Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
|
|
The brain wiring of homosexuals |
Posted by: eagleeye - 02-05-2025, 08:52 AM - Forum: Off-topic
- Replies (11)
|
 |
I've often observed that gays tend to have certain personality types. A lot of gays are involved in theater and entertainment. Lesbians also tend to have specific personality types too, and it is very easy to tell if someone is a homosexual by the way they speak and act.
Could homosexuality be more than simply same-sex attraction? Could it be that being into the same sex is just one aspect of something wider? Some people say that you can't tell if someone is gay just by looking at them but that's obviously untrue. You often can tell if the person you're talking to is one.
At a place where I worked many years ago there was a guy who you only had to look at him to tell. His mannerisms, the way he walked and gestured, everything.
|
|
|
Those bacterial mats and sexual reproduction |
Posted by: Dexta - 02-04-2025, 05:46 PM - Forum: Science, Engineering and Mathematics
- Replies (6)
|
 |
I remember reading that there was no life to speak of much on earth, for a couple of billion years since abiogenesis, just bacterial mats. I think the "breakthrough" came with dichotomous "sexual" reproduction - the variety in offspring resulting from dichotomous (sexual) reproduction enabled (enables) success and survival and evolution to a far greater degree than purely "relying" on genetic mutations occurring through gene mutation by copying errors or the odd stray neutrino.
In short, sex makes weirdos, and we wouldn't be here without that. We'd still be floating in the sea with millions of our microscopic neighbours.
Any thoughts very welcome. I guess, sex is funny! Cheers
|
|
|
Negatives of mass immigration |
Posted by: eagleeye - 02-03-2025, 11:28 AM - Forum: Off-topic
- Replies (87)
|
 |
Some say that there are various negative aspects of mass immigration to the west. For example, it dilutes the culture of the host country, it changes the ethnic composition, and it results in a drain on resources, particularly law enforcement.
Is there truth to this, and if so, what can be done to fix the situation? Or if it's not true, how can the current problems of western countries be solved?
|
|
|
What's your Intelligence Quotient (IQ)? |
Posted by: Vorpal - 02-01-2025, 04:56 PM - Forum: Off-topic
- Replies (53)
|
 |
I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
It was said that forum members here have a high IQ. I want to find out how true that is.
At the outset, let's recognize one number cannot capture the complexity of an individual precisely. There are different kinds of IQ. If you had a professional assessment, you probably have subscale scores. The array of subscale scores are much more comprehensive.
So, let us know your IQ if you dare. How was it assessed? How biased do you think IQ tests are?
Disclaimer: IQ is not an assessment of a persons worth. Other personality variables are probably more valuable.
So, don't be shy. And the person with the lowest IQ reported by 9/9/25 will get a special prize.
|
|
|
Carrington, hold my beer... |
Posted by: Paleophyte - 01-31-2025, 07:59 AM - Forum: Science, Engineering and Mathematics
- Replies (17)
|
 |
If you aren't familiar with it, the Carrington Event was an intense geomagnetic storm on Sept. 1-2, 1859. It was produced by powerful solar flares and remains the most powerful geomagnetic event for which we have thorough written records, though Chinese records suggest even more powerful events in the not too distant past. The current induced in the cables set telegraph offices on fire and, if it happened today, would likely collapse our power grid and fry the majority of the satellites in the sky to a crispy brown. Smaller events have been recorded since then, including the brilliant outbreak of Auroras this past May. A storm with a severity similar to the Carrington Event may be expected every hundred years or so and its damage is estimated to be in the trillions of dollars, with potential civilization-ending knock-on consequences.
Well, there's bad news and then there's worse news. The usual suspects have been out poking at tree rings and found some anomalous spikes of Carbon-14. Initially these were thought to be the signatures of nearby supernovae or Gamma-Ray Burst, but analysis of ice cores found increased amounts of the cosmogenic isotopes Beryllium-10 and Chlorine-36 along with the Carbon-14. These two unsavoury customers aren't likely to be produced by supernovae or GRBs, but can be produced by very powerful solar particle events.
Dubbed Miyake Events after their discoverer, these spikes in cosmogenic radionuclides suggest that our sun thumps us with a super-flare every millennium or so. The exact timing and magnitude is currently highly uncertain with only 5 Miyake Events recorded for certain and another 4 awaiting independent verification. The last few events of this magnitude appear to have occurred in 660 BC, 774 AD, and 993 AD. The 993 AD event is associated with records of bright Northern Lights from Germany, Ireland, and Korea. The exact power of a Miyake Event is highly uncertain, but the terms "orders of magnitude worse" and "catastrophic" have been rightly applied.
|
|
|
A Secular Case Against Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide |
Posted by: SteveII - 01-30-2025, 07:33 PM - Forum: Philosophy and Ethics
- Replies (293)
|
 |
A Secular Case Against the Legalization of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
I want to have a serious discussion on euthanasia and assisted suicide from a purely secular point of view.
WHY (beyond just liking to write and debate)
Much of our historical moral and ethical thinking is rooted in religion (specifically Christianity in the west) or depends on fundamentally religious worldview assumptions. Now, unmoored from the Christian underpinnings, many of these issues are being reexamined and our cultural views are shifting. Topics ranging from marriage and family formation, abortion, sexual freedom, foundations of identity, and even death are hotly debated.
I have come to believe something about the nature of humanity. Many of these "religious" based moral and ethical concepts are not in fact religious. They are principles that provide the guardrails to human flourishing and just are the superior way for a society to order their collective lives. If I am correct, then what might appear to be "religious" moral positions—such as the belief that all human life has inherent value—are actually best understood as rational moral truths grounded in a vision of human flourishing. In other words, a non-theistic ethical framework can also justify robust protections for human life, particularly for those most vulnerable.
Similar to the abortion thread, this is a test of that thesis.
DEFINITIONS (for me as much as anyone)
Metaethics: Metaethics is the branch of philosophy that examines the nature, origins, and meaning of ethical concepts. It explores questions about the objectivity or subjectivity of moral values, the nature of moral language, and the foundations of ethical systems. The "how" of ethics.
- A metaethical realist might believe that moral truths are objective and grounded in natural or metaphysical facts, the foundation of deontological ethical approaches.
- A metaethical relativist believes moral truths are subjective or culturally dependent, which undergirds pragmatic or utilitarian ethical frameworks.
Normative Ethics: Normative ethics is the branch of philosophy that seeks to establish guidelines or principles for determining what actions are morally right or wrong. It focuses on practical application and decision-making in ethical dilemmas. The "what" of ethics. Normative ethics can be divided into three primary subdivisions:
- Utilitarian Ethics: A consequentialist framework that evaluates the morality of actions based on their outcomes. It prioritizes actions that maximize overall happiness or well-being and minimize suffering, often summarized by the principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number."
- Deontological Ethics: Focuses on adherence to moral rules or duties, irrespective of the outcomes. Rooted in a set of rules and principles, this framework emphasizes the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of actions rather than their consequences.
- Ethical Pragmatism: Emphasizes practical consequences and the adaptability of ethical principles to achieve desirable results in real-world contexts. While similar to utilitarianism in considering outcomes, pragmatism places greater emphasis on context and flexibility rather than rigid adherence to predefined moral rules.
SAMPLE APPLICATIONS TO THE TOPIC
- Utilitarian Ethics: This perspective may justify euthanasia as a moral choice if it effectively minimizes suffering and maximizes overall well-being. Advocates might argue that permitting euthanasia alleviates pain for terminally ill patients and respects their autonomy, thereby achieving the greatest good for the greatest number.
- Deontological Ethics: This approach allows for a firm rejection of euthanasia, emphasizing the duty to preserve life and adhere to moral rules such as "do no harm." From this perspective, the act of intentionally ending a life is inherently wrong, regardless of the potential benefits or the patient's desires.
- Ethical Pragmatism: Pragmatism might approach euthanasia with an emphasis on contextual factors, advocating for solutions tailored to specific circumstances. It could support euthanasia in limited cases where it serves practical purposes, such as relieving extreme suffering, but would emphasize the need for rigorous safeguards to prevent abuse or misuse.
INTRODUCTION
I present four arguments below. While they often rely on deontological ethical commitments, these commitments are generally accepted in hosts of other ethical applications (e.g. all manner of human rights issues, homicide laws, war crimes, bioethics). I try to address the inadequacy of utilitarian or pragmatics approaches within each argument.
ARGUMENT #1: The Risk to Human Dignity and the Devaluation of Life
Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide can erode the foundational principle that every human life carries intrinsic worth. If society sanctions the intentional ending of certain lives to relieve suffering or remove burdens, it implies that some lives have less value. This is a dangerous precedent, particularly for the vulnerable—elderly individuals might feel pressured to end their lives so as not to impose on their families, and people with disabilities could perceive themselves as “lesser” due to their perceived dependence.
When dignity depends on autonomy or “quality of life” alone, we reduce human beings to their functionality. Yet dignity should not hinge on productivity, health, or independence. The limitations of aging and illness foster relationships of care that enrich our understanding of human life. Elderly or severely ill individuals, through their reliance on others, provide opportunities for empathy, compassion, and deeper familial connections. Younger generations learn patience, responsibility, and the moral importance of caring for those in need—wisdom that cannot be gained if we equate a “good” life with one free from struggle or dependency.
Beyond Simple Calculations of Pain and Pleasure
Utilitarian frameworks often prioritize measurable outcomes, like the relief of pain, but can neglect other moral goods. The intrinsic worth of human life, the character-building nature of caregiving, and the depth of relationships forged in hardship do not translate neatly into a cost-benefit analysis. Similarly, ethical pragmatism, while valuing context, offers no firm foundation against the gradual erosion of respect for life if expedience consistently trumps principle.
Humans are more than their comfort levels or capacities. Even those who suffer can impart wisdom, inspire courage, and teach others about resilience. These intangible contributions matter deeply. They shape who we are as individuals and communities. The legalization of euthanasia may simplify certain dilemmas, but at the cost of weakening the social commitments that uphold the inherent worth of each person.
ARGUMENT #2: THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF EXPANDING ELIGIBILITY
When euthanasia and assisted suicide become legal, even under strict guidelines, historical examples show that eligibility criteria can gradually widen. In countries like Belgium and the Netherlands, the initial focus on terminal illness and extreme suffering expanded to include non-terminal conditions such as depression, chronic pain, or mental illness. Under a purely utilitarian lens, if minimizing suffering justifies taking a life, the door opens to ever-broader interpretations of what constitutes sufficient suffering or hardship.
This creeping expansion endangers vulnerable populations, who may be offered death as a “solution” rather than receiving life-affirming care or psychosocial support. Once society accepts euthanasia for one category of individuals, it raises the question: why not others? Such incremental normalization can result in ethical inconsistencies and a general weakening of the commitment to preserve life, especially when facing complex medical, psychological, or social challenges.
ARGUMENT #3: THE COMPROMISE OF MEDICAL ETHICS
The medical profession is founded on principles of healing and “do no harm.” Transforming physicians from caregivers into agents who can end life undermines the trust that patients place in them. From a deontological standpoint, the duty to preserve life is paramount to the profession, and legalizing euthanasia directly conflicts with this moral obligation. Patients must know their doctors will strive to protect and improve their health, not consider premature death a legitimate “treatment” option.
In contrast, a purely outcome-focused ethical system—such as some interpretations of utilitarianism—might regard euthanasia as permissible if it minimizes suffering. Yet this shift destabilizes patient-physician relationships. Patients may fear that doctors, motivated by efficiency or resource constraints, will suggest euthanasia rather than exploring palliative care or alternative treatments. It also diverts attention and resources from improving palliative care services, which can offer compassionate end-of-life support without actively ending a life.
ARGUMENT #4: THE DANGER OF COERCION AND ABUSE
Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide also introduces the risk of subtle coercion and abuse, despite formal safeguards. Vulnerable individuals—particularly the elderly, disabled, or those struggling financially—may feel pressured to choose death to relieve their families or lighten the burden on the healthcare system. Even if this pressure is not overt, the existence of the option can alter the psychological landscape. A supposedly “free choice” to die might be influenced by societal expectations, economic hardship, or fear of being a burden.
From a metaethical perspective, moral relativism might argue that consent under these circumstances is culturally and contextually valid. Objective moral frameworks, however, would maintain that true consent cannot occur in an environment where external pressures distort autonomy. Real-world data from jurisdictions that have legalized euthanasia show instances of misdiagnosis, non-consensual administration, and people feeling pushed toward ending their lives. No system of safeguards can fully eliminate these scenarios.
CONCLUSION
These four arguments challenge us to consider not just the immediate relief of suffering, but also the broader social, cultural, and moral costs. How do we weigh these intangible considerations against the desire to alleviate pain? Looking forward to the discussion and hope we can all learn something in the dialog.
I'm sure everyone would appreciate if replies included only relevant excerpts of the OP to your point or question rather than replying to the entire thing.
EDITED TO ADD: There is some confusion and I should have defined these terms:
Euthanasia vs. Assisted Suicide vs. Refusal of Treatment- Euthanasia: Someone else (e.g., a doctor) performs the final act that ends the patient’s life—like administering a lethal injection.
- Assisted suicide: A doctor or another party helps the patient end their own life—often by prescribing lethal medication—but the patient themself performs the final act.
- Refusal of treatment (“right to die” in a narrower sense): A patient declines or withdraws from life-sustaining measures, allowing a natural death to occur.
|
|
|
Why exactly does Atheism not have burden of proof? |
Posted by: Jarsa - 01-30-2025, 04:29 AM - Forum: Atheism & Theism
- Replies (474)
|
 |
So an atheist is someone, who when asked "Does God exist?", would say no, right? If they said "I don't know", they would be agnostic. A positive claim is assumed to be false until proven otherwise, so that provides some justification for saying no. But if they were asked "Does the multiverse exist?" they would probably say "I don't know".
What is the difference between the two questions, and why don't we assume the multiverse doesn't exist?
|
|
|
|