe mental health problems accentuated by drug use, the burglar has mental health problems and as a result become a drug addict. So what would be justice for all?

Making it illegal makes it sound like a crime, would not be my personal choice of words. For me there has to be a clear distinction between choice of identity and biological fact (I appreciate we have argued the latter over and over). What about those that choose not to identify as any particular gender? No its not fair, I'm sorry to hear about your own experiences. I have witnessed the same in my time, seeing exceptional talent miss out on opportunity due to poverty, lack of funding, corruption or other influences. This where my idealistic outlook I mentioned way back in this threads bears out. I didn't begin a discussion on this subject so as to keep the thread on track and not divert to other areas of "unfairness" in sports. Just one point to mention, relevant to this discussion. You mentioned, "but I was born the wrong gender" (for those reading my reply please read dimreeper's post for context). Interesting that you say this, would I be wrong in saying that the argument for transgender is exactly this? If this is the argument then I don't think its a valid reason to ensure inclusion into a chosen gender category. I'm not saying this is the case, but pointing out that, choosing to identify as one gender but testing biologically as another is the whole point. I don't believe its fair to just simply allow inclusion in sporting categories by chosen gender identity, without any clear and conclusive evidence whether the biological gender they were born has any significant performance advantage. Surely its got to be investigated, and the current system expanded or amended if required?

No, in my opinion - cheating means, an intent to gain an unfair advantage by knowingly breaking the rules. What I'm saying is, the rules/categories may require amendment to accommodate transgender groups in a way that their inclusion in competition is not "deemed" as cheating. Whether they have the intent or not is down to individual choice and should not be considered as a given for the whole. As a transgender person (if I was), I would be quite offended if I were to be included in competition only to be branded a cheat just because of my gender identity. This is why I keep proclaiming "fair for all". I would also, as a cis-gender be some what upset if I lost out to someone who had a clearly large advantage that was not conducive to the category I was in. (e.g. if I was a boxer in the light weight division and a heavy weight boxer was permitted to fight in the same division). Its not about being phobic in any manner, its about positive discrimination to allow inclusion and fairness for all. Yes, some people are fortunate enough to make their chosen sport their career, I don't see the relevance? We all have to earn a living, some of us have to take what we can, some are lucky and some are just talented at what they do and can exploit this. Yes, fair competition, we are intelligent and civilised enough to consider the whole. This means we are in a position to encourage "fair competition" for all. Along with money and power comes corruption, so I'm sure it is inevitable in sports also.

You are quite right implying that money plays a big part in shaping the system, we see this in everything not just sports. It's important though and I have pointed this out to you before. There is a big difference between playing a round of golf at your local club in an amateur event compared to playing in a tournament as a professional trying to earn a living. Getting cheated out of winning a tin pot trophy at your local club is no comparison to getting cheated out of your earnings which you work hard to earn and require to live on. So has I keep implying, at the elitist level where small differences can have large impacts, its important that those small differences are managed as fair as possible. Let them just play, its only a game... if we took that attitude with everything in life there would be anarchy. Everyone should be included, everyone should be treated fairly, everyone should be treated equally in success and failure. We, like most animals evolved to be competitive to survive, its coded in our genes. Supress this natural instinct and you will create behavioural issues in society. Fair competition is healthy for society, unlike animals we have the intelligence and are civilised enough to collectively survive at the same time as encourage personal competitiveness within that collective without detriment and ensure a balanced healthy society.

Because we are inquisitive and have discovered the tools required to model and gain knowledge & understanding of the universe and all within. As already been pointed out, what we chose to do with that knowledge and how we then apply it is a choice, not a natural consequence of doing science.

Again, you imply with little hints, that the few of us who are concerned about the fairness of transgender females competing along side cis-gender females, are transphobic. When on the contrary to this, we are actually concerned for fairness and equality for all groups so as not to negatively discriminate against anyone. Transgender and any other gender identity group should be recognised and treated fairly, as should any person regardless of colour, race, religion... The focus of this discussion is about whether in order to achieve this for transgender females, do we need to, is it possible to, positively discriminate so that there won't be any negative discrimination. If there is a possibility that biologically a male has a clear advantage over a female in performance in sports (which results absolutely prove there is in many disciplines at the elite level) Is there a mechanism more accurate than chromosomes to determine the difference potential advantage/disadvantage between all groups that makes it clear that a person would then fall into either group? Because if not, then the current binary system requires revision to be more inclusive in a fair manner. What is the accepted mechanism which determines between a male and a female, then what is there in-between this and how do we, should we categorise, to be able to positively discriminate in order to achieve a desired fair outcome? If there is a clear set of biological genders not just a binary set, then should sporting competition recognise this and expand the categories to match? The other part of this discussion is on sexual identity over sexual biology. Does a transgender female who is born a male (assuming we have clearly defined this) retain the physical advantages? The last thing I want is people rejecting achievements of people because of their gender identity due to the system being outdated.

But, we start with the premise of male/female because this is how we have evolved in evolution. Yes the possible advantage of someone being taller in basket ball is recognised, and accepted. If it was raised that basket ball is discriminative to short people then maybe it should be investigated and accommodated. Maybe height categories? My point is, if we want to be inclusive then we have to positively discriminate in order to categorise fairly. I accept we have a binary system and this is based on generally accepted male/female biology and covers the vast majority. But I'm not the one who's trying to shoehorn all genders into the 2 categories. I'm trying to positively discriminate between groups so that they can all be accommodated equally and fairly. I'm advocating that proper scientific studies may reveal that the current binary system requires amendment or expansion.

I think one of the problems that may cause confusion with some people is the difference between gender identity and male/female biology. To be clear, I'm only interested in the physical performance differences between male and female biology, and whether or not those differences give a clear physical advantage of one over the other in the context of sporting performance. If there are no clear physical distinctions that prove to be advantageous for one over the other in this context then I see no problem. let's simplify it down just for arguments sake, Is it accepted that in general males hold a distinct physical advantage over females when it comes to strength & power? I believe this is most people's view, would you agree? Is this distinction highlighted mostly in elite athletic sporting disciplines? The figures from sporting results clearly indicate that this is fact. I believe these are 2 good arguments to warrant an investigation into whether its fair to cis gender females to allow transgender females (once male, possibly still retaining physical advantages)to compete in the same category. I've stated this a few times, I'm not an authority on this, I'm not a performance biologist. My only concern is that society and culture focusses so much on discrimination as though all discrimination is negative, when in fact some discrimination is positive and a requirement. Discrimination: 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or disability. 2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.

I don't think anyone is suggesting we simply ban transgender female athlete's from competing in the female category, just because it doesn't seem fair. I'm certainly not advocating this even if the shape analogy gave this perspective. Its very clear that the situation is not simple, since it seems medical studies and evidence is currently limited. What I would like to see is that there is conclusive evidence to support in favour either argument. Once this is determined and accepted then the system either can remain as is or amended / expanded so as not to negatively discriminate against anyone It appears to me that we are all not being honestly objective, and we are allowing our opinions and feelings to be vented in our posts. I don't think this is a negative thing and I don't think it is suggesting any transphobia. It's not morally wrong to discuss gender identities, sexual differences, biological differences... in this way. But there is a distinction between these that should be recognised and not muddying the waters in regards to this thread. Can we all agree that there are biological differences between male and female? Because this should be the focus, since the question is do those biological differences equate to potential performance differences in sports? If they do, then are those differences significant enough to warrant an investigation into the advantage/disadvantages in potential performance... and would this have an adverse effect on the current system or would it make no difference? Sexual identity should be irrelevant to this study, since I can proclaim that I want to be identified as a woman and then compete against women in sports. This would be no different than me proclaiming I want to be identified as a child and then compete against children. What we need is hard scientific evidence to determine whether or not transgender women have a clear unfair advantage over cis-gender women in potential performance. Not opinions based on beliefs or culture.

Did you not read my response to Swansont? (I've quoted above)^^^ On the contrary to your comment that I'm suggesting female athletes are 100% equivalent, I'm clearly suggesting that differences can be many and varied, regardless of gender alone. I'm not the one advocating we frame everyone into a couple of specific groups, I'm saying the groups are diverse in many ways so we should try to accommodate this diversity by expanding the options rather than trying to "make fit". It appears to me that you are the one suggesting we fit as many shapes as we can into just a few holes. I was pointing out that this may not be the best solution.

I don't disagree, I think its important that we take responsibility and consider others at all times. I wear my mask not to protect myself but to protect others and set an example. I think its important that people know this, especially when I hear people say they have had their inoculations so feel they don't require protection, not realising that by wearing the masks they are protecting others!

We have this debate at my place of work. For certain aspects of manufacturing, the process requires face fitting 3m respirator masks which would (so I believe) give quite significant protection against the virus. However as already been pointed out, the virus can be ingested through the eyes also, and live long enough on clothing or skin to get contracted at later times etc.. So its my understanding that basic face coverings most people are using is to reduce the distance the virus can travel on the moisture ejected from breathing, coughing or sneezing by slowing down the expelling speed. Thus, in general you wear the mask to reduce the chance of infection being distributed air borne from your expelled moisture by you to others. Rather than any sort of significant protection for yourself. If this is correct there is pretty much no point in wearing a basic face covering unless you are in close contact to others, that you may unknowingly infect, should you be carrying the virus (which is the responsible thing to do).