Are people too soft today? Will there be consequences?

[Guest]

It's happening. France is all in this week, what with those truckers protesting about refugee camps, and now this joint effort.

 

Work is about to begin on “a big, new wall” in Calais as the latest attempt to prevent refugees and migrants jumping aboard lorries heading for the Channel port, the UK’s immigration minister has confirmed.

 

Robert Goodwill told MPs on Tuesday that the four-metre high wall was part of a £17m package of joint Anglo-French security measures to tighten precautions at the port.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/06/uk-immigration-minister-confirms-work-will-begin-on-big-new-wall-in-calais?rf

Edited September 7, 2016 by Guest

[baronaatista]

At this moment I'm gonna bow out of the Trans-gendered topic; these forums, as expected, are a rare place on the internet where a polite discussion can actually happen, I'm just not educated or involved enough to really continue.  Suffice it to say I think they deserve every right and compassion we would give anyone else, and I just think the uproar that can happen about terminology sometimes is odd.  Probably a good discussion needs to be had there, perhaps it is being had currently, but I'm not sure I have much to offer.

 

@Sparrow - I'm not sure anyone ever gets bulletproof and that was actually more my point.  I shared some stuff there about myself to parallel how some trans-gendered or LGBT people may feel (not at all trying to equate keep in mind) - I too have been labelled at times, called names, and made to feel low because of personal characteristics - some of which are simply me, and can't be changed.  Yet because I don't have any special condition, there is no special help for me - indeed the only answer for me is to just suck it up.  I have  learned to suck it up, and this crap doesn't really affect me the way it used to - I have also pushed myself and grown in ways, as I realized that part of the reason this stuff did bother me was that I knew it was important to learn to be more assertive and confident, and that not doing that would make me feel even weaker, and make the problem worse.  In fact, one of the most important things I've learned recently is that almost any time I'm in a conversation and someone says something about me, and I start to feel offended or upset - almost every time its because there is some truth to what they're saying, and I'm trying to avoid that truth.  

I'm not bulletproof and I don't foresee a time where the wrong jerk makes the right comment and it gets under my skin.  I can however reduce the amount of time I spend carrying around that weight, and the stronger I am personally the less it weighs me down in the first place.

[Guest]

Bulletproof is just a concept, a vest only protects you to a certain degree. It just depends on how much damage you can take before you break. I can personally withstand a lot unless I am in a vulnerable state - like I was recently with family-related issues. Some good did come out of it eventually: I had an argument with my boss about taking me for granted, decided to leave on somewhat shaky terms, then after about a month I found something I actually love. Wouldn't have done that if I wasn't running on a short fuse, BUT it was a gamble for sure.

 

How often is this happening anyway if I may? Are people commenting about you a lot? I might be wrong, but your avatar choice kind of corresponds to this feeling you have? It's very masculine version of Vault Boy. I think some people who make these comments certainly don't think. I remember going to help my Grandpa get some hearing aids fitted years ago, and I said to the woman next to me in the waiting room "Wow I can hear them talking all the way down here. Can YOU not hear how noisy they are being?" She then replied "No" and looked at me really oddly. I only thought about it after I left, but it seemed like I was rubbing it in her face.

[GrantSP]

re. whale photos.

Sorry I don't use a camera, however the guides did take some and have posted them on a Facebook page. Look for the ones from August 30th. Although some of the other galleries are more like the experience I had.

They use a term called: "mugging" when the whale lifts it head out and looks at the boat. At one stage the whale was only 3 or 4 metres from us.

[baronaatista]

Totally not trying to make this out to be like it some big issue for me - its just a thing, everybody's got some BS that they don't like about themselves or some way in which they feel inadequate, which can be stirred up by various pressures in the world.  At least, I think so?  

I've been working at an Italian restaurant for the past couple years in Toronto, and I am surrounded a bit by pushy, aggressive, 'important' italian dudes on a pretty regular basis (my boss being one of them) so that probably is stirring me a bit right now.  

 

And about my Avatar - perhaps subconsciously, but mostly I just really love Fallout New Vegas and one of my favorite playthroughs was as a Super Sledge wielding (the Oh Baby) Power Armored dude, and I loved that perk.

[EssArrBee]

Totally not trying to make this out to be like it some big issue for me - its just a thing, everybody's got some BS that they don't like about themselves or some way in which they feel inadequate, which can be stirred up by various pressures in the world.  At least, I think so?  

I've been working at an Italian restaurant for the past couple years in Toronto, and I am surrounded a bit by pushy, aggressive, 'important' italian dudes on a pretty regular basis (my boss being one of them) so that probably is stirring me a bit right now.  

 

And about my Avatar - perhaps subconsciously, but mostly I just really love Fallout New Vegas and one of my favorite playthroughs was as a Super Sledge wielding (the Oh Baby) Power Armored dude, and I loved that perk.

Do you work on College Street? My mom grew up right there in Toronto's Little Italy. Her grandparents old house was right near the corner of College and Clinton and it's since been turned into a couple restaurants and then back into a house I believe. 

 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Palmerston+-+Little+Italy,+Toronto,+ON,+Canada/@43.6556372,-79.4140384,3a,67.1y,81.24h,90.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXQXhCPXFhgW6AUx2Y16h3Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x882b34f394e429a9:0x539bbd82af0329ca!8m2!3d43.659528!4d-79.4169356!6m1!1e1

 

Love that area. Also, why can't we get Steam Whistle in the states? I've been craving it for three years now.

[MonoAccipiter]

For a second there I thought you meant an actual steam whistle, and I imagined you mounting one of those large railway things on your house just to pull it every now and then. Then I was profoundly confused as to why that would be banned... and then I realized you had used capital letters. 

[GrantSP]

This thread is as good as any to make a plug for something that is happening today (Sept 8th) here in Australia. One of the many mental health organisations is having a special day called "RU OK" day where everybody is encouraged to ask this simple question to someone they are close to, or concerned about. Add to this the fact that today is the 50th anniversary of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry's positive view of an inclusive universe where all sorts of people/aliens get along with each other, and I think it is good reminder for all of us to ask someone: "are you okay?" and regardless of their situation in life or social status or assigned place in society, be prepared to offer support with whatever they experience.

 

So off you go and be nice.  

[z929669]

Just a quick point about 'evolution' in response to some of Mono's and SRB's comments: Evolution cannot 'stop', and it has no 'purpose' at all. It is a result of random and not 'chosen' effects. It simply represents the phenotypic result(s) of some genetic event(s) due to some selective pressure. Humans do subvert natural selection, since we impose artificial selective pressures ... but make no mistake: evolution is still progressing. We are just incorporating artificial selective pressures that have, as yet, unseen evolutionary effects. Humans are messing with all kinds of dials that say "DON'T TOUCH!", and we here may never know the true ramifications ;)

 

Back to the original topic though: I have seen a lot of good points about the craziness of PC these days. It is socially fashionable to stand up for anything or anyone that could fall into the 'minority'. Social media and mobile devices really have made it so easy for us all to be social heroes (and Mother Teresa wannabees) ... never mind how we REALLY think or behave. We're all looking for a new group to follow and fighting to be of the most influence. I think a lot of people are simply disingenuous in so many ways ... such silly creatures we are! Animals with relatively small but varying --and sometimes significant-- capacity to perform logical computations!

 

Back to the argument of altruism! (or you could say, pathological altruism, with is what I think Sparrow is alluding). Does altruism actually exist in its own right? ... or is it really a form of selfishness at individual, and possibly kin levels? Mono: I trust you will have much to say on this topic!

[MonoAccipiter]

Just a quick point about 'evolution' in response to some of Mono's and SRB's comments: Evolution cannot 'stop', and it has no 'purpose' at all. It is a result of random and not 'chosen' effects. It simply represents the phenotypic result(s) of some genetic event(s) due to some selective pressure. Humans do subvert natural selection, since we impose artificial selective pressures ... but make no mistake: evolution is still progressing. We are just incorporating artificial selective pressures that have, as yet, unseen evolutionary effects. Humans are messing with all kinds of dials that say "DON'T TOUCH!", and we here may never know the true ramifications ;)

I was under the impression the evolution in a species occurred as the portions with certain advantages out-competed the other portions, which is impossible now that we do not eliminate the weak in society (and why Social-Darwinist movements have sought to use eugenics as a means to "continue evolution"). i.e. as long as we do not keep certain parts of our species from having children, which I'm rather glad we don't, there won't be any particular strains of genetic changes that endure while others fade away. As such, couldn't one claim that there is no "evolutionary pressure", or at least that it has been highly randomized by genocides aimed at ethnic groups for example? Perhaps that's what you refer to as messing with dials? In any case, I guess what I meant was that natural selection has stopped, and as such deferring to what it did way before we even approached the same kind of social context (modern society) seems as pointless to me as revisiting tribal structure for advice on how to organize society. 

 

I think a world where we all had an immense capacity to perform logical computations would be rather boring. Like E.E. Cummings, I strongly believe that some emotions are perhaps best left to their mysterious and enchanting nature. Might just be because I write poetry, but in that case it's a bias I'm sticking to with great conviction! To quote Oscar Wilde: "Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast." 

 

There is an old Russian saying that Dostoevsky brings up in one of his books, that says altruism is the most selfish thing of all. Much like him, I have no idea what led to that notion. I'm no utilitarian, but I think that some form of altruism could help make society much better. Sympathy and empathy are two very important emotions. Of course you could be motivated to be altruistic just by a selfish desire, but that has more to do with how complex human motivations can be. Two people could be motivated to hold the exact same attitude for wildly different reasons. The negative aspects of altruism (as a "complete" attitude) seems to so often be on the person practicing it, that labeling it as selfish by nature becomes rather absurd. When I argue against altruism it is more contingent upon the fact that it seems to ignore how humans aren't at all perfect beings, they are built upon desires and fears which are as much a part of their existential situation as morality or any other universal (or the absence of them). Now morality is something that I have not personally decided exactly what stance I hold to. It is one of those areas of philosophy which only seems to grow in complexity upon each additional foray into it. I am an existentialist, and as such I do not think there is any universal ethic forced upon us by the universe, but that also means that any approach to this subject (for me) should spring from our existential situation. As such, I could argue that some degree of altruism (although that degree is almost impossible to pin down) would be advisable, perhaps even moral. By this I mean that in realizing how randomized my involvement in any situation is, I can also realize that the attitude that would help make this situation better for all parts is a partly altruistic one, while still being aware that as a human part of what makes me able to "help" others is that I in turn satisfy my own needs. This is why Nietzsche suggested that one should live by a doctrine wherein one is born again to the world one leaves, because even if that were not to be true, it is a doctrine that makes the world â€‹more accommodating to everyone. Buddhism also got this right several thousands of years ago, in acknowledging that there might very well be gods (which could be seen as an allegory for universal morality) in some part of the world inaccessible to us, but they are highly inconsequential to the human situation. As such I like to think of Buddhism as an existential religion, because the Buddha saw several negative aspects of the human situation, and sought a means to alleviate that - an idea that would work if it was practiced by everyone. Another example of this is Sarte, who throughout his career argued in favor of communism, because he saw it as a system where everyone could be allowed to pursue their dreams (which was what would give them happiness) as opposed to the capitalistic system which in his eyes functioned by having some people "climb" and some be "stepped on". It's important to note that when it comes to dreams, he was also very concerned with a way of viewing them that would work for everyone. e.g. If you have a dream of making music, it's important to understand that in essence that dream has very little to do with the size of your audience, and everything to do with what you are doing. Not saying I agree with his assessment of communism, by the way, I just find what makes him argue for it very interesting.

 

I guess what I am getting it is that although I have not found any "moral system" that I can lay out in detail, I would think it important that any such system would work if everyone was practicing it. Hence my problem with altruism is more that it does not really work as a "complete" attitude, than that it is in any way selfish. This also has to do with how inherently hard it is for humans to understand each other, if not to mention themselves, and thus how impossible it would be for someone else to fully take care of your needs. I would champion empathy to the end of the world, and I would hope our increased fondness for novels has means we have become much more comfortable with imagining ourselves in other people's shoes, but not to the subversion of everything else.

 

@Grant: That sounds like a nice day. I have also stored your "... I do it because I am a gentleman."-quote deep within my dusty dome.  ::

Edited September 8, 2016 by MonoAccipiter

[Aiyen]

Find it quite funny when one argue that "Natural selection has stopped". Deciding the best genes and conditions for your offspring is about as natural as anything can be. At least the way I see it. I for one do think that it will only become even more prominent as the field of genetics matures even further. If we think we have cultural, and race issues now, it will only grow worse once we get the ability to more or less construct the offspring we want by spreadsheet. 

[MonoAccipiter]

Which is the entire point of there being ethical considerations in science... not to mention that there is no consensus on what genes are related to what attributes, or the several important discoveries in modern psychology that indicate nurture has a lot to say (the Bell Curve and the Flynn Effect). Moreover, like Schopenhauer pointed out, the way we choose partners can't exactly be said to be an entirely flawless process, neither for our potential kids or for us. Nor can the subconscious mind be attributed with a perfect understanding of what genes are "best" for their potential offspring. That is, as far as I know, very rarely claimed to be the driving force behind natural selection. You make several rather significant leaps of faith to arrive at that conclusion.

 

There is also the historical argument that presents a fairly good reason for why eugenics movements (like Nazism) have fallen out of favor. These things weren't abolished because they were proven to be an unfruitful idea, at least not the idea that one could (technically) spur the evolution of our species, but rather because they were inherently abhorrent in their consequence. I, for one, am rather glad that history took that turn. 

 

EDIT: Added a second paragraph.

Edited September 8, 2016 by MonoAccipiter

[Aiyen]

Indeed... however I think once the genetics race begins ethics is going to be put on hold. People are going to slowly accept it because if faced with the option most will decide to get the best possible kids... without really thinking about what best is all about. We do it already today. The amount of kids born with chromosomal errors etc. get lower and lower since people now have the option to not go through with it. There are ofc. people who still go through with it. But it is clear that the cost to both society and the parents is just so much higher, hence there is most likely also going to be a strong social pressure as we get more advanced. 

 

Which leads me to clarify what I mean about genetics race. I do think that every country or at the very least culture group is going to slowly tailor its populations more and more... if they do not they are going to fall behind the ones that do. We already see China going along with experiments that would never be allowed in the west due to ethical considerations. And I do think it is only a matter of time before the pressure from ordinary people as well as corporate interests is going to sway legislation in the area in the west. 

[MonoAccipiter]

You're right, but it's important to note that these genetic "errors" are overall seen as detrimental first and foremost to the child itself. Therefore, even though I share your fear of what might happen once this kind of technology is "unlocked" so to speak, I don't think these two cases are directly comparable in terms of ethics. Then there's also the fact that as I mentioned there are no magical genes we can just alter to make someone "better", that's why CRISPR has been largely over-hyped, because people seem to assume that knowing that genes in general have an effect on certain attributes is the same as knowing what genes are related to what attributes. Which is not at all true, and is unlikely to be answered very soon, especially considering the fact that the nature versus nurture debate is still very much alive. For all we know the nurture side of that debate might even be right, which is what has dominated the scientific environment in my country for over forty years, party due to how theories on the predominant effect of nature has been used in support of atrocities in the past (by Nazi-Germany). Remember, this side rarely dismisses nature outright, instead they often think it might have a comparably small effect on intelligence (20% is an oft-repeated figure).

 

What this means to me is that we have still have a lot of time to make the ethical debate about this a part of the political agenda. Sadly, in a time where an organ like the UN could not be more needed, it seems to be losing its political influence by the day. North Korea is testing new weapons they have agreed not to develop every month or so, and just yesterday my own government announced that they were going to push for opening of new oil fields in previously protected areas. Something which was not only in violation of the promises they made to the two parties that put them into power, but also clearly ignoring the climate goals we signed onto with the Paris Agreement.

 

When it comes to China, western corporations have been pouring their money into that country and other NICs for decades because of the money they can save on not having to deal with ethics, so if we want to maintain the standard of living we have (although even that is endangered because so many jobs have been moved to cheaper areas) and keep capitalism, then having them out-compete us in terms of sciences because of their disregard for boundaries is not only something we will have to live with, but also something we actually paid for. Not that this hasn't happened before. The US made sure everyone involved with Unit 731 got diplomatic immunity after World War Two in trade for their research on biological warfare. It still makes me sick to the stomach every time I think about that. Be warned that it is a rather graphic read.

 

And don't think for a moment that any such technology will be available for everyone, it will probably just cement the power of a small rich upper class. Which as we know is a problem in democracy because they do not have the vote to protect their interests, but with how easily people turn to demagogues for answers these days, I'm not sure what to think of that system anymore. It's like we rather want the easy answers than the true ones. In the UK they voted in favor of a campaign led by the man who got thrown out of the EU Parliament for making a speech where he said the President of the European Council had the "charisma of a wet rag" and the "appearance of a bank clerk", and went on to say that he was convinced he intended to be the "quiet assassin of European democracy" and perhaps it was because he came from Belgium "which of course is pretty much a non-country". I must admit it gave me a good chuckle, but I still find it discomforting that these people seem to get more traction with the masses than politicians presenting real arguments. 

Edited September 9, 2016 by MonoAccipiter

[baronaatista]

@Ess - no, I'm in North York - midtown or uptown, depending on who you ask.  Used to be a really Italian area, it's changing now.  I'm not really a beer guy, but Steamwhistle is solid beer - no idea why you guys can't get it.  I prefer Mill Street, which is a brewery local to TO - their 'stock ale' is a solid beer.

That is a pretty sweet area of Toronto though - Kensington right nearby, the Trinity Bellwoods park, and LOTS of great restaurants and shops.