elzoog

Can you guys give me the evidence that in societies that allow women and men to freely choose what they want to do, that stereotypical gender preferences increase rather than decrease?

I created a blog called "Christianity will not save western civilization". Can you guys give me any feedback? https://christianitywontsave.home.blog/

VillageWisdom, it seems like what you are saying is that for example, if I were to say "What does God want me to do?" I would be giving up responsibility and agency. Am I correct?

The daughter's mother wants her to have nothing to do with me.

Except that I did tell the spirit to do it within a certain period of time. It was one day late, but still...

That's my point. If it was merely my thoughts then why did it create that effect? Maybe it's because it was only my thoughts before.

The problem with your analysis is, my relationship with my daughter has been an ongoing problem for many years. So if the subconscious is telling me "my daughter is important" it is telling me something I already knew. The BIG difference is this time, the experience seems to have caused something externally (i.e. my daughter contacting me).

I was wondering what you guys would say about this. I had a feeling of the presence of God. I had not been in contact with my daughter for over 6 years. So I told this presence that if he is real, have my daughter contact me. About 5 days later, I noticed that my daughter contacted me. Any comments?

In the middle ages, the invading Muslims were defeated by the crusades and other battles. So, Christianity beat Islam. Then in the 20th century, secularism and atheism pretty much destroyed Christianity's stronghold on civilization. Thus Atheism beat Christianity. Currently, Islam is taking over the secular west. So Islam beats Atheism.

I can make my case very simply. Atheism beats Christianity Islam beats Atheism Christianity beats Islam

An example of a UNIVERSITY MATHEMATICS web site that will say for example, 7 + 6 = 1 WITHOUT the mod, is here. http://www-math.ucdenver.edu/~wcherowi/clockar.html#ans1 Also, I could argue that 7 + 8 = 13 without any mod. Your response?

I agree that universal statements are generally meaningless. How someone who actually doesn't understand the foundations of mathematics can tell me that I don't understand the foundations is beyond me. An example of where 7 + 8 = 3 is explicitly explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic "A familiar use of modular arithmetic is in the 12-hour clock, in which the day is divided into two 12-hour periods. If the time is 7:00 now, then 8 hours later it will be 3:00. Usual addition would suggest that the later time should be 7 + 8 = 15, but this is not the answer because clock time "wraps around" every 12 hours; in 12-hour time, there is no "15 o'clock". Likewise, if the clock starts at 12:00 (noon) and 21 hours elapse, then the time will be 9:00 the next day, rather than 33:00. Because the hour number starts over after it reaches 12, this is arithmetic modulo 12. According to the definition below, 12 is congruent not only to 12 itself, but also to 0, so the time called "12:00" could also be called "0:00", since 12 is congruent to 0 modulo 12." And later "Modular arithmetic is referenced in number theory, group theory, ring theory, knot theory, abstract algebra, computer algebra, cryptography, computer science, chemistry and the visual and musical arts."

Well, YOU said that universal "means applicable (or relevant, or appropriate) to ALL cases." Since there exists a case where 7 + 8 is not 15, the statement "7 + 8 = 15" is not applicable to ALL cases. Therefore, it is not universal according to YOUR definition. If not, why not?

But there IS a time and place where 7 + 8 isn't 15. So it can't be universal. Also, there IS a time and place where a circle can be a square. See for example, taxicab geometry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry As to 7 + 8 not being 15, if the numbers represent hours on a clock, then 7 + 8 would be 3 (i.e. 7 o'clock + 8 hours later is 3 o'clock, not 15 o'clock). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic

I can give you examples where both of those are NOT true. For example, a "circle" in Taxicab geometry looks like a square. "You will experience on this page that this t-square is also a t-circle. This is strange." http://www.mathematische-basteleien.de/taxicabgeometry.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry In YOUR definition of universal, YOU say it "means applicable (or relevant, or appropriate) to ALL cases." (emphasis mine) Since taxicab geometry is at least ONE case where you do have a "square circle", the theory that "square circles don't exist" can't be universal according to YOUR definition. 7 + 8 = 15 is ALSO not true in ALL cases (there is more than one case where 7 + 8 doesn't equal 15). Therefore, it too can't be universal.

Ok. are these two things universal? 1) 7 + 8 = 15 2) There are no square circles.

1) If the choice is not universal, that says nothing regarding what is definitely universal. 2) "do you know what is a (sic) Aardvark?" According to the dictionary, it is "a large, nocturnal, burrowing mammal, Orycteropus afer, of central and southern Africa, feeding on ants and termites and having a long, extensile tongue, strong claws, and long ears." So my question for you is, what if you cut the tongue off? Is it still an aardvark? What if you cut an ear off so that it only has one ear? My contention is that "aardvark" has a relative definition but not an absolute one. 3) "you're not addressing these facts" I think you simply don't understand my argument. 4) If you think there is something X that is universal, then present it and let's test to see if it is universal.

1) Since it is no longer a choice, it can't be universal. 2) Although I don't know what IS universal, I can still say what is NOT universal by showing that it isn't true for all times and places. 3) I'm more interested in your explanation of what determinism entails. If a bird chooses to fly north in 2016, it can't change that choice in 2017. So I don't think what you added changes my argument. "conscious beings make conscious choices" This can't be universal because a "conscious being" is dependent. A rather mundane way to show this is, if you didn't have a brain, you would not be conscious. So, in order for you to be conscious, you would have to be in a situation where you can have a functioning brain (i.e. reasonably decent food, atmosphere to breath, etc.). Given that you are dependent, you can't legitimately consider yourself separate from those things you are dependent on. (If there was no atmosphere, you wouldn't exist). So, other things that are NOT "you" have to exist for "you" to exist. This shows that you don't have absolute existence. But something that is not absolute, can't be universal. Or another way to put it would be, you are dependent on an atmosphere. Therefore, if an atmosphere didn't exist, you wouldn't exist and then you wouldn't be making any choices.

Okay, are these two things universal? 1) 7 + 8 = 15 2) Square circles don't exist. Also, if choice is not universal as you admit, then it can be ignored IF your philosophy only concerns itself with universals. 1) After October 16, 2016 has past I can no longer choose what I have for lunch on that day. 2) I don't know what is universal, but none of you have given me any example of a universal X where X is actionable. 3) What does being a "determinist" entail? If things are determined by X, then is that X universal?

Given how the campaign is going, which is the correct phrase to use in a sentence? 1) This year's election 2) This year's erection

I would argue that choice is not universal. The argument goes as follows. Principle 1) Something is universal if it is true for all time and places. Category 1) A specific choice is not universal. For example, "What will I have for lunch tomorrow Monday, October 16, 2016?" is a choice now, but will not be a choice a few days from now. In November 2016, I will not be able to change whatever my choice will be on that day. Since the ability to make a specific choice isn't true for all time and places, it can't be universal. Category 2) That I will always get to choose things is also not universal. After I die, I won't be choosing anything anymore and ALL of my choices will then fall into category 1. Category 3) The idea that everybody can choose things can't be universal because the argument against category 2 would also apply to everybody. Everybody will eventually die and therefore, will not be able to choose anything anymore. Since there will come a time when everybody won't be able to make a choice, the idea "everybody can make a choice" is not universal. Category 4) Some immortal being (IB) can make choices. a) There is no evidence for IB. b) Even if there were an IB who will never die and can therefore make choices for all time, that clearly isn't any of us. c) Given a and b, if category 4 is true, it is not useful. d) Even if you posit an IB that will let you into heaven if you are nice to him, he would have to retain the ability to change his mind later. Otherwise, he has no choice. Once he decides to let you into heaven, he can't choose to kick you out, should you decide to become an asshole. It looks like you would have to posit the existence of God if you want to make choice universal. However, since there are good reasons to believe God doesn't exist, I say that choice is not universal.

One day the Russian president was sitting in a meeting, looking very uncomfortable. It was obvious that he was so uncomfortable that he couldn't concentrate on the conversation. Suddenly, he gets up and goes to the bathroom. A few of his staffers follow him. The staffers, very concerned that he suddenly got sick, wait outside of the bathroom for him. After some time, he doesn't come out. The staffers wonder whether or not they should go in and check on him. Right when they were about to go in, the president comes out. The staffers ask him what's wrong with him. He says, "Well, I had to take a dump and was holding it in. But I couldn't hold it in anymore and just had to go." The staffers responded, "Well, we're glad it's mere poopin'"

Mr. Trump, Recently you have lost support of the Republican party. Even Condoleezza Rice is asking you to step down. Without Republican support, if you are elected president, how do you propose to get anything done?

Okay, let's take the behavior of killing a cat. If "Brian kills cats" is universal, then Brian will always kill cats. That follows from YOUR argument that a universal, and I QUOTE "as being true in all instances at all times". So "Brian kills cats" would have to be "true in all instances at all times." if it's universal. So if later on, Brian decides to not kill cats anymore, then it can't be universal. "To me, a behavior is anything externally observable that you voluntarily do with your body." In that case, behavior can't be universal because it depends on being observable and voluntary. If it's impossible for someone else to observe, then it can't be a behavior according to YOUR definition. I don't need to define "behavior". I'll simply let you define it and show that it is not universal according to YOUR definition. For more arguments regarding "behavior", see: http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nagarjuna/Dependent_Arising.htm Particularly in the section "Chapter 2--Examination of Motion"

"BEHAVIOR is internally consistent or not." If a BEHAVIOR can be changed, then it isn't universal. Also, a BEHAVIOR depends on others. If there is no B to act on, then A can't act and therefore can't have a BEHAVIOR.