Total posts: 14,483
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Once she has children to consider, then maternal instinct should kick in.
Which includes the need for provision.
But of course nowadays, that rarely depends upon men going out to hunt for food.
And who except the woman, can say what a woman without children really wants these days.
It would certainly be arrogant of me to try and suggest what she should want.
There are no global rules or standards when it comes to relationships.
And I cannot read minds.
So, I don't know, is the answer to your latest question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
You couldn't have a Russian version, because the will already have been shot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Therefore it could be a true doctrine, if it is defined appropriately.
Is this what you are saying?
Though hypotheses do not really comply with the general rules of truth and falsehood.
More so, likelihood and unlikelihood.
Maybe?
Created:
-->
@Mall
Other than teaching as a method of conditioning...Teaching kids about heaven and hell, is not the same as teaching kids about Santa Claus and Easter bunny.
In so much as the usual intent of the former, is to make it a part of a conditioned belief system, whereas the later are simply intended to become conditioned folk tales.
As you well know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
How old is a child?
At any age a child will behave relative to it's ongoing conditioning.
Therefore, what is innocence?
And what does pure at heart mean?
Sentimental BS perhaps.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Hypothetically, if every pregnancy was terminated then this would make a difference.
And I know the difference between contraception and abortion.
Though both result in zero population gain.
And both result in no unwanted pregnancies.
Nonetheless, back in the real World population continues to increase.
So currently abortion has no effect negative effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
"A man"
"His woman"
His women.
The dominant breeding male will protect his harem.
Refer to it as jealousy if you wish.
So, we've moved on a tad since back in the day.
But the body chemistry stays the same.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
That's another way of doing it.
Though some people might frown at a system, where 75% of the participants are ignored.
Wherein, more people were unpersuaded than were persuaded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
HaHa.
You forgot that Russia is now a capitalist State.
Albeit headed by a dictatorially corrupt regime.
Not that I believe for one minute that you are Russian, or even female.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
As I stated, a dog will respond instinctively relative to it's circumstances.
So yes, either aggressively or non-aggressively.
What humans can do has nothing to do with what dogs can't do.
As it stands this is a somewhat daft statement.
Please exemplify so that I can understand it's relevance.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
I would suggest that typically an audience has an unswayable majority and a thoughtful minority, so outcomes are more likely to decided by the make up of the audience, rather than swayability and thoughtfulness per se.
For example, if you debate against Islam, where the audience is 75% Muslim and 25% other, if you're lucky you will get a respectful round of applause, but you will never win.
Though this is a generalisation not taking into account certain other factors, such as the ability of debaters to communicate reasonably coherent arguments.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
If you debate 100 times, win 90 times and lose 10 times, your win percentage would be 90%.
If you debate 100 times, win 90 times, lose 5 times and draw 5 times, your win percentage would still be 90%.
Nonetheless, it isn't worth worrying about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
And you accuse me of mushing.
The main problem with human interaction with canines and associated human expectations, is the assumption that canines can be trained to do and think in the same way that humans do and think.
So if you can get your dog to sit, and in a praising voice you say good boy and reward with a tasty treat. Then the dog will remember and repeat. Though a dog has never learned, and never will learn the definition of good boy.
So similarly, a dog can be trained to be either aggressive or non-aggressive. But the dog will never learn the definition of right and wrong relative to it's behaviour.
Whereas a person can be trained either voluntarily or involuntarily, and at all times consider and understand the rationale of the exchange.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
When a dog is equipped with protection, that dog is not defenceless. The opposite is true for a person.
Hmmmmmm.
Please clarify, with examples.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
For sure.
Jealousy is a word we use to describe a particular behaviour.
Desire, is another relative word.
I would suggest that what we attempt to describe with such words, are sub-consciously motivated physiological responses to perceivably demanding situations.
We attempt to describe body chemistry, as it were.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Well, I think that it's fair to say that a whole lot of pregnancies are planned.
And some are not.
And a lot of sensible people use contraception when indulging in recreational sex.
Your exaggerated hypothesis is not really realistic.
Just an exaggerated hypothesis for arguments sake.
And typically you avoided the question I posed to you.
So I will rephrase:
In terms of population loss or gain in relation to unwanted conception, what is the difference between an abortion and a condom?
(The ethics and morality of the issue is a separate hypothesis).
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Same old theories, that currently all lack definitive proof.
Nonetheless, alien intervention is a worthy theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
One can train a dog to behave in a particular way. Though it's behaviour will always be compared with human behaviour, by humans.
The dog will not make such comparisons. It will simply respond appropriately, according to circumstance.
What I am saying is, the concepts of right and wrong do not exist in a dog's brain.
So if a dog kills a person because of the circumstances in which it finds itself, then it has done nothing wrong. The onus of responsibility for the dogs actions will fall upon humans.
Though in such circumstances the dog usually ends up as the fall guy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Ah! Souls for sale.
Lubricant supplied at no extra cost.
Helps you slip through the portal into heaven.
Mass hypnosis could perhaps solve all the World's problems.
But that would depend upon the hypnotist.
Do you think that if we all sang a hymn at the same time on a Sunday (not clock time relative to time zone), it would be audible on the moon.
Perhaps if we relayed it to an orbiting loud speaker system with a particularly big sub-woofer.
Obviously something would need to be listening.
Perhaps that's where GOD'S hidden microphone is.
Created:
-->
@Mall
No and No.
8 billion and counting.
Don't think that a few abortions makes a whole deal of difference to the bigger picture.
A few more would perhaps be beneficial.
Of course, common sense all round would also be beneficial...Here's dreaming.
Question:
If a couple had chosen a condom rather than abortion, what would the difference be, in terms of population?
Answer:
Zero gain, so no difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
One would assume, that we were originally animals that lived in a family group, headed by a dominant breeding male.
Naturally, we developed varying ideological social systems, some which advocated monogamy and some which didn't.
I don't think that as a species we are instinctively programmed to pair bond.
Naturally, we also developed procreational drive into a recreational activity, wherein monogamy is also not a necessary requirement for everyone.
Nature is everything that occurs within a universe, therefore everything is natural.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I've clearly stated NO.
And also provided an explanation.
In a nutshell, dogs do not conceptualise and therefore make distinctions between right and wrong.
And you seemingly ignored my question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Not what I said.
The dog, relative to it's instinctive programming and behaviour would not be doing anything wrong.
Whereas the persons involved in the scenario would be.
Because as DavidAZZ points out, humans make conscious assessments and decisions within a legal ethical and social framework. Which includes conceptual distinctions between right and wrong.
(Which isn't to say that human behaviour isn't underpinned by a certain amount of basic instinct.)
And just out of interest, a question for you.
Why makes a person defenceless and a dog not?
One might suggest...The nature of the beasts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Otherwise, personhood is the state of being an existent person...Any person.
No psychoanalytical BS required.
And dogs cannot do anything wrong because they are not programmed to.
Whereas persons often behave counterintuitively...Which to be fair, is the nature of the beast.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
It's like, a head covering attached to certain items of person clothing.
Like doggyhood is a covering attached to a doggy jacket.
Similarly Kangaroo's.
Or Rhinoceros's.
Or Sperm Whales.
Is this helpful?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Megalomaniacal dictators do have a tendency to simultaneously encourage and yet despise the proletariat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yep, that's a way of looking at things.
And I wouldn't disagree with it.
Based upon my non-university education.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Well.
Supposedly,
Aaron was Moses's brother.
And the noses rhyme, was one of my late Dad's little ditties.
Interesting that noses rhymes with Moses.
Moses nose is,
Longer than.
Aarons square un.
Two options really.
Boxing injury,
Or variable genetics.
I'm guessing that you've heard of Moses?
He holds the record for the youngest ever person to cross the River Nile in a coracle.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Well.
Data assessment is not difficult, if the data is of a recognisable format.
Though interpretation might take a few moments rather than be instantaneous.
It all depends upon how familiar one is with a particular composition, it's definable parts and how the composer intended it's composition to be representative.
Language and it's definitions, is a broad subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
@FLRW
My primary comment concerning no space surrounded by space, was more about human perception than about theoretical physics.
After all, we are both limited and unlimited by imagination.
Though, theoretical physics is also imagination.
Quantum leap, imagine that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Not sure what left tribe projection might be.
Or who Kelly Osbourne is.
Though this moderate Brit see's the fields of Eastern UK awash with Eastern European vegetable pickers.
And the hospitals and care homes of the UK, awash with nurses from the far flung corners of the world.
Because very few self respecting pseudo-natives are prepared to get their hands dirty anymore.
Thanks be to migrants.
Of course, it's worth pointing out that all Americans and Brits are the descendants of migrants.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
And GOD said:
All Jews shall have long noses.
All except Aaron,
And he'll have a square un.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Proof proves something.
If it doesn't, it won't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Who's going to do all the dirty jobs for low wages then.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Why would an atheist bother to struggle with something that is not worth bothering to struggle with?
Kids die.
So:
1. Put them in a box and burn them.
Or:
2. Put them in a box in the ground and leave the to decay.
Are the two most popular options.
No problem.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
One can assume anything.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Staggering statistics for the staggerable.
Of course, some folk suggest that an extra-universal guy knocked it all together less than 10,000 years ago.
Whichever.
Makes you wonder where all the stuff came from though.
Maybe from an infinite DIY retail outlet.
Universal matter, in the green bags, on the shelf next to the tile grout.
Dread to think how much it cost.
Single blokes and their hobbies hey.
And Mr Fermi got a paradox named after him.
For stating the obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
God must be held accountable forth this no?
Hypothetically perhaps, if you've a mind.
If not then don't bother.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Consider this.
The trouble with the Trinity.
Is that there could be four or more things.
The Father
The Son
The Daughter
The Holy Spirit.
For example.
But if Christians accepted six propositions.
They would be Sexytarians.
This is just as logical as any other guff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Space and time are intangible and available, so do not need creating.
Stuff doing stuff is the tricky bit.
If there was no space, it would be surrounded by space.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
People also have a tendency to exaggerate and write associated folk tales.
And some people like to think that such folk tales are true and accurate.
Whereas the truth was that there was a local flood event and a woman named Norah rescued some goats in a rowing boat.
This was an assumption, but more logical and less exaggerated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
We could always blame Mickey Mouse instead.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Why is the Fermi paradox considered a paradox?
Because it fits with all the necessary requirements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I also have an account with Debate Island, in yet another name.
Don't find it particularly user friendly though.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The problem is.
For some.
"Spanking"
Is a positively connotative word.
Abuse can also have connotations.
Though more inclined towards the negative.
Just saying.
Spanking has both arguments and rhymes.
Whereas.
What rhymes with abuse?
Also.
Avoid beat and whip.
6. To make a smooth or frothy mixture.
Mousse for sure.
Is a smooth or frothy mixture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Hmmmm.
Perhaps we're still here as transplants from there.
New name, new identity though.
Sort of a witness protection programme.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Selective In-vitro population management systems, are a sensible idea in a progressive technologically advancing society.
So as an intellectually evolving collective, perhaps we should be considering a move towards this progressive style of population procurement.
Rather than simply, how to achieve a "raw dog" without unwanted consequences.
Perhaps also, in the short term, it would be more intellectually appropriate to move towards same sex methodology, in terms of achieving temporary sexual satisfaction.
Until harvesting and sterilization programmes are in place.
Of course in the long term, genetically engineered asexuality should be the ultimate human aim.
But for sure.
For the time being.
Wear that V and freezer badge with pride.
And Test Test Test.
Created:
-->
@Mps1213
Yep, we seem to have reached a point of general agreement.
Though, as I conceded previously, the Swedish example still relies upon cooperation.
Also, in terms of both social culture and population Sweden is markedly different to the USA and the UK. So one must be careful when trying to make direct comparisons.
Created: