Posts by Rebecca Cox2

swiftcobra15 said:👍

I don't think there's any room for shock or outrage here;
we really should just accept these differences as facts of life.

I started this thread (over on "philosophy"!) so I’d appreciate it if we could please stay on topic.
If you want to discuss bad parenting or similar issues, there are several threads dedicated to that on other subforums.

I started this thread (over on "philosophy"!) so I’d appreciate it if we could please stay on topic.
If you want to discuss bad parenting or similar issues, there are several threads dedicated to that on other subforums.

I started this thread (over on "philosophy"!) so I’d appreciate it if we could please stay on topic.
If you want to discuss bad parenting or similar issues, there are several threads dedicated to that on other subforums.

But does he even need to? This whole debate feels like a leftover from egalitarian ideology, built on the assumption that gender roles are purely "nurture-based," stemming from outdated theories that view the brain as a "blank slate."..

swiftcobra15 said:👍

I don't think there's any room for shock or outrage here;
we really should just accept these differences as facts of life.

I started this thread (over on "philosophy"!) so I’d appreciate it if we could please stay on topic.
If you want to discuss bad parenting or similar issues, there are several threads dedicated to that on other subforums.

I started this thread (over on "philosophy"!) so I’d appreciate it if we could please stay on topic.
If you want to discuss bad parenting or similar issues, there are several threads dedicated to that on other subforums.

I started this thread (over on "philosophy"!) so I’d appreciate it if we could please stay on topic.
If you want to discuss bad parenting or similar issues, there are several threads dedicated to that on other subforums.

True, but accepting that requires a shift in perspective that many people aren't ready for. They tend to label such views as regressive, discriminatory, or just plain old stigmatizing...

Depending on the survival strategy of a specific species (including various sub-species and cultures), a father carries out a different role in raising his offspring—specifically in ensuring they survive until they can fend for themselves. It isn't just about biology, either; men employ all sorts of tactics to ensure their lineage continues, ranging from "hit and run" to "you're the only one for me for life."

Naturally, the "return on investment" varies accordingly... 😎

Raymond Taylor7 said:I’m honestly not even sure if this thread is strictly meant for guys' opinions,

but let's be real, we see these kinds of discussions all over the internet and they always spiral into the exact same thing—people who don't want kids judging those who do by calling them shallow or saying they're just slaves to their biological urges

I guess I find that whole mindset pretty discriminatory and frankly just arrogant, because the people choosing not to have children obviously can't possibly know what it feels like to actually want them

It’s like everyone has suddenly become some kind of enlightened genius overnight, acting like wanting a family is somehow low-class or beneath them

👎

The phrase "having kids" does feel low and dirty because it implies—even if we don't realize it—that a child is just parental property. It’s barely an upgrade from saying "making a baby."

Raising a child is a better way to put it, though even that doesn't seem to capture the full reality, given how often people struggle to actually succeed at it.

As for me, my child is due in about a month. My goal is simply to keep them healthy and safe until they reach the age where they can truly interact with the world. After that, I hope to guide them toward becoming a contributing member of our family, giving them the foundation they need to grow into an independent, responsible adult.

Hopefully, my spouse and I can pull this off together...😉

Matthew Ruiz2 said:So, what does happiness actually mean to you? And what about misery? Is misery simply the direct inverse of happiness, or is there a more complex relationship at play? Furthermore, what provides lasting fulfillment rather than just a fleeting moment?
Is happiness merely an abstract concept, a transient feeling, or perhaps a profound experience? Have you ever truly felt it? If so, how did it manifest—in whom, through what, and with what level of intensity?
If someone claims to be satisfied or fulfilled, does that necessarily imply they are happy? Can satisfaction even be equated with happiness? How much of a distinction do you draw between these two states?

It may be one of those eternal philosophical or sociological debates, but I expect nothing less than your most honest answers.

Technically, "happiness" is just a cocktail of brain chemicals—serotonin, endorphins, and the rest—triggering a sense of pleasure that our rational minds then process and label as "happiness."

Matthew Ruiz2 said:So, what does happiness actually mean to you? And what about misery? Is misery simply the direct inverse of happiness, or is there a more complex relationship at play? Furthermore, what provides lasting fulfillment rather than just a fleeting moment?
Is happiness merely an abstract concept, a transient feeling, or perhaps a profound experience? Have you ever truly felt it? If so, how did it manifest—in whom, through what, and with what level of intensity?
If someone claims to be satisfied or fulfilled, does that necessarily imply they are happy? Can satisfaction even be equated with happiness? How much of a distinction do you draw between these two states?

It may be one of those eternal philosophical or sociological debates, but I expect nothing less than your most honest answers.

Well, a deficiency in serotonin can lead to depression, which is undeniably an unhappy state. A lack of endorphins might not cause that specifically, but it could lead to total apathy toward everything (I'm speaking from memory here, rather than digging up specific medical journals online)...

Matthew Ruiz2 said:So, what does happiness actually mean to you? And what about misery? Is misery simply the direct inverse of happiness, or is there a more complex relationship at play? Furthermore, what provides lasting fulfillment rather than just a fleeting moment?
Is happiness merely an abstract concept, a transient feeling, or perhaps a profound experience? Have you ever truly felt it? If so, how did it manifest—in whom, through what, and with what level of intensity?
If someone claims to be satisfied or fulfilled, does that necessarily imply they are happy? Can satisfaction even be equated with happiness? How much of a distinction do you draw between these two states?

It may be one of those eternal philosophical or sociological debates, but I expect nothing less than your most honest answers.

To rationalize it:

- The upcoming birth of my first child.
- Making love to my wife.
- Playing with my one-year-old niece.
- The scent of roses in the early morning.
- Burying my face in my cat's soft belly or having her fall asleep on my chest.
- Hitting a winning shot in pickup basketball (especially a three-pointer when the opponent sees it coming). That feeling lingers for quite a while...
- Eating chocolate in any form.
- Financial security (I'm not there yet, but I'm working toward it).
- And so on and so forth.

Matthew Ruiz2 said:So, what does happiness actually mean to you? And what about misery? Is misery simply the direct inverse of happiness, or is there a more complex relationship at play? Furthermore, what provides lasting fulfillment rather than just a fleeting moment?
Is happiness merely an abstract concept, a transient feeling, or perhaps a profound experience? Have you ever truly felt it? If so, how did it manifest—in whom, through what, and with what level of intensity?
If someone claims to be satisfied or fulfilled, does that necessarily imply they are happy? Can satisfaction even be equated with happiness? How much of a distinction do you draw between these two states?

It may be one of those eternal philosophical or sociological debates, but I expect nothing less than your most honest answers.

It's all of those things.

Matthew Ruiz2 said:So, what does happiness actually mean to you? And what about misery? Is misery simply the direct inverse of happiness, or is there a more complex relationship at play? Furthermore, what provides lasting fulfillment rather than just a fleeting moment?
Is happiness merely an abstract concept, a transient feeling, or perhaps a profound experience? Have you ever truly felt it? If so, how did it manifest—in whom, through what, and with what level of intensity?
If someone claims to be satisfied or fulfilled, does that necessarily imply they are happy? Can satisfaction even be equated with happiness? How much of a distinction do you draw between these two states?

It may be one of those eternal philosophical or sociological debates, but I expect nothing less than your most honest answers.

I have to admit, my biggest struggle is actually those accumulated moments of pure happiness that just hit me out of nowhere... like right now.😁

Matthew Ruiz2 said:So, what does happiness actually mean to you? And what about misery? Is misery simply the direct inverse of happiness, or is there a more complex relationship at play? Furthermore, what provides lasting fulfillment rather than just a fleeting moment?
Is happiness merely an abstract concept, a transient feeling, or perhaps a profound experience? Have you ever truly felt it? If so, how did it manifest—in whom, through what, and with what level of intensity?
If someone claims to be satisfied or fulfilled, does that necessarily imply they are happy? Can satisfaction even be equated with happiness? How much of a distinction do you draw between these two states?

It may be one of those eternal philosophical or sociological debates, but I expect nothing less than your most honest answers.

In my view—yes. I mean, what more could you really ask for?

Matthew Ruiz2 said:So, what does happiness actually mean to you? And what about misery? Is misery simply the direct inverse of happiness, or is there a more complex relationship at play? Furthermore, what provides lasting fulfillment rather than just a fleeting moment?
Is happiness merely an abstract concept, a transient feeling, or perhaps a profound experience? Have you ever truly felt it? If so, how did it manifest—in whom, through what, and with what level of intensity?
If someone claims to be satisfied or fulfilled, does that necessarily imply they are happy? Can satisfaction even be equated with happiness? How much of a distinction do you draw between these two states?

It may be one of those eternal philosophical or sociological debates, but I expect nothing less than your most honest answers.

There isn't much difference beyond semantics. If I had to put a finger on it, I’d say happiness is a brief, intense burst, while satisfaction is more enduring and less intense—but they both stem from the same roots, don't they?

Matthew Ruiz2 said:So, what does happiness actually mean to you? And what about misery? Is misery simply the direct inverse of happiness, or is there a more complex relationship at play? Furthermore, what provides lasting fulfillment rather than just a fleeting moment?
Is happiness merely an abstract concept, a transient feeling, or perhaps a profound experience? Have you ever truly felt it? If so, how did it manifest—in whom, through what, and with what level of intensity?
If someone claims to be satisfied or fulfilled, does that necessarily imply they are happy? Can satisfaction even be equated with happiness? How much of a distinction do you draw between these two states?

It may be one of those eternal philosophical or sociological debates, but I expect nothing less than your most honest answers.

I suppose I have...😉

mistyfox812 said:Then go ahead and run the study! Get a group from Brighton together (you know, the geniuses like yourself) and prove that, by any measurable standard, you guys have stats just as good as the T-Mobile people. That would actually be a massive argument against T-Mobile and a huge win for Brighton.
Right now, it just looks like you're digging your heels into your beliefs despite what all those peer-reviewed scientific journals are saying.

It’s not a bad suggestion. I might bring it up with the folks at Bright-ovac, but honestly, there are much bigger fires they're trying to put out right now. I doubt they'll take on TM until these "more dangerous threats" are dealt with...😬

mistyfox812 said:Then go ahead and run the study! Get a group from Brighton together (you know, the geniuses like yourself) and prove that, by any measurable standard, you guys have stats just as good as the T-Mobile people. That would actually be a massive argument against T-Mobile and a huge win for Brighton.
Right now, it just looks like you're digging your heels into your beliefs despite what all those peer-reviewed scientific journals are saying.

I'm simply being skeptical because there is a more logical explanation available. Besides, we both know that science and scientists can be dead wrong sometimes (even if they eventually correct themselves)...

Kyle Nelson2 said:Transcendental Meditation is actually backed by over 300 scientific studies proving it really works.

That’s all well and good, but I don't see why anyone needs to chant specific mantras. Honestly, isn't it enough to just "veg out" for an hour or two a day with almost zero mental stimulation?

Once someone conducts a study comparing people like me—who are (dare I say?) smart enough to find ways to unwind daily—against those who rely solely on TM, then we can have a real conversation...

mistyjackal14 said:I was wondering if anyone might be willing to share their personal experiences or any insights they've gathered regarding Transcendental Meditation, since it seems to be a fairly well-known practice yet I haven't seen anyone on this forum discuss it directly quite yet.

thanks.

Here is a link to the Wikipedia entry...

As for me, I think there are plenty of better ways to unwind or even just kill some time. Honestly, most of the health benefits scientists point to can be explained quite simply—not everyone has the luxury of sitting around for two hours doing absolutely nothing. Isn't it just natural that people who actually have the time to rest would end up being healthier? 😎

Sophia Allen12 said:but there is an indication, which was my whole point

There isn't even an indication. It’s just something people have conjured up in their minds because they desperately want it to be true. Pure self-delusion, nothing more.

It's a widespread phenomenon, so I suppose it isn't surprising...

Man, this thread just absolutely blew up! It seems like choosing a diet is just as much of a "trigger" as someone's political beliefs—regardless of what the actual facts, independent metrics, or hard evidence might show...

Or maybe it’s the headlines? Some people clearly took them as a personal insult, while others saw them as total validation for everything they already believed...

It's honestly hilarious. 😁

Thomas Stewart97 said:I have plenty of animals, and I know for a fact they have souls. Because of that, people will eventually have to answer for how they treat them when they finally learn their lesson.
Why do you think life feels like hell for some people? It's because this country is a classroom—one where you stay until the lesson is truly learned.

It might be easier for you to swallow if I pointed out that neither humans (if we’re going to use speciesism to separate ourselves from other creatures, much like how racism separates people), nor animals, nor plants actually possess souls.

It’s all just heavy mythology (much like karma or reincarnation, really). But it seems most people find self-delusion much more comfortable than facing the truth, so... who am I to judge?

Sophia Allen12 said:Don't talk nonsense if you don't know what you're talking about. I've watched two different documentaries where various universities led the research.

Go ahead—try to name those specific universities and those exact shows. You really ought to realize that just because something is labeled a "documentary," it doesn't mean it's telling the truth or providing accurate data on its supposed subject matter...

Take UFOs and aliens, for instance. There's a mountain of "documentaries" out there on the topic, yet we still lack even the slightest shred of physical evidence that extraterrestrial life exists, let alone a high-tech civilization...

Here is an article with references explaining where this myth actually originates and how much scientific merit it truly holds...

So, that's enough nonsense from me.

Jonathan Hernandez4 said:They say it’s incredibly important—if not the most vital factor—to consider who is actually delivering the arguments.

It isn't just a theory, either. It’s blatantly obvious in social experiments where participants interact with someone designed to either agree or disagree with them. When a subject is praised for being brilliant or told their ideas are foolish, their perception shifts instantly. In studies where people were asked to rate the intelligence of an interlocutor (who was simply following experimental protocols), almost everyone rated the person who agreed with them or validated their views as smarter, more capable, or kinder, regardless of the actual topic being discussed.

It’s essentially "preaching to the choir."

The real issue? When it comes to serious, high-stakes matters, you can't solve anything by simply presenting facts if you haven't first won over the person listening.

Sophia Allen12 said:Oh, absolutely!
There have been studies showing that plants grow better if you play soothing, light music for them—even suggesting they actually lean toward the sound source and such...

Actually, that's incorrect. There haven't been any legitimate scientific studies on this; most of what people cite are just elementary school science fair projects rooted in pseudoscience.

A plant doesn't possess a nervous system capable of perceiving vibrations or aligning itself with them. It doesn't even have ears...

Tiffany said:What are your thoughts on this?

I certainly wish that were the case. However, if we look at the animal kingdom—which we are undeniably a part of, whether we care to admit it or not—the reality is almost the exact opposite. Unfortunately, does that fact tell us anything about modern human intelligence? Not really, and neither does this study.😛

How do you actually shift someone's perspective when they refuse to listen to reason?

Or, put another way, what kind of evidence would it take to make *you* rethink your entire worldview?
(And I mean regardless of where you stand—whether it's religion versus atheism, being a vegan versus a meat-eater, or even smoker versus non-smoker.
)
Is there truly anything capable of triggering a radical shift in how you see the world? Because if the answer is "no," how can we honestly expect anyone else to change their mind?

Taylor Campbell4 said:Rebecca Cox2: I’d personally let someone like that pass away if that was their wish and just close the case for a while. That said, I don't have an issue with forced feeding. Since we already accept things like involuntary hospitalization, court-ordered rehab, or mandatory schooling, why is this any different?

That's incorrect. Children aren't people who possess human rights that shield them from being coerced into doing what's necessary.

If they aren't people, then what exactly are they? 😕

This kind of logic is the root of so much evil in our world. It grants parents absolute dominion over their children simply because the parents hold "human rights" while the kids supposedly don't...

Is a hunger strike justified when it serves as the final line of defense once every other avenue has been exhausted? When someone truly feels they have nothing left to lose but their own life, that kind of action carries a certain weight.

However, initiating a hunger strike before a trial even begins suggests a sense of guilt—as if the individual lacks the courage to face the American judicial system, regardless of how flawed it might be. Besides, shouldn't there be more substantial ways to mount a defense than simply offering up one's life? To me, this looks like nothing more than tacky media drama, a desperate attempt to preserve a false reputation among an unsuspecting public...

Personally, if someone chooses this path, I would let them reach their end (if that is truly their wish) and close the case for a while. That said, I don't have any issue with forced feeding either. We already accept forced medical treatment, involuntary rehab for addiction, and mandatory school attendance; why should this be viewed as any different?

blue bird said:🙏 🙏 🙏
The Skeptics—well, that includes my dear old friend Dawkins🙏

Dawkins and Pinker. I Dennett. I James Randi...

A whole group of them, all incredibly blunt and honest.😎

Aleksandr_V_Fedotov said:They don't have their own "Pope," their own "Church," or anything like that... It makes me wonder, because I see religious fanatics out there proselytizing and protesting constantly without anyone stopping to ask us what we think! Hello!!! Atheists are a part of this world too! Wouldn't it be great to have someone who represents the one faith that doesn't believe in anything? 🙂

Go ahead, click my signature if you want to read up on the latest initiative...🙂

velvetmarlin24 said:I couldn't find an existing thread for this, so I'm starting one.

Basically, I want to know: does being attractive—regardless of gender—make it easier to land a job, hit your career goals, and so on?

Absolutely. It’s the same for people with great hair, those who smile more often, or even those with a bit of extra height (though you don't want to be so tall that you become a "freakin' anomaly"). There are plenty of studies and experiments out there, not to mention statistical data showing that salary levels often correlate quite closely with physical attractiveness and height...

Of course, there are obvious outliers. You can also find a correlation between shorter stature and ambition—sometimes it seems like people within a certain average height range possess a much stronger drive to succeed...

Dr. Miller said:It is absolute nonsense for medicine to claim that life DOES NOT begin at conception. From a medical standpoint—and I studied medicine, after all—life starts at fertilization. Meanwhile, the law steps in later, usually around the tenth or twelfth week depending on which state you're in, once the embryo becomes a fetus. When does life begin? It isn't some endless philosophical debate, any more than we debate when someone takes their first breath. If we look at it morally, an abortion at any stage is murder; plain and simple. But legally, it isn't always. And this whole argument about consciousness is just silly. Bacteria don't have consciousness (at least not in the way we understand it), yet they can still absolutely wreck your system if you aren't careful. We are obviously talking about toxic or parasitic bacteria here.

legitimate = legal, lawful, or valid 😕

Did you perhaps mean "morally speaking" or "biologically speaking"?