Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by dimreepr

  1. The question of nudity and sexuality is completely cultural; the most inefficiente way to explain a culture, to people from different cultural backgrounds, is the written word, even a contemporary book in the appropriate language, can be difficult to comprehend; which gets more difficult with each passing generation.

    Maybe Adam and Eve covered up, because their culture was suffering from the same type of body shaming that our's do, and that was their solution.

  2. 14 hours ago, Base12 said:


    In short, Ezekiel was being shown a 'Whirling Electron Cloud'. Moreover, Ezekiel was being shown the most intimate details of Atomic Construct and Particle Physics.

    Just imagine, for a second, he/she/it was being figurative rather than literal, then the cloud becomes rather nebulous...  😉

  3. 2 hours ago, MigL said:

    No problem whatsoever with Zap's thoughts and opinions; I have always valued them.
    Everyone's opinions should be ( ie. no thought police ), so we may discuss, and even attempt to change each other's minds about certain subjects.

    Labelling people with offensive terms, like 'bigot', makes them feel unsafe about sharing their ideas/opinions.
    Is that not the whole idea behind 'safe' spaces ?

    If you'd rather eliminate all views which don't agree with your own, you're not going to have much of a discussion.

    ( and I did give Zap a +1 for being respectful )

    Aren't you conflating valuable well reasoned opinions with opinions born of ignorance?

    If we don't point that out, there's no chance they (people like derp) will learn/change their minds; whilst I agree that a safe space is sometimes necessary for sharing, it's usually for children subjected to bullying, not adults who display a tendency to bully. 

  4. 56 minutes ago, TheVat said:

    ETA: and now I see this is the thread with the reincarnation chat we had in February, with Rama denouncing a Sugar Daddy god in the sky and Eternal Rest Home afterlives.  Ha, fun times.

    Indeed, it's ironic here, how many threads the doc has resurrected recently...

  5. 26 minutes ago, Keysi said:

    Hi guys, not entirely sure if this is the correct subforum but here goes -


    I'm writing a uni essay on whether insects should be afforded more welfare in research, and just struggling to find any sources on current conditions or practices, especially any that aren't politically motivated (not saying i'm for or against that, just not what i'm after). Can find plenty on edible insect welfare but not much, if anything, on insects in scientific research. If anyone knows any sources or where to look that would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

    Do you actually need a source?

    Just imagine they were held in the most inhumane condition, and present your argument as to why and how they should be treated better.

  6. 13 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

    It is clear however that you are arguing in bad faith.

    What's clear is your inability to refute my argumants.

    18 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

    So please desist from trolling me with your negative nonsense.

    Oh the irony, check out the antonyms... 😉 

    29 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

    Roget does not believe these concepts to be synonymous.


  7. 20 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

    Where did I say anything about excluding such individuals from society? 

    You didn't, you said ignore (check out roget).

    20 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

    Straw man #2.

    Strike straw man 2, please explain my first alleged transgression. 

  8. 20 minutes ago, TheVat said:

    The bots are getting prettier.

    Which reminds me of Asimov's robot novels, which I read in high school.  They were an accessible way to talk about bigotry and racism, among other things, employing the standard sci-fi device of using the future to talk about the issues of the present.

    I was turned off, by the idea of a sex robot...

  9. On 9/25/2022 at 2:23 PM, sethoflagos said:

    Empirical evidence does not require an explanation to establish its validity.

    However, you might consider why religious oligarchies bring with them a large package of strictures that are deemed exempt from public debate. Such as a creation myth for example that must be accepted as gospel in defiance of any observed evidence to the contrary. Or else. What benefit to society do such arbitrary faith based beliefs bring other than seek total subjugation of the individual? Absolutely toxic imho. 

    Trying to design a society by excluding some unnecessary members (the stupid and gullible etc.) is like trying to design evolution by excuding bacteria and viruses etc,; that would be toxic IMHO.

    Imagine, if you will, that 'the creation myth' is just a story like "Star War's", they both explain the value of the light side over the dark side; but I'll bet you wouldn't be so quick to condemn those that answered the question of religion, by claiming to be Jedi. 

  10. 5 hours ago, ArielLexina said:

    John Donne:  [so] ...never send out to know for whom the bell tolls: It tolls for thee.

    If that's meant as an arguement to my post's, then you've missed the point of the poem and the thurst of my argument; trying to design a society by excluding some unnecessary members (criminal's and the stupid/gullible and etc.) is like trying to design evolution by excuding bacteria and viruses and etc.

  11. 2 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

    No need. You've presented no refutation or counterargument here, so I think I'll just stand my ground.

    I asked you why and you couldn't explain, what makes you think you're ground is sturdy?

  12. 9 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

    Because history.

    Which includes Hitler and Stalin and dinosaurs, even the big one's...

    Try again...  

  13. 9 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

    Did you consider the logical flow of this sentence before you wrote it? What on earth is 'an extreme version of democracy'? Surely, the principle of democracy is that everybody's vote counts equally irrespective of their position in society. How do you get more extreme than equality? 

    Anarchy, in it's purest form is individual, and with all the will in the world, not every individual is equal; and there's that parodox again, for every individual to be equally valid, there has to be a common understanding of individual value.


    20 hours ago, swansont said:

    If you ignore a book, you don’t read it. If you ban a book, other people don’t read it, too. The former is a personal choice. The latter is a decision foisted upon others.

    The antipode of which is, If you ban a book, other people can’t wait to read it; isn't it more about the effectivity of the advert?

    9 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

    If that's what you really believe then just have the courage to say it. We're all entitled to our opinions.

    It's what I believe a utopia might look like, when/if the anarchist's stop foisting their individual choice on other's; "the needs of the many..." etc.

    6 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

    Pretty much the same as any progessive political analysis I guess.

    Bad stuff happens under authoritarian regimes. Especially the religious ones where 'heresy' is a capital offence.

    Please explain why religion is esspecially authoritarian/brutal?

    9 hours ago, iNow said:

    As I type this, Iran is in revolt. Women by the thousands are out in the streets burning their hijabs after a young girl died in custody of the “morality police” for issues with her head covering / hijab.

    Where does this land on the anarchy scale under discussion here? What about when government agents start using exaggerated crowd control on them?

    Of course anarchy has a place in any imperfect society, where it land's on the spectrum is in our purview of fairness; reminds me of this:


  14. 22 hours ago, iNow said:


    But the results are basically the same or worse, for instance, "why it's a good idea to be vaccinated" when ignored, it could be argued, is more dangerous than a ban; there's many an example of a banned record getting to number 1, in the hit parade

  15. 22 hours ago, Intoscience said:

    Yeah, and since I can't really add to what has already been posted I believe philosophy and science in raw form are yin-yang 


    I think Yin-yang is a fundamental part of every human endeavour/facet, but I see the relationship to be more of a father and son dynamic, when done correctly the father is so proud, because he can see the fruit's of his lesson's; when done wrong the father is so disappointed, because the lesson's have been forgoten/ignored/misunderstood; pride has to be earned, it's never innate. 

  16. 22 hours ago, iNow said:

    One is passive and lets them continue on unabated and without pressure or influence while the other is active and seeks to halt all activities and remove them from existence entirely

    But, AFAIK, no banned book has ceased to exist; "why does everyone knowing something make it right?" and doesn't that, in and of itself, pressure and influence?

    19 hours ago, TheVat said:

    To some extent the embrace of anarchism (in the less bomb-wielding sense being discussed here) is dependent on aspects of personality that are not homogeneous in human society.  While some people do value a high level of freedom and personal autonomy (and, if they are disciplined in their view, are willing to accept the decrease in personal security and increased social clash of values that might accompany this), there are others who crave a high level of "law and order" and a simplified nonpluralistic culture that has to be imposed by an authoritarian leader.  They may crave a society that is parental in its control and top-down decision-making.  Right-wing evangelical Christians, for example, often express the desire to have all submit to a divine will and be ruled by a theocratic ruler who will implement this.  They wish for a State that acts in loco parentis for the same reason they prefer a religion whose authority structure is modeled (as Freud and many others pointed out) on that of childhood.  Many people are, contra Benjamin Franklin's famous quote, quite willing to give up some liberty for the sake of security. 

    This reminds me of "The Matrix", the machines tried to impose a utopian society that was rejected because of some sort of instinct, that enables a human to magically determine the prison they're in; so they introduce imperfection's to quell that instinct, and by doing so they invite the coming of the one.


    19 hours ago, TheVat said:

     So there's that seeming paradox:  good anarchy requires a hardened bombproof structure of law.  


    indeed +1

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.