jpahmad

He used to be an anarchist? Where did you get that info?

I don't understand Pinker. He has a lot of sensible things to offer to the discussion of human nature. In "The Better Angels of our Nature" he writes about 900 pages worth of an account on how humans have become progressively less violent and empathetic over the course of the last two millennium. He points to the Enlightenment and the "humanitarian revolution" as the pinnacle of human evolution where the western world broke free of the chains of mysticism and embraced reason and the scientific method. But then, at the end of it all, he claims that Hobbes Leviathan is needed permanently or else mankind will just slaughter each other in a barbaric fashion like they did 10,000 years ago. What?! Please someone explain this too me. He makes his claim around the 6 minute mark.

Nathan, are you serious with the above statement? Or are you just being funny? This is a very important part of the thread. I don't think it has gotten an adequate amount of attention. These questions need to be answered: What is a disease? Is a disease a fortunate or unfortunate thing to have? Or is it neutral? What is normal? Does normal have positive or negative connotations? Is having a disease normal? What are the "proper" emotions to feel towards someone with a disease? Is transgender a disease? Fyi, I don't have answers to these questions.

I don't see how delay of gratification is a negative experience. Certainly not frustrating. It's a skill. Some people don't have any craving for sweets. Habits make cravings. Anyway, I don't know any healthy long-term monogamous couples that are living in a state of frustration for the duration of their lives. All biological evolution is economically driven. Well, for one thing, Stefan has dedicated a large portion of his show to why woman are attracted to these types. I'm not sure what "dark triad personalities" has to do with bonobos though

Alarm bells!

My two posts disappeared. Here is a link about the evolution of man since agriculture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion Causes frustration? Who's frustrated? Didn't you answer your question about what environment is best for kids with the first statement above?

What a human being is changes with time. One again, we are not the same as we were 10,000 years ago. I posted a couple links concerning human evolution but it was moderated and I don't know when you're going to see it. Human nature is not fixed. It changes as women select who to mate with. Certain genes are weeded out over time and others are promoted to the next generation. The affinity for pair bonding, monogamy, sexual-self control, love, jealously, etc.. are all attributes that have been selected for.

Oh dear, I'm sorry you had to go through that. How was your relationship with your late husband? Any kids?

Welcome. What are some of those things or "truths" that you now have to face?

Let me find the studies and I'll post them up here. Also, Stefan has done quite a few podcast on it as well. Let me see what I can find Check out this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Humans-evolved-fast-after-advent-of-agriculture-3299665.php Here's a discussion between me and Stefan: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2865/iq-costs-and-benefits-saturday-call-in-show-december-13th-2014

The whole Sex At Dawn thing just seems like an ex-post-facto justification for behavior, kind of like circumcision. Human beings have been evolving continually since agriculture. We are not the same specimens that we were 10, 20, 100 thousand years ago. Monogamy evolved well before religion and state power. It evolved for the purpose of advancing the human condition. If it is "unnatural" for us, then why did it take place? What's the point of the book anyway? To point a finger at where we came from? Or to point a finger to where we should go? It's quite obvious that we came from multiple sex partners at some point. It's also quite obvious that we have an adaptive craving for sugar. So? We also we're not that smart and had smaller brains at some point. Does that mean that we should act like degenerates?

Here ya go: I agree

who owns the window?

you're wrong on all counts. There would be rules, there would be rhythm, and there would be "wrong notes." There also would be regulation, though it would not be coming from a centralized monopoly on violence.

My first response to the whole "I hope you get a therapist" line is that it is belittling, patronizing and arrogant. If there was real concern, it could definitely be conveyed in private. I would never consider saying that to someone in public. Yuk.

Therapy for what?

Alan, how do you gauge the value someone is contributing to the community and/or civilization as a whole? There is more than one way to be productive. Engaging in political discussion isn't the only way to contribute.

Nathan, saying that the brain scans "reflect" does not mean that the brain scans are identical. "Reflect" is a slippery word, does it just mean "similar" in this case, or "sort-of like", or "identical"? There is nothing wrong with being a man who "feels like a women." And there is nothing wrong with being a woman who "feels like a man." We define woman as XX and man as XY. This is an objective definition. The definition could change, sure, because it's arbitrary really. We could say a woman is someone with a particular brain scan and a man is someone with a different brain scan, but what would be the impetus to do this? Science or force? I have no problem with Caitlyn Jenner. I'm sure I would get along just fine with her assuming she is a good person, but I'm sorry, in my mind, I don't regard her as a female. Feminine? Perhaps, but I'm not even sure about that. Now, I wouldn't insult her by refusing to address her as she wishes, because that would obviously be disrespectful. But I won't teach my children that "she" is a woman, I will teach them that Caitlyn Jenner is a man who "feels" like a women and wants to be a women. There is nothing wrong with Caitlyn Jenner as long as she is happy with herself. If she has the money to do all sorts of cosmetic surgery then that's great. However, my suspicion is that if Bruce Jenner lived in a world where people lived and let live, were empathetic and respectful of all the varieties of the human condition, then he probably wouldn't have a complex. He would just be accepting of his body and live contently as a gay man, or a man who feels and acts like a women, without the self mutilation. This is just a theory though, and I may be completely wrong about this. It may be that, outside of any social context, Bruce Jenner felt completely alien in his own skin and would never have a happy life without the transformative surgery, without becoming Caitlyn Jenner.

How does a man know what it is like to not be a man? More specifically, how does a future transgendered person identify with something they have never experienced? Caitlyn Jenner, for example, may say that she identifies with females more, but how does she know what it feels like to be a female?

Don't forget that I want my own land for grazing and/or chasing game (if I am a meat-eater) Here's the real question. Shouldn't all objects, including "living" objects, be able to be objectively defined? If not, then there goes philosophy.

what if I thought I was a dinosaur and demanded to be regarded as one?

(3) Attempts to push reading can backfire. Children (like all of us) resist being pushed into doing things they don’t want to do, and this applies to reading as much as to anything else. Here is an example of typical stuff you see in these kinds of articles. What does he mean by the term "push." I don't mean to be a downer on this article, but it seems to be another case of baby and the bathwater.

Around the 15:50 minute mark, "I just quit my job because I wanted to come and do this." LOL!!!

Kenshikenji, the self detonating nature of your argument surfaced clearly at the 10 minute mark. You contradicted yourself. Statement : "Your imposing this cost on the rest of society when you invoke rights and you can't do that in a free market" Isn't "you can't do that" a normative claim? Why are you allowed to make a normative claim and the person who had their shoes taken can't make a normative claim? Also, people who "believe in a free market" are making normative claims. To "believe in" is a normative claim. At the 14 minute you say that someone who has a signed contract with you, will not break it because they want to "protect their reputation." How could this person be living on the same planet as the person who took my shoes through force and is not worried about reputation? This makes no sense. If property rights are not valid in a positive sense, as you claim, then how could self-ownership be valid in a positive sense? If we rely on "what is" to guide us, and not what "ought to be", then we certainly can't point to self-ownership as being valid. I could simply say that I didn't sign the contract (even though I did). I could say that I was possessed or that the person I was yesterday is not the person I am today.

Thank you for your heartfelt response Merrifield. I'm not Carl, but I did post the "fairytale land" comment. The problem here is knowing exactly who the bullies are. It's not an exact science obviously. I don't see how quitting the force (your friend) means he gave up on fighting bullies. Certainly there are many other things involved in being a police officer than fighting bullies. For example, when the person you have to arrest is not a bully. That certainly can cause a crisis of conscience. Moreover, why is it always assumed that people who are not cops don't want to fight bullies? It's a sort of a false dichotomy, like if you are not a cop, then you can not protect yourself. There is no one "hiding in the corner." I don't know where you get this idea. Guns have made things very equal over the years. It's not that easy to just barge in and bully an armed citizenry. Unless, you have a monopoly on the use of force like the government.