Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

27 Nice

About Gees

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

6138 profile views
  1. science is subfield of philosophy

    There seems to be a great deal of defense and explanation regarding Science in this thread, but little defense and explanation regarding Philosophy. Since this is the Philosophy forum, that will not do. Itoero; Philosophy is not subject to anything? There are no rules? Anything goes? Imagination, dreams, fantasies, and speculations? Assumptions, lies, beliefs and biases? Existence whether real or imagined? Knowledge whether true or false? None of it has to be true? Philosophy may encompass many subjects, but it is also subject to rules. It is a Discipline -- a Discipline that studies knowledge, or what is true and real. If we are going to look at Philosophy as anything that has to do with knowledge, then yes, Science would fall into that description, but then so would everything else. This makes your title somewhat pointless, as everything could be described as a "subfield" of Philosophy if you are going to look at it from that perspective, which means you "cherry picked" the subject that would fit your purposes. There is not a great deal of truth in "cherry picking". You are missing the point. Science and Philosophy are part of each other and always have been. Take the example of an eighteen-month old toddler dropping food off of his high-chair tray, and watching it fall. For a few days, he will be fascinated with the realization that it always goes down. What is he doing? An experiment (Science). What is he learning? The truth of his reality (Philosophy). He will take this information to another level when he tries to get off the couch -- more experimenting, more learning. We ALL use Science and Philosophy, and have used them for most of our lives. All of Science uses Philosophy because evidence needs to be interpreted, put into context, and understood or it has no value. All of Philosophy uses Science because without the evidence that Science provides, it is a little difficult to tell what is Philosophy and what is imagination. The Disciplines of Science and Philosophy are just advanced forms of learning, so they are taught at higher University levels. The recent separation of the Disciplines is more a matter of procedure than anything else. The procedure, the scientific method, allows for a superior ability to learn the facts about objective reality. These "facts" are very relevant and valuable to philosophers. You could say that Science studies objective facts, and how these relate to us subjectively, and Philosophy studies subjective truths, and how that relates objectively. Well, it might explain things in your mind, but in my mind it looks like you lost a "science" argument in the Science forum and decided to reinstate it in the Philosophy forum. Do you think that the Philosophy forum is a platform that you can use to attack Science? Because anything goes in Philosophy? This is starting to look like a Speculations thread to me. Lord Antares; This I can agree with. This paragraph has a great deal that I disagree with, so I have pulled out three sentences, which I will respond to below: "In philosophy, there is no truth, nothing you can universally agree upon." Philosophy studies "truth", so there is a lot of truth in it. What you need to understand is that "truth" is subjective. If you are looking for truths that are "universally agreed upon", then you are looking for facts and objectivity. Science studies objective facts and is very good at it. But Philosophy studies subjective truth and it is an elusive subject requiring intensive study, discipline, and a high degree of integrity. There are Common Truths in Philosophy and there are Universals, which are things that are universally true, but the study is generally subjective. Since we all have a subjective self, it could be said that a study of truth has some value, as denying our subjectivity, our selves, is not generally a good thing. An example might be when we denied the subjective selves of Black people in the early history of the US, which allowed us to deny their human rights. That was an example of bad philosophy, although I don't know that we can blame the "bad philosophy" on philosophers. It may have been economics. Philosophy would have been what turned it around. "Almost every opinion is as valid as every other and in most cases, nothing to be correct about; it's just views on different things." In Philosophy, the word "opinion" has a specific meaning, much like in Science, the word "theory" has a specific meaning. Opinion in Philosophy is much closer to hypothesis or theory, as it is based on a specific argument. In Philosophy, you make an argument that puts your experience, training, reasoning, logic, and any evidence into a formal argument. (This argument is much like an experiment would be in Science.) This argument would result in an "opinion" that would be your "position" on the matter. Other philosophers would then look at the argument and question or dispute anything that seems to them to not be true, much like other scientists would dispute the veracity of an experiment. This is how the various "opinions" are formed. Since many of these ideas are not yet testable, the various "opinions" either gather support and evidence, or they start to disappear. "There is no opinion in science, there is only fact" This is not entirely true. All facts and all evidence needs to be interpreted and put into context or they have no value. I'll give you an example: 27. "27" is a fact, but it is evidence of what? Is it my age, my IQ, my inseam? Facts need to be in context, they need to be interpreted, which is why knowledge, truth, and Philosophy always have been and always will be part of Science. Actually, there is a good deal of support for the "theories" that you named above. I don't agree with them, but have not yet come up with a good enough argument to shoot them down. I expect that we will get the answers. OldChemE; I don't think the comparison has any merit. StringJunky noted that barbers evolved to become the first surgeons, but surgery is not medicine. I would like to suggest that the first medicines came from "white witches", who used herbs to treat their patients. And let us not forget the "witch doctors", etc. Although many of the herbal treatments were invalid, others were valid and the beginnings of medication as we know it today. Gee
  2. 1x0; If you do not mind, I would like to keep "intuition" out of this thread. A few years back, in another Science forum, I worked a thread on Instincts, and intuition was part of that thread. Even though I worked with some very bright people, both scientists and philosophers, what we learned is that there is so much misinformation, assumption, history, and down-right guesswork attached to the ideas of instincts and intuition, that it is impossible to base any understanding on these concepts. When I talk about instincts, I limit it to survival instincts, as that idea has some evidence and support from Biology. One thing that we do know is that emotion, instincts, and intuition are all reactive and originate in the unconscious aspect of mind -- which is not well known or well understood. Maybe. First problem is do we know that space/time contains ALL energy? If it does, then what could have started the Universe? Nothing? Second problem is with the word "observable". As discussed before, observation and awareness are dependent upon space/time in order to exist, so how can we get outside of space/time in order to "observe" what was there prior, or what it is made up of? If I understand your ideas correctly, you are flexing between the ideas that space/time originated from nothing, or it originated from information. This is why you are trying to find physical attributes in information, so you can understand how it became energy and matter. Yes? You are not the first person to come to these conclusions. It could be argued that the Holographic Universe, the dream or illusion realities, and even the "God" theories are very similar. They are all based on the idea that information caused everything, but we still can not find any reason to accept that information has physical attributes. A lot of us can't let it go. Energy and matter have a relationship with space/time in that they exist in space/time, and they all seem to change or evolve in some way. Early in the thread, you mentioned that you thought information also evolves/changes. I agree with this, which is why I have problems with theories that state everything is predetermined. The only ideas that I can see that seem to be predetermined, are the basic rules that I mentioned earlier, which are the rules that determine balance. It is this idea of balance that I think caused the Universe and extracted reality, as we know it, from chaos. This reminds me of the idea that time and space extracted the rational conscious aspect of mind from the unconscious aspect of mind. In evolution, the rational aspect of mind was much later in life's development. So the idea that the Universe evolved from a timeless reality seems to be reflected by the conscious mind evolving from a timeless unconscious. This brings me to the idea that the unconscious mind works through emotion, and emotion does seem to have some properties and some influence on matter. No. We do not know what emotion is; many people think that it is Nothing. It is obvious to me that either "nothing" existed, which I have trouble accepting, or that we just don't know what that "nothing" is. I'm betting we just don't know . . . yet. As BR-549 stated early in this thread, everything is charge and balance. It is my thought that the tension between charge and balance is what causes movement, growth, evolution, and change, which leads to complexity. "Everything in proportion to Nothing" is a concept, not a reality. Gee
  3. After reading this, I started to wonder who burnt your morning toast. Then I remembered. You are one of those people, who gets upset with the "woo woo" factor. I apologize. If I had remembered, I would have used a different example, as it was not my intention to cause dissent. I know that you know that magic is not real. If it looks like magic, then I see it as a puzzle that has not been worked out yet. Much like those "magical" rocks that we discovered ages ago. They were not magical, they were magnetized. Although magnets can look like magic and amaze little children, we know better. I am just trying to know better. The "random non sequiturs" that you see may actually exist, or it may be the case that you simply do not see the connections. I am having no problem following 1x0's thoughts. You might want to consider doing more reading and less posting until you can also see the connections. Gee
  4. Strange; Your above statements are not entirely true. I think there is a huge difference, but explaining that difference and then proving it is difficult and time consuming. I don't want to take this thread too far off topic, so an extended explanation can not be made here. This is why I usually bring up "bonding", as that is one product of emotion that Science accepts and recognizes as being caused by emotion. You brought up the word "magic", which is interesting and gave me an idea of how to show that there is a difference between thought and emotion. What if we look at thought and emotion historically? Historically, thought can be logical or illogical, rational or irrational, and be good or bad thinking. A few centuries ago, it might even be described as "Godly" good thoughts or "the Devil made me do it" bad thoughts, but these are explanations of what thought is, or maybe even where it comes from -- not what it produces. Thought has not been associated with producing anything close to "magic", unless it is a trick. But, historically, there are ideas that seem to be "magical" like "Gods" and devils, angels and demons, demonic possessions, saints, miracles, and psychic phenomenon. Some of these ideas even have evidence that supports their claims like documents that the Church holds, or research by psychologists, who study psychic phenomenon. Most rational people dismiss these claims as "hysterical ramblings", which means emotional ramblings. For a long time, I dismissed them also, but it is a little difficult to get past the evidence. At some point, I realized that each and every one of these "magical" ideas related to emotion. Coincidence does not cause something to be consistently the same -- that is cause and effect. So in my studies of consciousness, I started to study emotion more closely because it is the commonality in these "magical" ideas. Is emotion the result of these "imaginings", or is it the cause of these "imaginings"? Can they even be "imaginings" if they produce actual evidence? These questions, along with a much better understanding of the unconscious aspect of mind, is what caused me to conclude that thought and emotion are very different. Gee 1x0: I will try to respond to your post tomorrow.
  5. Strange; You are usually brighter than this. Maybe I should have said, "directly cause". Do you suppose that I can think at your computer and cause black and white patterns to appear? That would be a neat trick, but I can't do it. The body can affect emotion and thought. Emotion can affect the body and thought. Thought can affect the body and emotion. They work together, but what about individually, outside the body? The body can affect it's surroundings simply because of it's weight. Emotion can affect other lives through bonding. Thought does not seem to be able to directly affect anything outside of the body. As far as I can tell, telepathy is not real. Thought, knowledge, or even information seem to have no physical properties or attributes that I have been able to find. On the other hand, emotion does. It can affect matter, cause bonding, and it can also remove or relocate awareness, so it has abilities. My question is how? It is clear that emotion is some kind of force, but it seems to be entirely made up of thought, knowledge, and/or information. So I was wondering if the actual motion is what causes it to have these abilities. 1x0; I think that I agree with this. Physical space gives us a kind of format for our consciousness and shows no signs of being conscious itself. But when you have a format, you have rules that formulated that format, and I suspect that those rules developed into what we call Laws of Physics or Laws of Nature. So I think that some kind of fundamental information was part of the organizing and development of the Universe. There were rules. These same basic rules are reflected in Mathematics and mirrored in the unconscious aspect of mind. Specifically, I think that "same and different", "equal", and "more and less" form some of the most basic and fundamental rules that order reality. These rules are also basic and fundamental to Mathematics, which is why Mathematics can give us such an accurate representation of reality. These are the same rules that guide the "thinking" of the unconscious aspect of mind. The unconscious is neither logical nor rational, mostly because logic and rationalization are both linear processes, and the unconscious ignores time -- so linear processes can not work. What I find fascinating, is the idea that if we can understand the unconscious aspect of mind, to know how it works and uses information, then we may get some insight into how information was/is used outside of the Universe. Outside the Universe would also ignore time. I don't see anything except life as being aware. I could be wrong, as I have seen theories that state that the Universe is alive, but so far, I am not convinced. I gave it a quick look and will review it later. For now, I can tell you that we have very different ideas about "Nothing". When I see the word, nothing, I interpret it to mean, no known thing. Historically, when we used the word nothing in Philosophy or Science, it was often the case that we had not yet discovered what the "nothing" was. (chuckle) For a thought experiment: Take a blank piece of paper with "nothing" on it. We will say this represents reality before the Universe. Then draw a circle on the paper and examine what is now there. What do you see, one thing or three things? There is still only one circle, but there is also inside and outside, concepts that did not exist before. Many people, and most scientists, will say that the circle created the concepts, and that is why they exist, but it is not really an explanation. Ink does not create concepts. But if you look at the fundamental rules that I noted above, you will find "same and different". The circle caused a difference, and that difference created the concept. So I think that these simple rules that became more complex, over however many light years, caused the concepts and complexities that are our reality today. imo Gee
  6. Sensei; Not being a scientist, I don't know much about the other ideas that you mentioned, but is it possible that with the "traditional" communication, the ink itself is what causes the weight difference? Not the information itself? For that matter, is weight the only measure that proves something is physical? I study consciousness, and consciousness is simply information in motion. There have been tests where researchers try to weigh the body just prior to death and immediately after death in order to determine if consciousness has weight, with limited and inconclusive results. So is there another way to determine if information is physical? 1x0; I have been loath to bring up the subject of consciousness, because few people study it or know much about it, and I do not want to damage or distract this thread. On the other hand, I see relationships between some of the ideas regarding information and consciousness, so I think it may be relevant. Actually, I see comparisons between information and the unconscious aspect of mind, like Shannon's bits, 1/0, which work in much the same way as the unconscious aspect of mind works. Even Mathematics has fundamental comparisons to the unconscious. In my studies of consciousness, I have had a great deal of difficulty determining if thought and knowledge (information) are real, if they have any properties that can cause an effect or in any way influence matter. On the other hand, emotion does have an effect on matter, and emotion is, for all I can determine, just information in motion. So does the motion of emotion cause it to be more real? More physical? Does the fact that it is in motion allow us to determine that it has a physical aspect? Gee
  7. Swansont; Logic. Did you read the rest of that post, or just the first line? You are a really bright guy, Swansont, but you are such a scientist. As Studiot noted, the word exist can mean different things in Mathematics and in Physics; well in Philosophy, the meaning is closer to that of Mathematics. I am not trying to state that information is physical, as I don't know that it is, and it is one of the questions that this thread is trying to determine, but information does exist under the rules of Philosophy. Unless you can dispute my logic, or come up with other evidence, there is no argument that you can make. You can not use the rules of Physics in a Philosophy forum, any more than I could use the rules of Philosophy in a Physics forum. This thread is finally in the forum where it belongs as categorization and classification falls under Ontology -- Philosophy. Do you mean physical or material? Gee
  8. 1x0; Hello. It has been a long time since I talked to you. You are still working on the same problem and writing interesting threads. I wish I could help you more, but I don't have the answers either -- I don't think anyone has them . . . . yet. 1+ simply because your threads are interesting. But I am enjoying reading this thread, and hopefully will be able to comment before it goes too far off topic, or someone closes it down. In the meantime, I would like to make an explanation, to Swansont regarding the following question, on your behalf. I think I can get him to understand what I think you meant -- if it would not offend. If I am wrong, please let me know. I don't think the idea is to "find" these coordinates as much as it is to know that they have to exist. That the information or data exists. Following is 1x0's statement that you initially responded to: This is very much like an argument that I made many years ago. I was refuting the idea that a consciously-aware all-knowing "God" created the Universe, and made the observation that awareness can not exist without space and therefore time. In order for awareness to exist, there has to be someone/something that is capable of being aware, and there has to be someone/something to be aware of -- two separate things. Two different points. This means there has to be space and therefore time in order for these points to exist and for awareness to work. Conclusion: there was no awareness before there was space/time/matter -- the Universe. Observation is much the same in that space/time is required in order for it to work, but 1x0 has brought the idea to another level and noted that information is passed by awareness and by observation. So is this information created by the awareness or observation, or is it a fundamental property of space time? He thinks it is fundamental. I really don't know. Gee
  9. What is the point of existence of Art?

    Phi for All; Well, I did read the link and came away with the same conclusion that MarkE made. I did not see the point. Following are some excerpts from that link. The underlining is mine. Please note that the underlined words, may, maybe, and probably, are not conclusive terms and not conducive to good Science. On the other hand, the word, truth, has veracity and is very conducive to good Philosophy. This is the Philosophy forum. If I did not take issue with his words for being so wishy-washy, I would still be skeptical of his critical thinking skills, because he started his paper with the idea of left-handedness and right-handedness. Then he proceeded to state that left-handedness could be "overcome" in some circumstances. It was the word "overcome" that bothered me, as if left-handedness were some form of defect. Many of us know that "overcoming" left-handedness is strongly linked to dyslexia, which would be why our public schools no longer try to "overcome" left-handedness. So I was not impressed with the link and did not see any point -- or at least any valid point. Gee MarkE; The really crazy part of this whole argument is that in the link, the author agreed that location does matter, so the argument makes no sense. On the other hand, the point that I made and you seemed to understand is that feeling/emotion does not work or activate the same way as knowledge/thought. It would be a natural progression of that idea, to think that feeling/emotion and knowledge/thought might come from different areas of the brain and/or from different chemistries. Freud obviously thought so, and tried to map the brain failing rather miserably, but his mapping of mind has been upheld as valid and been supported by clinical studies. Of course, he did not have access to MRI's and the technology that we have today. Even so, I think there is much more to learn before we can pinpoint many of the mental aspects and associate them with specific parts of the brain, even if they tend to be on one side or the other. But we are getting off topic. I have no idea who that emperor was, but find the idea interesting, and even see the value that could be associated with this type of thinking. If you figure it out, let me know. Thanks. Gee
  10. What is the point of existence of Art?

    The Almighty; Interesting name that you have chosen for yourself. (chuckle chuckle) I am neither almighty nor all knowing, but think I might have an answer for your question. There are lots of opinions regarding the whys and wherefores of art, and lots of studies of historical art, but none of these really answer the question that you posed. If you study the different ideas and histories, you will find that there is one commonality in all of the opinions and speculations. All art expresses some form of feeling or emotion. So the short answer to your question is that art is to feeling and emotion what language is to knowledge and thought. The point of art is to express feeling and emotion. Whether it is music, painting,, dance, poetry, sculpture, architecture, or some other form, the art is an expression of your self, your hopes and dreams, your view on beauty and ugliness, or your feelings about something in your environment. It is all an interpretation of how you feel. I am a philosopher by nature and habit, not a scientist, and I study consciousness, which means that I also study emotion -- an aspect of consciousness. It surprised me to learn that almost no one actually studies emotion. We study emotion(s), how we feel and why we feel that way, and we study the body and brain and how emotion is regulated and caused, but no one, that I have found, studies what emotion actually is -- it's properties, abilities, and limits. A few years back, I discovered that we do not know feeling and emotion. This surprised me, but we do not actually know it, we experience it. Yes, there is a difference. When we know something, we can put what we know into words, pictures and thoughts, then we can share those words, pictures, and thoughts, and the person that we are sharing it with will know those words, pictures and thoughts. I can say 2+2=4, and you know exactly what I am talking about, but if I state that I am feeling rather depressed, you can only guess at my feeling if you have also been depressed -- you can not actually know the depth of my feeling. Am I feeling a little down, or ready to commit suicide? Who knows? On the other hand, if I could write and play a song that reflected my feelings, then you could experience what I am feeling. Or maybe I could write a poem or paint a picture that showed you the depth of my feeling. This is what art does for us, it allows us to know and share feeling and emotion, or you could say that it gives shape and substance to feeling and emotion so that it can be known. This is a more complex idea that I may not be able to explain to your satisfaction. It depends upon how much you already understand about consciousness. To start: All life is conscious down to each and every cell in our bodies. All life has survival instincts, which means that every cell in our bodies is constantly working to eat, reproduce and stay alive. All survival instincts work through, or are activated by, feeling or emotion. So it helps if you understand that all life feels. We can call it "perceives" or "senses", but the reality is that all life feels, is aware of some things, and has enough knowledge to maintain it's life. Then you need to understand the main difference between the unconscious and conscious aspects of mind. If you understand Freud's divisions of mind, it would help. Freud's Superego and Id (the instinctive drives) are both part of the unconscious. The unconscious is reactive and works through feeling and emotion, which is why instincts are part of the unconscious. We don't regulate the unconscious, and it works pretty much on it's own, which is why we don't actually think about what we want to do when a car is about to run us over, we just move instinctively -- the unconscious is reactive. We call it unconscious because we don't really "know" what is going on it there until it happens. (chuckle) Just like we don't really "know" emotion and feeling. The Ego, or the rational aspect of mind, is where we do our planning and thinking. This is the aspect of mind that we "know", where we make our decisions, think our thoughts, regulate our lives, and plan our days. At some point in evolution, I suspect that it was well after the evolution of the brain, we started to be consciously aware of the experience of feeling and emotion. (A cell may react from feeling and emotion, but it would have no ability to be consciously aware of that reaction and experience. It would not "know" that it had that experience.) At first it would be simple things, like touching a picker bush; we would attach the idea of a picker bush to pain. Maybe we would attach the idea of a certain food to pleasure. As we advanced, we would attach more ideas to feelings and emotions and these "ideas" would be what we remember consciously. This is an important point, as we still only experience and do not really know feeling and emotion, we can only know it by the ideas and thoughts that we attach to the feeling or emotion. This "important point" is why emotional memory is so very unreliable, and why Science does not like it. Science has proven over and over that emotional memory can change. It can create memories of things that never happened, change things that did happen, or forget things that did happen. The reason that emotional memory is so unreliable is because we don't actually remember the experience of the feeling/emotion, what we remember and "know" is the ideas that we "attached" to the feeling and emotion. This is why we can think that someone is drop dead gorgeous, stop dating them, see them a year later, and wonder what the hell we were thinking! Or why we can think that labor is not really that bad, because we went through it before, but when that first really hard labor pain comes, it is more like, "Oh God. Now I remember." (chuckle) As we advanced and became aware of more elusive emotions like love, hate, fear, jealousy, and greed, it became more and more difficult to attach thoughts and ideas that would express our feeling, so we turned to art. So to answer your question regarding other species, I would say yes, many do have at least the beginnings of art. Art is feeling and emotion given form and substance. Many things that we attribute to "instinct" may also be a beginning form of art, like a mating dance or decorating a nest. Both of these things are a form of emotional expression and an invitation to share that emotion. Looks like art to me. The next step after art is religion, as religion is also an interpretation of emotion and the unconscious aspect of mind. I am pretty sure that I have seen articles on elephants and some primates, who linger around an area where one of their own died, and even suggestions that they brought some small tokens to the site. This has been interpreted as the beginnings of religious thinking, so any specie that is involved in this activity would also be able to appreciate art, beauty, ugliness, and finer feelings. Gee
  11. Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

    Strange; When I wrote the words "level of stupidity" something triggered in my mind with relation to law. I could not think of what it was, because as far as I know, it is not actually written in law. There are no blatant references to stupidity, but it is considered in many areas of law, as is evidenced by protections and legal defenses for children, the mentally handicapped, diminished capacity, etc. In order to understand this, one really needs to understand law, and I can not teach enough in this thread to stop all of the denials this post will probably cause. So let me state up front that I am not going to respond to any yahoos, who want to argue about this, but have no clue as to what they are talking about. I went to sleep thinking about this and woke up with an idea that may help you to understand why women seem to think they are blamed. I think the problem comes up in Contract Law. I am not saying that rape is a contract, so please bear with me -- I am trying to help people understand the limits of the law. The rules of Contract Law are kind of funny and often deal with stupidity. I found this very amusing when studying it. The problem is that one man's garbage can be another man's treasure, so how does one decide that the contract is valuable and acceptable by what is exchanged? We can't. Unless it is immoral, illegal, or maybe fraud, we can only determine if the parties, who made the contract, thought it valuable and acceptable. So if a very rich man states that he would pay a million dollars for the air above Mount Arafat, because he would like to breath in the air that was touched by "God", and if another man said, "I will get it for you", they may have a contract. If, months later, the rich man decides that it was a stupid offer because air is always moving, so it is not the air touched by "God", he may decide not to pay. If the second man actually climbed Mount Arafat to get the "air", he is out costs and time, so he may sue for breach of contract. The Judge is going to look primarily for two things; was there a valid offer and a valid acceptance. If he finds a valid offer and acceptance, then there is a valid contract. The Judge may order the rich man to pay, or may mitigate his costs because the "air" does move, and at least compensate the second party for his costs. Contract Law is mostly about the offer and acceptance. There is also something called a Bi-Lateral Contract. This contract is formed when one party makes an offer and the other party accepts by action. So if a man states that he will pay $100 to anyone who can swim all the way across a river and back, then another man does it, they may have a contract. The first party may be ordered to pay the $100. Again this is mostly about offer and acceptance. In law, offer and acceptance denote agreement, so taking this idea to sexual assault and rape cases, we find that there is no crime if there is offer and acceptance. So when policemen, attorneys, and prosecutors are questioning a "victim", what they are trying to find out is whether or not there was an offer. She would state, "Of course not. No one asks to be raped." and be very offended, but the reality is that there are many ways to offer, as it is not always a verbal offer. I know that between my husband and myself, there was not always an offer, or even a verbal exchange -- sometimes there were no words spoken. I could give him that "look" or smile, or receive it from him, wear a negligee, or just tell him that we have a free evening and the kids are at the babysitters. He would know that it was an offer. If any of you are honest, you know that this is true. A rape kit just proves an exchange and has no relevance to offer and acceptance. Bruises and screaming, "No." may or may not have relevance as porn sites and magazines featuring S&M are not a scarcity, and there is the best seller, 50 Shades of Grey. So successfully prosecuting a sexual assault case comes down to protection of children, nuns, the elderly and handicapped, and people with a great deal of credibility -- sometimes circumstances can help. It is a damned nightmare for prosecutors. Or you could say that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of law. Gee
  12. Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

    iNow; What exactly do you think those "better options" are? Because people have been looking for ways to protect women for thousands of years. If you don't believe me, then go to Wiki and see what they have under "sexual harassment" then skim down to "Ancient Rome". Yes. They were trying to pass laws to protect women thousands of years ago, and I expect that those laws were as successful as the laws we have now. The only thing that I have seen that is in any way effective in protecting women is the rules that regulate behavior and contact between men and women, and most of those rules are set down by religions. Have you noticed that you are very much an idealist when in the Philosophy forums, but are a staunch defender of determinism in the Science section? Do you know what you get when you mix idealism with determinism? Think about it. Phi for All; Wonderful. It is good to learn that someone wants to resolve these issues, so I think the first step would be for you to study law and Court procedures, then you could work for some insurance companies and learn about the denials and ways that people try to swindle insurance companies. Strange; Maybe, or maybe they are assigning some level of stupidity. Stupidity is not against the law, but I remember thinking that it was definitely considered by the law when I was studying it. I can't remember the specifics of why I thought so, but am sure of it's relevance in many areas of law. I will try to remember something that I can give as a specific example. Phi for All; Ronald Reagan did many things that I don't like, but he did not cause the damage to black women that you think -- he just took advantage of a myth that already existed. If you read the arguments that were made regarding slavery in the United States, one of them was the argument that black women had babies much like animals with little or no trouble, unlike white women. This is a very old concept that in my opinion was caused by "The Doctor's Plague". I wrote about it in the thread, Split from Sam Harris, in the General Philosophy forum. It is still on the first page of the forum. Swansont; Have you ever heard of Victoria's Secret? Do you know what the secret is? Sexy nightgowns, lingerie, underwear, etc. Ads that say, "If you want your man's attention, wear this". Most women know that if the hubby is unhappy with her, a new negligee may very well resolve the problem. Most women also know that you can go into a restaurant, order a banana or ice-cream cone, and eat it in a way that is suggestive and raise two erections out of ten any day of the week. Men are sexually aroused visually. Most women know this. Little girls do not, which is why we will not allow them to wear certain clothing. When my youngest at 14 argued that the clothing was appropriate because Britney Spears wore it, I countered that Britney Spears has body guards, so when my daughter could afford her own body guards, she could wear that type of clothing. Gee
  13. Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

    Swansont; Oh, stupid me. So you are telling me that I let my thread be high-jacked? Maybe I should tell a Moderator. Oh wait, some of the Moderators are already part of the thread. Just for General Principals, I would like to make some predictions. Now that the balance of power has shifted, the Senators will stop "toppling". The government in Washington will not realistically change one whit with regard to Women's Rights. The "trickle down" effect of the new tax laws will not trickle down any more than they did in Reaganomics. Just like in Reaganomics, the effects will not really be felt and understood for another 20 years or so, but when they are felt, the crunch will be to the middle class and the poor. Obamacare will die a slow death because there is not enough money to fund it. The media will find something else to promote. Trump was right about "fake news". The American people stop thinking when faced with emotional media glitz. We may deserve what we get. As men -- in this thread -- are guilty for being men. You think this is a competition? Do you understand that equal does not mean the same? My "tangent" about custody issues is not about women, it is about the laws -- stupid LAWS. It is interesting to note that a person does not have to have any training in law in order to be voted into the Legislature. Sometimes is it like saying that my mechanic is very good at fixing things, so I think I will make him my doctor. Most people are not that stupid, but voting an untrained person into the Legislature so that they can make new laws, is very stupid. Five hundred years ago a rich man could have his wife sent to an asylum or nunnery for life. A poor man could simply throw her into the street, out of HIS house and away from HIS children -- because he wanted to. Right now a woman can throw her husband out of HER house and away from HER children because she wants to -- especially with No-Fault divorce. If he does not pay for the privilege or gets angry, she can have him sent to jail. Which part of this do you think is an improvement? Change does not necessarily denote improvement. Bad laws corrupt people, it does not matter if they are men or women -- they still are corruptible. Rights and responsibilities CAN NOT be divided. Raider5678; This question was not to me, but maybe it is time for me to state my position with regard to rape. I know probably 8 or 10 people, who were actually raped, myself included. I was 15 when it happened and terribly innocent. Twenty years later, I could still have panic attacks when being intimate with my husband, so I do have a clue about this subject. My door was the one that people came to when they were hurting or in trouble and my ear is the one they turned to when they needed someone to listen. It has always been this way, so maybe I have some experience worth listening to. My training in law has also helped me to understand that it can not solve this problem. Law can guide the situation, but society has to do the solving. I have been fired for "assaulting a customer", who grabbed me; been to conventions and sales meetings where the boss thought that my hotel room was also his hotel room, so he had to be straightened out; and even had my ass pinched while walking with my Mother in the Vatican in Rome -- right in the church. It occurs to me that no one has grabbed my 66 year old ass in quite some time. Wonder why. (chuckle) My point is that emotional rampaging, joining pity parties, and demanding changes in law are not effective. Changes in law can actually make things worse. It takes rational cool heads that are willing to look at the problems and find solutions. According to Phi it is because you think, but are not yet experienced -- so I am still right. (chuckle) I have no doubt that the members you mentioned have the ability to think as I have discussed things with most of them. The problem, as I see it, is that when the topic is emotionally charged, some people's ability to think rationally flies right out the window. Yours did not. There are other members in this thread who are also still rational. Well, it looks like there is more tragedy on the girl's part, but we don't know how the boys fared in a prison environment. There is rape in prison and abuse, so we don't know how this affected the boys or what kind of men they will grow into. Our prison system does not have a good record for rehabilitating people. I am not saying that the boys are innocent, as I don't doubt their guilt and they needed to be stopped, but it is a tragedy for all. If the boy were your son or brother, you might see things a little differently; you might find him more stupid than evil. I am not sure about the knife. Did they use it or just threaten with it, as the Law would make little distinction. Rape is not really a sex crime, it is more about intimidation, power, and control over another person -- it is more about violence and empowerment. A boy holding a knife may not intend to actually use it, but think it a grand way to get what he wants; a man would know the difference. It is too bad that you were influenced by your "evil Christian church". May you never get over it. You are right: Rape = bad. I don't blame her, I blame the adults. Were the boys the homeowners, who threw this party? If not, then where were the homeowners? Where were her parents? Why the hell wasn't some adult paying attention? I think that sometimes people assume that at a certain age, children can be allowed more freedom. This is not necessarily true, teens must be watched more closely than 10 year olds much of the time. Ten year olds don't routinely sneak off to parties, are not as involved in drinking and drugs and sex and trying to be an adult. Yes. This was a child. Someone who is supposed to be protected and stopped from making bad decisions like deciding to put their finger in an electrical outlet or drink household cleaners. Just because the crime is an adult crime, it does not make her a woman. Dimreepr; Sure you could. Happens all the time in bar room brawls. Zapatos; This post was not to me, but I think I started the line of thinking that prompted it, so I will respond. When I stated that Raider can and does think, I was not talking about intelligence or agreement. It might be better if people read what I actually say, rather than what they think I mean. I was talking about someone who can take facts, evidence, training, and experience, and run those ideas around in their mind using logic and reason, then spit out something worth listening to. I define someone who can not, or does not, think as someone who takes speculation, assumption, imagining, biases or belief, then spits out something that is not worth listening to. I don't always agree with someone just because they can and do think, but they are still worth listening to -- I may learn something. Gee
  14. Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

    Raider5678; Thank you. In this forum, when I see a member with over a thousand posts, but a low reputation, it usually means that they can and do think. Thanks for proving me right. Yes, there are lots of cases, and one must remember that this type of case is judged and prosecuted by different laws in the different States. This type of crime is under the jurisdiction of the States, not the Federal, so there can be differences in the actual wording of the laws, the Statutes that apply, and the Court procedures. That may not seem like it should make a great difference because it is all illegal, but it can make a difference in the Courts. For example: Some Courts may allow her prior sexual experience to be admitted as evidence, others may not. Although some people in this thread would have you believe that this injustice is all about women and sexual assaults, that is nonsense. Consider the following scenario: A man calls the police and says he has been burglarized. They come to his home. While filing out the report, they ask, "How did the burglar get in? Is there any sign of forced entry." The man states that he does not usually lock his doors, so that would not be a problem. The police ask if he has any idea who might have done this. The man states, "Well, there was a guy, who was down on his luck, so I let him stay here for a few days. He is gone and my property is gone." The police finish the report. Would this matter be prosecuted? Unlikely. There may have been a crime, but there is no case. Fingerprints are irrelevant because the man lived there and there was no forced entry. Even if you caught the guy red-handed with the goods, he could simply say that the homeowner gave him the property. It is his word against his word. In many cases, the only thing that the prosecutor has is the HOPE of prosecuting because of the "victim's" credibility. Would his insurance company reimburse him for his losses? Unlikely. They would most often claim that there could have been collusion between the men in the hope of ripping off the insurance. The most likely outcome is that the police tell him to start locking his doors and stop moving in strangers. Maybe this is "stupid man" shaming. All crimes are not reported. Police, when called, do not always make out a report. Prosecution does not always happen. Conviction is never sure. The biggest difference between sexual assault crimes and other crimes is that no one is keeping count on the others and screaming for justice. Swansont; Maybe you should take that up with the American Bar Association. "To Kill a Mockingbird" may have been based on that case. All cases do not make it into the textbooks, but I know it was an old case when we studied it in the early 1980's. I remember being surprised that attempted rape could carry a longer sentence than rape. Hopefully, that law has changed. Of course racial issues were the driving factor. All cases, where credibility is part of the decision, have to take biases into account -- that means most cases. It is just like in this thread. People want confirmation of what they believe, not facts. Giving them facts is likely to make you guilty of something and sentence you to 3 down votes and accusations of "victim blaming". You are making me laugh. I hate to shock you with this information, but most "evidence" is testimony. Even if you have actual physical evidence, it means very little without testimony. For example: We will say that a one hundred dollar bill passed from your hand to my hand. That is the physical evidence, much like a rape kit that proves a transfer of bodily fluids. So when this money passed, what did it mean? Was it a gift? Or a reward for something that I did? A loan? Was it payment for something purchased or contracted? A deposit that must be returned? A retainer fee that does not have to be returned? Was it theft? Or maybe I swindled you. Which of the above is found to be true depends mostly on testimony, and with testimony comes bias. So credibility is kind of important. If you have credibility, then you can lie all day long and get away with it as long as you are a reasonably good liar. So what do you think the point is? Please review my post to Raider above. What do you think the OP is about? It is about power, all kinds of power, and it's abuses. The power of wealth and position, the power of beauty, the power of sex and sexuality, the power of genders, the power of races, the power of innocence, the power of victims, the power of media and how these powers are used and abused. The power to down vote someone without telling them why, which is in my opinion one of the more gutless powers, because we have the right to down vote, but no responsibility -- and don't even have to admit we did it. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. When power gives you rights without responsibilities, you have absolute power over something and will be corrupted. It is inevitable. Maybe so, but that is not what we are talking about here. Men and women are not equal; if you don't believe me look at some of CharonY's posts. As for blaming; CharonY blames men, you blame the judicial system even though you obviously don't know anything about it, and both of you blame me. I am not blaming women for anything, I am just looking for feasible solutions and know that they can not be found by writing more laws as that is already tipping in the wrong direction. Raider5678; I did not read this when Outrider presented it as I was occupied, but it is interesting. I have little doubt that the child was raped. I also doubt that the boys had any idea of the realities and consequences of their actions -- this was a tragedy all the way around. So many lives ruined. She was 14 years old, right at the beginning of the "age of rape" when little girls want to be beautiful, exciting, and glamorous, but have no idea of how to be women yet. The boys were simply ignorant and arrogant, which is what boys often are, before they become men. What was a 14 year old doing, going to a party with "friends" where there was drinking and obviously no adult supervision? Did she have her parents' permission? If so, maybe they should be prosecuted. If she didn't, that may be why the attorney was so rough on her. I was remembering when my youngest turned 14. She wanted a party, but believed like most teens that you can not have fun without getting high, so thought that no one would come to her party. We threw her a bang up party with 40 or 50 kids and a few drop-ins. There was no booze, no drugs, and if they wanted to smoke they had to leave the yard. But we gave them a scavenger hunt that had them running around the whole neighborhood, tons of food, dancing with a Rent-to-Own stereo system, lots of games, a bonfire, and two tents for the 12 that were spending the night -- one for girls and one for boys. Her Father and I stayed up all night and kept our eyes on them. I think I would trust a ten year old alone before I would trust a 14 year old. There are three times in a child's life when they must be watched closely; in the first year when they are turning into a person, in the toddler stage when they are turning into a child, and in the teen years when they are trying to be adults. It is the times of change that are most dangerous. Gee
  15. Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

    Raider5678; I am going to respond to your post because it is intelligent, rational, and unbiased -- which is a nice change. Sure, there are lots and lots of Court cases. There are so many that you can pick and choose the ones that support your position. We have seen some of the cases that support the "victim" female position, and the one about Amherst, but what about the one that I learned about when studying law? This was a case from many years ago about a black man, who was sentenced to prison for 30 years to life, because he attempted the rape of a white woman. What was the evidence in this case? The ONLY evidence was that he was walking down the road behind her; following her, maybe. There was no other evidence presented. So my thought is that an innocent person being made to feel "dirty" or like a "slut" is a lot better than being an innocent person who was convicted and had to do 30 years hard time. This is assuming that he survived 30 years after being convicted of attempted rape of a white woman. I will not argue that there are not incompetent judges, biased and stupid juries, and incompetent attorneys, but that is the reality. Law is not like what you see on TV. There is no script writer that will make everything come together the way you think it should. As I stated before, I worked in law offices, so I have some personal experience in these things. In one office, I worked for an attorney who was very good at Juvenile cases, Protective Social Services cases. I had been doing some filing, as many of these cases require annual reports, and started reading the file. When the attorney walked into the office, he took one look at my face and then the file in my hands, and said, "Don't read those old cases." There were tears streaming down my face. I said, "Does she still have that little girl?", he answered, "Yes." It is very difficult to sever parental rights in Michigan -- especially for the Mother. As far as the Father goes, it is a little different. Everyone knows about "dead-beat dads", who do not take care of or claim their children. These cases are usually paternity cases, where the Courts do blood tests, establish paternity, and charge child support. We had four paternity cases the year before I was forced to retire because of disability. One of the cases was what you would expect, but the other three were men who wanted access to their children. These men were suing their child's Mother in Court for parental rights. These men wanted to talk to the child's teacher, have input regarding their education, take them to a ball game or out to dinner, or fishing or on vacation -- they wanted to know their children. They wanted the children to know them and their heritage and their Grandparents. So if they wanted all of this, why didn't they marry the Moms? Why would the Moms marry them? A woman can have a baby, live with Grandma and Grandpa, who are the best babysitters in the world, and cry to the State that they are single parents. They will get free medical, housing costs, food assistance, great babysitters, and even get to go to college. They can date anyone they want, keep whatever hours they want, and not answer to anyone. If the Dad gives them trouble, they can "forget" to be there when he comes to pick up his kids. If a man is fool enough to marry in this environment, he has to know that she has the power to take everything from him whenever she chooses. He will lose his home, his family, the patio that he worked to build, his quiet evenings, his holiday experiences, his life. She, on the other hand, can keep the home, the children, and her routine, while running up his charge accounts, slandering his name, f*cking his brother, his neighbor, and his co-worker, and beating his children and sending them to bed without supper. There are no laws against this. She can move in her boyfriend, make him her babysitter, and if her ex gets mad, she can have him sent to anger management, all while he is paying for the privilege of being her ex-husband. If anyone questions her behavior, she explains that "He was mean to me" or "I was afraid of him" -- and people will buy it. Do women do this? Yes. I have witnessed it more than once, and it is becoming a problem. When a news show tells me about a man, who murdered his wife right after she said she wanted a divorce -- I am not surprised. Of course, all women are not like this, but if you like statistics, then look at the marriage rates. They are down in every State except Hawaii. Male suicide is up and children are running wild with little discipline or control. Many people marry, but don't have children -- that rate is also down. My personal experience and the above statistics tell me that this is a trend -- a trend that is destroying families. What is causing it? Are the men that women work with also aware of this trend? Yes. It is damned personal, and many have experienced at least a part of it. Some people think that this trend is caused by Women's Rights. For myself, I don't know, but I do know that for all the talk about women's rights, there is damned little talk about women's responsibilities. Most men know that justice is nice to get, but you have to learn to roll with the punches. Men also know that rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. If women want equality, then they have so stop yelling about being a "victim", start learning how to solve their problems, and look at their responsibilities. That is my whole point. Gee