CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › David Robinson26 › Posts

Posts by David Robinson26

28 posts shown.

Debates over sex and gender in Philosophy ·
Sandra Murphy33 said:As far as I’m concerned, these identity games are just nonsense—they're essentially fake and fundamentally non-existent.
What actually dies when a person passes away is, first and foremost, the collection of identities and roles they cling to (including gender, which is strictly a byproduct of the body, the "earthly vessel")

However absurd these constructs may be, they are precisely what define a person, encompassing all their virtues and flaws alike.
Debates over sex and gender in Philosophy ·
Sandra Murphy33 said:That’s what happens when they try to turn the kind of empathy and understanding Sigmund Freud talked about into actual legislation.
Over the last few decades, we have seen countless attempts of this nature. Coercion is a subtle, creeping thing. It doesn't always arrive with a sledgehammer; more often, it shows up as a series of small, calculated pressures designed to erode a person's autonomy until they feel they have no choice but to comply. People like to talk about freedom as if it’s an absolute, but in reality, social and professional environments are constantly exerting silent force to steer individual behavior toward a specific, predetermined outcome. It’s a mechanism of control that operates under the guise of necessity or "the greater good." Whether it's through economic leverage, emotional manipulation, or institutional pressure, the goal remains the same: to bypass a person's genuine will. Once you start making concessions to these quiet demands, you find yourself in a position where the ability to say "no" becomes increasingly expensive, both socially and practically. It is a slow process of diminishing returns on one's own agency. The constant push for "empathy" toward minorities and anyone deemed different—this whole obsession with political correctness—often backfires. It actually erodes the kind of natural, innate acceptance people usually have by creating a sense of forced compliance. When you try to legislate compassion, you just trigger resistance. Take your attitude, for example, lonegardener. 😉

Once again, we have to contend with the need to understand those incredibly prideful members of certain ambivalent factions who... They just won't. It’s about moving away from the hope that people will act out of empathy or compassion. Instead, the goal is to cement one's own status and perspective by codifying them into law.

😲

Well, Sandra Murphy33 caught on immediately, while you just continue to play the part of someone pretending not to understand. 😒
Debates over sex and gender in Philosophy ·
lonegardener said:Here’s a little more food for thought:

This older guy, a local shop owner, hung a sign outside his door that read: "if you were born with a dick, you're not a chick." 🤣

Well, some guy in a skirt—who happens to be a local city councilman—spotted it and demanded the owner take it down. So, you have this tall, burly guy who is very obviously a man. Look, nobody is stopping him from wearing a skirt, but apparently, that isn't enough for him: he wants *society* to loudly "validate" that he is a woman. It’s a very interesting concept.

Then there’s an older example: Ben Shapiro addressed Zoe Tur as "sir" (instead of, presumably, "ma'am" 🤦)

—to which the guy put his hand on Ben Shapiro's neck and said, "you can cut it out, or you'll go home in an ambulance."

Ben Shapiro gave a pretty weak response to that. He really should have said: DUDE! That was soooo ladylike, I'm sure everyone is now convinced that you are, in fact, a woman. 🤣

🤦
About what, exactly?
Are we supposed to take a definitive stance just because there happen to be gay individuals among trans people or other groups?
It is as if they don't exist in the rest of the population, which isn't necessarily true either.
Debates over sex and gender in Philosophy ·
ruggedraven36 said:I think I follow—you laid out the distinction pretty clearly. I'm guessing the real headache comes during the actual analysis—which is probably why everyone fights about it constantly—like trying to pin down whether a specific trait is actually gendered, or if it's biological versus cultural. But here's the kicker: People aren't born just as men or women; they're born as humans. Throughout life, they don't just build a gender identity, they build a human identity. Everything works fine until one starts erasing the other. Human dignity shouldn't hinge on gender identity, but at the same time, we have to realize that denying someone's gender identity is effectively denying their human dignity.

You've hit the nail on the head. 🎉
Debates over sex and gender in Philosophy ·
Amanda Jackson5 said:Are you even familiar with the concept of butch women or effeminate men?

So, we are looking at physical reality first, followed by psychological perception?
Thread Suggestion: Best Answer Voting in Philosophy ·
steelridge58 said:I’m looking for some honest input here since there isn't a formal poll set up 😉 regarding those tie scenarios we're seeing more and more lately where two people end up with the exact same number of votes; I'm wondering if we should just stick to our old way of doing things where the folks tied on votes basically chat it out and decide amongst themselves who gets to pose the next question, or if we ought to implement a fresh rule where the person who actually kicked off the current round of voting gets the deciding vote to break the tie.

Both proposals have potential flaws. There is always the possibility that they cannot reach an agreement, or worse, that both parties simply vote for one another.
If you ask me, we should just follow a specific order to resolve any disputes: first, cast a vote for the other person, and if that still doesn't break the deadlock, then move to a negotiation. That seems like the most logical way to handle things, in my opinion.
Poll: What defines true courage? in Philosophy ·
To act with integrity even when fear is present.
Round 6 Elections: Let's hear your thoughts... in Philosophy ·
steelridge58 said:"Just tell me now so I can go ahead and end it all if the answer is no"
😁

I suppose I took a bit of a cheeky approach to this myself.
When I went back to review the predispositions, point number four aligned perfectly with my own perspective on the matter.
It mentions that one shouldn't view the "subject" through a religious lens, which implies that an afterlife isn't necessarily assumed to be eternal.

That is precisely why I appreciate Oakhaven so much—and why I value your response.
Round 6 Elections: Let's hear your thoughts... in Philosophy ·
gentlerider7 said:Look, the bottom line was that it's not the fact that things end that makes life worth living—it's not about life being meaningless, either. I thought I made that perfectly clear, but apparently, I didn't.

Since this topic doesn't demand objectivity, it certainly shouldn't be held to an objective standard of value or purpose.
To put it more simply, diamonds hold value (for me, for you, or anyone else) precisely because they are scarce. If we possessed them in infinite supply, they would become utterly worthless.
Round 6 Elections: Let's hear your thoughts... in Philosophy ·
gentlerider7 said:The fact that something ends doesn't automatically make it precious—I mean, plenty of absolutely garbage things in this world are "finite," too.

To whom?

The topic was centered on who I would direct my questions toward—myself included. Consequently, my response remained strictly within those parameters.
If you find that life holds no value for you, then what is the purpose of living it at all?
There is a "cure," if you will.
Round 6 Elections: Let's hear your thoughts... in Philosophy ·
I see your point, steelridge58; I believe my own perspective aligns quite closely with yours.
While you certainly have a much more elegant way of articulating these thoughts than I do, the core essence remains the same.
What is it, precisely, that imbues this "life" with such profound value? In my view, it is fundamentally rooted in its finitude. If there happens to be some sort of continuation beyond this existence, I suspect it certainly won't be found "here."
Furthermore, if any form of afterlife does exist, its inherent value would once again be proportional to its duration. If it were infinite, it would ultimately hold no value at all.
Round 6 Elections: Let's hear your thoughts... in Philosophy ·
Haven't we drifted off-topic for about three pages now?
Is it possible that nobody is interested in this subject anymore?
We have the chat available if you prefer.
Round 6 Elections: Let's hear your thoughts... in Philosophy ·
Amanda Jackson5 said:Everything being said here just feels incredibly narrow-minded, uncritical, and frankly, a bit unimaginative:

Without getting bogged down in how we define God, you have to wonder why an advanced enough civilization couldn't reach a state where they effectively have no boundaries—whatever that implies, whether physically or spiritually. If you believe in the idea of quantity eventually transforming into quality, anything is on the table. I don't see any theoretical reason why some form of consciousness couldn't evolve to a point where you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and a god. In fact, I’d argue that any form of self-awareness naturally strives toward that. It might have even happened somewhere else in the universe already, maybe even more than once. And perhaps that first instance of "godhood" actually prevents others from happening, much like how the emergence of life on Earth changed everything else...

Nobody has sat down to run the actual probabilities here, but even looking at the linked article, it's clear that object behaved strangely in ways science hasn't quite pinned down yet. To be honest, there are some explanations out there that are far weirder than the idea of an alien origin.

First off, when you look at God through a philosophical lens rather than a religious or emotional one, you're essentially talking about a theoretical construct. We can plug just about any attribute we want into that construct, provided the final result remains logically coherent. You could even imagine one that is logically incoherent, but then you lose the ability to make any meaningful arguments regarding its traits.
Second, we have absolutely no way of knowing what a hypothetical alien civilization might want from us or what their motives would even be.
So, at the end of the day, both God and aliens are just hypotheses, and whatever traits we assign to them are really nothing more than our own human projections.

Why shouldn't we start with the most straightforward assumption derived from our own history? What has any advanced civilization ever taken from a newly discovered, inferior one?
They simply took whatever they wanted.
Resources were seized, and the local population was exploited or even wiped out if they stood in the way of resource extraction.
In an interplanetary context, the primary resource is the planet itself. They certainly wouldn't travel all this way just for gold, oil, or diamonds. It’s much more likely that their own world became overpopulated, uninhabitable, or otherwise depleted, driving them toward ours. If they arrive in waves, perhaps there won't be an immediate "extermination"; maybe they'll just treat us like we treat animals in a zoo.
Alternatively, if their motive is pure curiosity, it is highly probable that any "scouting" would be conducted without alerting the local population, as I suspect we would act in much the same way in some distant future.
Round 6 Elections: Let's hear your thoughts... in Philosophy ·
Amanda Jackson5 said:And honestly, that wasn't even the core of the question. But even if we assume an afterlife exists, does that automatically mean you’re going to run into Jesus there? I can imagine dozens of different scenarios for what happens after we die, and frankly, none of them necessarily involve biblical mythology. Don't you think someone would actually want an explanation? Like, is this whole thing a digital render or some kind of magic trick? Just a little clarity would be nice. Are we living in a Matrix situation, what's the deal here, how does it affect me, and all that...

But honestly, who would even know the explanation if we set aside biblical mythology?
If you "arrive" there under the exact same conditions as here, does that mean everyone else is just as clueless as you are?
That’s why I believe my line of questioning is perfectly valid. If the afterlife is just a continuation of this existence, then I need to establish a hierarchy of priorities so I can try to fix the mistakes I made first. However, if it isn't like that, then there really is no need to rush.
Strive to ensure each day presents you with a meaningful challenge, yet one that remains within the realm of manageable effort.
Thread Suggestion: Best Answer Voting in Philosophy ·
steelridge58 said:I think you missed something here
It's right over

thanks

I didn't realize it was a separate thread
Thread Suggestion: Best Answer Voting in Philosophy ·
steelridge58 said:It’s too late now, Casey Gomez, because the question is already set for Monday morning. Just try to get creative with it, and if you're lucky enough to have your answer picked as the good choice, then maybe you can step up and pose a new one.

Will there be more questions? 🙂
That "morning" timeframe is far too vague. Schwarzenegger will have it ready by noon.
steelridge58 said:Sigmund Freud, you’ve left us completely speechless
🙂

hehe, such a big kid.
The list he put together is actually quite solid; my only real grievance is seeing Doom placed at number two, but otherwise, the rest of the selection aligns perfectly with his personality.
Sandra Murphy33 said:Arguments are really nothing more than a highly articulated version of (dis)like; they are simply the rationalization of one's own taste.
Or, in the case of playing devil's advocate— it's just a game 😉for "the other side."

Well, damn. You’ve really caught me off guard with that one. 😠
Sandra Murphy33 said:The founder of Summerhill actually argued that
"all the evil in this world stems from the fact that we didn't play enough when we were children." 🙂

Childhood play is fundamental to psychophysical development. Playing outdoors and engaging in sports builds muscle, refines motor skills, and sharpens reflexes. Team sports, specifically, drive socialization—teaching us solidarity, how to cooperate toward a shared goal, and how to cultivate true sportsmanship, which helps us process defeat without feeling inadequate or worthless.
None of this carries weight if a person exists solely within their own head.
When someone lives entirely behind a screen, they are merely playing at being part of a community or interacting with nature. They are simulating real-world experiences they vaguely remember from a time when they still engaged with the world using their physical bodies—bodies that are now, quite steadily, fading away...

In short, video games are the perfect medium for the third age!
😬
We should probably pass laws to restrict them for children and the working population, while mandating them as essential equipment for nursing homes and households where people are over 50.

👍

I find myself almost entirely in agreement with your sentiment.
My only reservation lies in the specific age groups mentioned; I believe one should never stop playing, regardless of age. Of course, it must be done with moderation—not all day long, and certainly not through activities that are inappropriate for one's stage of life.