If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above.  You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.  To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. 

That makes sense... But there are still a large percent of people who do support them regardless if they are forced to or not.  They didn't achieve such high numbers to force people to do what they want by getting "unwilling" soldiers. 

Well, I don't know specifics, but certainly that has happened.  This is one of the things that Kony is accused of doing - not that he has anything to do with bin Laden or is even Muslim, but he's famous for indoctrinating children and turning them into soldiers. 

Originally Posted by ITZ DENI3D

If people are willing to give their lives to kill innocent people don't you think they would've sacrificed themselves before it got to that point?  In that case perhaps it is not as large as a percentage as I originally thought, but it is still a fairly large percentage though... When you get people who are so committed to such an insane cause any logical thought process you can try to put behind it is thrown out the window. 

I think it's hard for us to say what we'd do if a madman put a weapon in our hands and ordered us to kill innocents or be killed.  Nobody can really know what he would do until that happens. 

Originally Posted by ITZ DENI3D

Why do you think no one turned Osama Bin Laden in after 10 years?  27 million dollars and not one person came forward, if someone did their family and anyone else they wanted could've been set for life.  You know why no one did?  Because they truly and deeply believed in the cause they were fighting for which is disturbing...

I'm sure that's why some people didn't turn him in.  Others were probably afraid or ignorant or didn't believe they'd actually get the money.  The good thing is that with bin Laden dead, his organization is much weaker.  Did you see all the information coming out about the plans they had? 

Last edited by elthrasher; 05-01-2012 at 01:58 PM. 
Reason: Who put that stupid thumbs up there? 

I think it's hard for us to say what we'd do if a madman put a weapon in our hands and ordered us to kill innocents or be killed.  Nobody can really know what he would do until that happens. 

Really?  No one can possibly be that ignorant... I know what I would do without question.  People do not give their lives because they are forced to.  They give their lives if they believe they are giving them for a reason or for a purpose.  When you are talking about life and death it is a whole different ball park than doing it for money or blissful ignorance.  If someone gave you a bomb vest and told you to run into a building your telling me you wouldn't run towards the guy that gave it to you?  Even if they threatened to harm my family there is no way I would walk into that building because I would be destroying more families and killing more people than there would if they actually did kill my family and I would be allowing this vicious cycle to continue.  If they were smart they would sacrifice themselves to end this regime, at least thats what I would do... So the other option is that many of them aren't forced, they go willingly because they believe it is what Allah would want them to do.  This is the most reasonable conclusion I could come up with why there are so many terrorists in those regions.  You are right no one knows exactly what they would do if they were put in those positions, but I am 99% I would do the right thing...

In other words, the question for me boils down to the more reliable indicator of success as the POTUS: is it everything I listed above having to do with IQ, EQ, cultural awareness, and knowledge of world events, or is it more closely aligned with being able to convince the masses to vote one way rather than another?  Since the latter has little to do with the objective requirements of the job (indeed, most voters are ignorant of those requirements), I think we should cross that off our list and opt for the traits which, generally speaking, are better indicators of objective success in life. 

Ok, that's more like it!  Yes, I forced your hand & I appreciate you indulging me with this meritorious clarification/elaboration.  I also agree that my model was completely ignoring real-world effects such as corruption, deception, etc.... I also found the prior argument based on a specific example & then generalizing, not very appealing.  This basis appeals to me more readily, so thanks for taking the time. 

Still, if we rank any specific president as any %, by definition, it's kind of like arm-chair quarterbacking: easy to say, hard to defend given we don't even have the actual accomplishment of reaching that position in society so we really have no idea of what it actually takes.  So, in my view, any POTUS has much more credibility with regards to analyzing another POTUS than any of us who are simply so ignorant about the realities of being POTUS that it dwarfs any validity our analysis might indicate.  We simply don't know & can't know w/o the actual accomplishment in our experience.  I think you've discussed this idea before about the possibility of different types of knowledge, including those forms of knowledge that must be experienced in order to be known.  This seems like one of those situations in my view. 

that doesn't sound very realistic.  if you had said that a large number of muslims sometimes unconsciously or cognitively support islamic terrorism i wouldn't be able to negate that but active aid is something wholly different.  i've seen statistics about self-reported support of terrorist acts in the name of islam and most muslims asked are against it.  i suppose your estimation is highly influenced by the media. 

The problem here is one of perception & assignment of value to the words used.  Most muslim men are loathe to admit gender discrimination exists in their countries against women.  In fact, most will argue that it's for the woman's benefit & attempt to paint it in a chivalrous light.  In fact, we've seen an example of this articulation on this forum.  So the issue is much deeper & simple self-reporting surveys are not going to reveal the substance of the matter much. 

Essentially, it's the problem of trying to see anything other than red when your cornea is rosy-colored, your contacts are rosy-colored, & your glasses are rosy-colored.  It's not nearly as simple as taking off one's rosy-colored glasses.  It will require multiple layers of removal of expectation/perception bias & probably a surgery or two, to use a crude analogy.  In short, when cultural norms are significantly different, they are not so easily dismissed. 

Strawman after strawman.  Nobody is saying you must be silent about differences.  Such a view has never once been entertained on this forum.  It's when you point to a difference and then conclude that that difference means the other is inferior that you are a bigot. 

Yes, I believe Western values are superior on the specifics I've always mentioned revolving around freedom of: religion, speech, educational opportunity, gender-equality.  Do you have any meritorious argument showing the West isn't superior on these metrics?  No, you don't & your attempt at self-righteous justification for playing the "memberator" (i.e.: moral policeman) & bandying about the word "bigot" simply because you don't like the idea that someone thinks Western values are superior is just as fallacious.  Never mind the hypocrisy of implicit belief of moral superiority such a position belies.  Typical liberal elitism with no self-awareness. 

Still, if we rank any specific president as any %, by definition, it's kind of like arm-chair quarterbacking: easy to say, hard to defend given we don't even have the actual accomplishment of reaching that position in society so we really have no idea of what it actually takes.  So, in my view, any POTUS has much more credibility with regards to analyzing another POTUS than any of us who are simply so ignorant about the realities of being POTUS that it dwarfs any validity our analysis might indicate.  We simply don't know & can't know w/o the actual accomplishment in our experience.  I think you've discussed this idea before about the possibility of different types of knowledge, including those forms of knowledge that must be experienced in order to be known.  This seems like one of those situations in my view. 

thanks & best regards,
Pedal2Metal

It's very tough for us to say for sure, isn't it?  And our own bias can blind us to the strengths of various candidates.  I remember some friends of mine saying it was pretty dumb how many people talked about whether or not they thought of Bush or Gore as someone they could drink a beer with.  They thought, perhaps like many liberals, that intelligence and knowledge were the key traits.  I argued the opposite, that how people view their leaders' personalities was crucial to whether those same leaders would be able to rally the country through difficult times.  I sometimes get the impression that liberals are more likely to be attuned to the virtues of intelligence in their leaders whereas conservatives seem more attentive to personality (by comparison). 

Question: Does argument and debate help us more in attaining the truth than collaborative thinking?  I notice in this forum that we like to debate quite a bit.  Usually when a couple of us reach an agreement on something that particular conversation will come to an end.  But it doesn't have to, right?  Even in agreement an issue can be explored in more depth.  Whereas our arguments tend to be much more extended.  Does that imply at all that debate has the virtue of stimulating more ideas and discoveries?  Or do we have the tendency in our debates to simply reinforce our own positions, thus indicating that the length of the debates have little to do with absorbing new opinions and thoughts? 

Question: Does argument and debate help us more in attaining the truth than collaborative thinking?  I notice in this forum that we like to debate quite a bit.  Usually when a couple of us reach an agreement on something that particular conversation will come to an end.  But it doesn't have to, right?  Even in agreement an issue can be explored in more depth.  Whereas our arguments tend to be much more extended.  Does that imply at all that debate has the virtue of stimulating more ideas and discoveries?  Or do we have the tendency in our debates to simply reinforce our own positions, thus indicating that the length of the debates have little to do with absorbing new opinions and thoughts? 

I like absorbing new thoughts and ideas if they differ from mine.  If I find fundamental flaws in someones logic however I try to show what I know on the issue to hopefully help other people see from a different perspective... I enjoy seeing from other perspectives personally...

Do you think reality is a fact or an illusion?  If there is one thing I took from the Matrix it is that reality is never what we think it to be... For all I know all you people are figments of my imagination trying to sort out fact from fiction...

Yes, I believe Western values are superior on the specifics I've always mentioned revolving around freedom of: religion, speech, educational opportunity, gender-equality.  Do you have any meritorious argument showing the West isn't superior on these metrics?  No, you don't & your attempt at self-righteous justification for playing the "memberator" (i.e.: moral policeman) & bandying about the word "bigot" simply because you don't like the idea that someone thinks Western values are superior is just as fallacious.  Never mind the hypocrisy of implicit belief of moral superiority such a position belies.  Typical liberal elitism with no self-awareness. 

It's very tough for us to say for sure, isn't it?  And our own bias can blind us to the strengths of various candidates.  I remember some friends of mine saying it was pretty dumb how many people talked about whether or not they thought of Bush or Gore as someone they could drink a beer with.  They thought, perhaps like many liberals, that intelligence and knowledge were the key traits.  I argued the opposite, that how people view their leaders' personalities was crucial to whether those same leaders would be able to rally the country through difficult times.  I sometimes get the impression that liberals are more likely to be attuned to the virtues of intelligence in their leaders whereas conservatives seem more attentive to personality (by comparison). 

Both groups are equally ignorant, if you watch the ad campaigns this year you will see that while Republicans do start off with the stupid adds and trying to show their candidates as compassionate normal people, the democrats will quickly follow suit with the same bogus adds.  To be fair they are only catering to the largely uneducated public so they kind of have to if they want to succeed...

Yes, I believe Western values are superior on the specifics I've always mentioned revolving around freedom of: religion, speech, educational opportunity, gender-equality.  Do you have any meritorious argument showing the West isn't superior on these metrics?  No, you don't & your attempt at self-righteous justification for playing the "memberator" (i.e.: moral policeman) & bandying about the word "bigot" simply because you don't like the idea that someone thinks Western values are superior is just as fallacious.  Never mind the hypocrisy of implicit belief of moral superiority such a position belies.  Typical liberal elitism with no self-awareness. 

You're just constructing another strawman.  Nothing that you are saying about me is even remotely true.  Of course I prefer western values.  Your problem is you see the world in black and white and are incapable of nuance. 

And I don't bandy about with the word "bigot".  If you dislike someone purely on a basis of his religion, you are a bigot.  Take it up with the English language if you don't like it. 

Really?  No one can possibly be that ignorant... I know what I would do without question.  People do not give their lives because they are forced to.  They give their lives if they believe they are giving them for a reason or for a purpose.  When you are talking about life and death it is a whole different ball park than doing it for money or blissful ignorance.  If someone gave you a bomb vest and told you to run into a building your telling me you wouldn't run towards the guy that gave it to you?  Even if they threatened to harm my family there is no way I would walk into that building because I would be destroying more families and killing more people than there would if they actually did kill my family and I would be allowing this vicious cycle to continue.  If they were smart they would sacrifice themselves to end this regime, at least thats what I would do... So the other option is that many of them aren't forced, they go willingly because they believe it is what Allah would want them to do.  This is the most reasonable conclusion I could come up with why there are so many terrorists in those regions.  You are right no one knows exactly what they would do if they were put in those positions, but I am 99% I would do the right thing...

I doubt terrorists hand out suicide vests to people unless they're sure they are going to do something awful with them.  That's one thing.  It would be quite another thing to be pressed into military service for some tyrant.  You get a little pay, might not see any action and your family will be safe.  That doesn't sound so bad, now does it?  Then you go through training and indoctrination.  You don't have any Youtube videos to cut the tension and you weren't educated anyway.  We can tell by some of the sad stories of deeds of our own soldiers who went too far that war does things to people's minds. 

I'm not saying there aren't zealots.  Of course there are.  I'm saying I can see how ordinary people could get sucked in.  There's also just the whole get off the boring family farm thing. 

i doubt it.  individual power is greatly overstated when contrasted with strong external pressures.  it is normal, especially for westerners, to assume that they would behave morally correct across situations and to expect this from others but all evidence flies in the face of this.  look to classical experiments about obedience/authority, group psychology, conformity, and the like and you'll see that normally adapted people kill and torture for a lot less than a gun at their temple.  individuals acting in accordance with common rules of morality in situations of strong external pressure are the exception, not the rule.  the likelihood of you or me belonging to the few heroes is statistically low. 

Most muslim men are loathe to admit gender discrimination exists in their countries against women. 

so are western men in regard to their own culture.  also, both western and muslim people can often be said to be loathe to admit any kind of discrimination in their own societies. 

The problem here is one of perception & assignment of value to the words used.  Most muslim men are loathe to admit gender discrimination exists in their countries against women.  In fact, most will argue that it's for the woman's benefit & attempt to paint it in a chivalrous light.  In fact, we've seen an example of this articulation on this forum.  So the issue is much deeper & simple self-reporting surveys are not going to reveal the substance of the matter much. 

Essentially, it's the problem of trying to see anything other than red when your cornea is rosy-colored, your contacts are rosy-colored, & your glasses are rosy-colored.  It's not nearly as simple as taking off one's rosy-colored glasses.  It will require multiple layers of removal of expectation/perception bias & probably a surgery or two, to use a crude analogy.  In short, when cultural norms are significantly different, they are not so easily dismissed. 

so what do you base your opinion on?  you have nothing, except for images on tv that do not necessarily represent any reality, such as the ones showing people celebrating 9/11.  it's hard to reason with you because your belief on this is fixed and is relatively resistant against any kind of criticism which is simply explained away as faulty.  that is one common aspect of a conspiracy theory i believe. 

also, where is your argument?  is it your argument that one person on this forum has made a sexist statement once?  apart from being anecdotal, i doubt that anyone else has interpreted that statement as such.  i would certainly remember. 

Question: Does argument and debate help us more in attaining the truth than collaborative thinking?  I notice in this forum that we like to debate quite a bit.  Usually when a couple of us reach an agreement on something that particular conversation will come to an end.  But it doesn't have to, right?  Even in agreement an issue can be explored in more depth.  Whereas our arguments tend to be much more extended.  Does that imply at all that debate has the virtue of stimulating more ideas and discoveries?  Or do we have the tendency in our debates to simply reinforce our own positions, thus indicating that the length of the debates have little to do with absorbing new opinions and thoughts? 

i wouldn't know how to continue an argument when both parts agree.  in real life when i agree with someone the argument is also grounded and moves on to other, perhaps related issues, such as why the ones disagreeing with us do so.  it would be a meta-argument about our opponents' psychology but if we agreed here the argument would shift to another topic again. 

Do you think reality is a fact or an illusion?  If there is one thing I took from the Matrix it is that reality is never what we think it to be... For all I know all you people are figments of my imagination trying to sort out fact from fiction...

i think philosophy such as that explored in the matrix film demonstrates that any experience could always be an illusion.  therefore, nothing is for sure.  descartes thought that because he thought at least that stream of consciousness or the thought itself existed but i disagree.  even thoughts and the sensation of consciousness can be illusions. 

so to respond to your question: i don't think it can be answered by me or anyone i currently know for the time being. 

Both groups are equally ignorant, if you watch the ad campaigns this year you will see that while Republicans do start off with the stupid adds and trying to show their candidates as compassionate normal people, the democrats will quickly follow suit with the same bogus adds.  To be fair they are only catering to the largely uneducated public so they kind of have to if they want to succeed...

i'm somewhat with you on this one as the obama ads' only goal, just like the republican ones', is to get their guy elected.  it has little to do with actual political messages and is often just polemics.  but just like the general difference between democrats and republicans, i find democratic ads often preferable.  the santorum ads, for example, were beyond any lack of reason.  it was an attempt to associate the president with destruction and demise.  the latest obama ad at least uses some reasoning actually relevant to politics. 

the fact that the obama administration tries to exploit the bin laden incident and smear his opponent with it is similarly out of touch with reason, in my opinion, but normal politics.  thus, i find it quite idiotic that republicans call that ad shameful and go all crazy about it as such ads and claims is what they do all along, probably better than democrats.  but i suppose that is also just normal politics. 

Do you think reality is a fact or an illusion?  If there is one thing I took from the Matrix it is that reality is never what we think it to be... For all I know all you people are figments of my imagination trying to sort out fact from fiction...

I agree with you Denied.  As Pedal is fond of saying, everything we believe requires some degree of faith. 

i doubt it.  individual power is greatly overstated when contrasted with strong external pressures.  it is normal, especially for westerners, to assume that they would behave morally correct across situations and to expect this from others but all evidence flies in the face of this.  look to classical experiments about obedience/authority, group psychology, conformity, and the like and you'll see that normally adapted people kill and torture for a lot less than a gun at their temple.  individuals acting in accordance with common rules of morality in situations of strong external pressure are the exception, not the rule.  the likelihood of you or me belonging to the few heroes is statistically low. 

It is impossible to get a grasp of someones personality over the Internet on some forum but if you knew me I try to be the least self-aware person in the world.  When put in those stressful situations it is possible my reasoning could break for a moment, but as far as me doing things for self preservation that I am least worried about... No doubt I would be scared but I'm pretty sure I would do the right thing.  I can probably guarantee you that I am the most stubborn person you have ever ran into (sort of) so that coupled with the ability to see what is the greater good would also make me do the right thing.  I sound kind of self-righteous but I speak the truth...

i doubt it.  individual power is greatly overstated when contrasted with strong external pressures.  it is normal, especially for westerners, to assume that they would behave morally correct across situations and to expect this from others but all evidence flies in the face of this.  look to classical experiments about obedience/authority, group psychology, conformity, and the like and you'll see that normally adapted people kill and torture for a lot less than a gun at their temple.  individuals acting in accordance with common rules of morality in situations of strong external pressure are the exception, not the rule.  the likelihood of you or me belonging to the few heroes is statistically low. 

Right.  In social psychology this fallacy of supposing that individuals act in similar ways across situations is called the "fundamental attribution error."  We forget that individuals have many different tendencies which can be elicited in varying contexts, as with the loving father and husband who is also capable of cut-throat politics. 

so are western men in regard to their own culture.  also, both western and muslim people can often be said to be loathe to admit any kind of discrimination in their own societies. 

Yes, but cultures are certainly different---right?  Otherwise culture as a concept doesn't make sense.  And thus it wouldn't be surprising if some cultures are more sexist than others.  In fact, it's bound to happen if there truly are different approaches to sex and gender.  So perhaps Pedal is right that in the West we have made greater strides toward sexual equality even if we haven't yet reached a state of perfection.  And within the West there are bound to be differences as well, say, between Italian and Canadian men.  Italy has a reputation, of course. 

I highly recommend reading the recent Economist on how manufacturing is entering a 3rd revolution.  The first was when work became centralized in factories, and the second when people like Ford utilized moving assembly lines.  Now manufacturing is going digital.  At first that sounds obvious and familiar, but what's being developed in fact is radical.  One thing that stood out to me, for example, were 3D "printers" which create objects via additive layering.  Not all objects can be created this way yet, but that's the direction this is taking.  Here's one small quote:

"And at the most recent EuroMold fair, last November, another group of machines was on display: three-dimensional (3D) printers.  Instead of bashing, bending and cutting material the way it always has been, 3D printers build things by depositing material, layer by layer.  That is why the process is more properly described as additive manufacturing.  An American firm, 3D Systems, used one of its 3D printers to print a hammer for your correspondent, complete with a natty wood-effect handle and a metallised head." 

Reading the entire special section reveals a lot more.  For instance, not only have we entered into an age of social media, but also social manufacturing, whereby any of us can potentially become manufacturers of these products.  Probably the most interesting article I've read in the last year, although there was another good one in Discovery magazine last month about the development of telepathic helmets for soldiers in battle. 

Just wanted to repeat this comment since it could be easily missed at the end of the last page.  The article in the Economist is really mind-shattering and I highly recommend it. 

Question: Does argument and debate help us more in attaining the truth than collaborative thinking?  I notice in this forum that we like to debate quite a bit.  Usually when a couple of us reach an agreement on something that particular conversation will come to an end.  But it doesn't have to, right?  Even in agreement an issue can be explored in more depth.  Whereas our arguments tend to be much more extended.  Does that imply at all that debate has the virtue of stimulating more ideas and discoveries?  Or do we have the tendency in our debates to simply reinforce our own positions, thus indicating that the length of the debates have little to do with absorbing new opinions and thoughts? 

Tried talking to my uncle the other day.  He is a nice guy but his is also a really devout Christian we were talking about predestination, go figure .  I was making the same argument that was made in the matrix: if everything is predestined how can we make any choices, in other words what is the point of trying if there is nothing we can do?  He made the point that we make our own choices which I agree with but I said if "God" knows what choices we are going to make and he made us then we really do not make our own choices and those choices are just an illusion.  Maybe it is like in the matrix, "we have already made the choice, now we must try to understand it..." When talking to religious people who have dedicated such a large portion of their life to their religion it is hard to get them to see outside of the box... As long as they aren't harming anyone else and it makes them fill fulfilled and happy with their lives I think religion is great for humanity.  But as far as having good open discussions with them not so much I used to not believe in predestination which maybe I still don't... Some call it fate, others call it god's plan, and some call it luck.  I'm not sure what is the right answer but personally I think it is just random luck but sometimes you have to look at certain events that have happened to you in your life and wonder... I mean the events that lead me to this forum were so highly unlikely and unpredictable yet here I am...

Mom, I don't need to go to school today.  I'm sick and the teacher said I'm so smart I already know everything and also today is a vacation day and the school burned down and the President said we should all stay inside because of terrorists.  I'm gonna play CivRev now, okay? 

It is impossible to get a grasp of someones personality over the Internet on some forum but if you knew me I try to be the least self-aware person in the world.  When put in those stressful situations it is possible my reasoning could break for a moment, but as far as me doing things for self preservation that I am least worried about... No doubt I would be scared but I'm pretty sure I would do the right thing.  I can probably guarantee you that I am the most stubborn person you have ever ran into (sort of) so that coupled with the ability to see what is the greater good would also make me do the right thing.  I sound kind of self-righteous but I speak the truth...

true, i do not now your personality and exceptional personalities are exactly what constitutes this exception to the rule: the hero.  all i can say is that the chance of you or me being one of those is statistically low and you being sure of your exceptional personality traits in this regard is not unusual.  in fact, it fits with the evidence.  people always tend to believe that they would act morally just across situations (which is strongly associated with the self-serving and fundamental attribution biases, as zef rightly points out), especially when they're from individualist cultures, such as the US or western europe. 

who knows.  perhaps you are one of the heroes.  a stubborn personality might possibly be an indicator of that. 

Yes, but cultures are certainly different---right?  Otherwise culture as a concept doesn't make sense.  And thus it wouldn't be surprising if some cultures are more sexist than others.  In fact, it's bound to happen if there truly are different approaches to sex and gender.  So perhaps Pedal is right that in the West we have made greater strides toward sexual equality even if we haven't yet reached a state of perfection.  And within the West there are bound to be differences as well, say, between Italian and Canadian men.  Italy has a reputation, of course. 

true, but i have to call this a straw man.  i wasn't talking about the difference of degree of sexism or discrimination between certain cultures but about the tendency to deny, minimize, or cant about sexism and discrimination in one's own culture. 

true, but i have to call this a straw man.  i wasn't talking about the difference of degree of sexism or discrimination between certain cultures but about the tendency to deny, minimize, or cant about sexism and discrimination in one's own culture. 

Aren't they related?  Isn't denial and minimization a form of sexism?  or at least a mode of reinforcing it?  If not, then I lose the argument due to the infamous straw man...

Aren't they related?  Isn't denial and minimization a form of sexism?  or at least a mode of reinforcing it?  If not, then I lose the argument due to the infamous straw man...

i suppose denial and minimization of sexism can be legitimately viewed as sexism in themselves.  but my point was that both western and muslim men deny and minimize sexism that occurs in their own cultures, possibly to equal degrees.  the fact that muslim culture is probably more sexist than western culture has nothing do to with this.  if you are arguing that muslim men are to to greater extents inclined to deny their own sexism you have a point.  you also have a point if you're arguing that denying sexism that is more significant (e.g., muslim sexism) is more aggravating than denying more moderate sexism (e.g., western culture). 

i suppose denial and minimization of sexism can be legitimately viewed as sexism in themselves.  but my point was that both western and muslim men deny and minimize sexism that occurs in their own cultures, possibly to equal degrees.  the fact that muslim culture is probably more sexist than western culture has nothing do to with this. 

Very interesting.  I wonder if in the West (about which I know so little), or at least here in the States (where I have more experience), if various forms of sexism have become so subtle that it becomes difficult to measure either their degree or even which of these forms are actually sexist.  Here in the states liberals and conservatives have recently been arguing whether or not there is in fact a "war on women" right now.  Not many people seem to agree. 

Very interesting.  I wonder if in the West (about which I know so little), or at least here in the States (where I have more experience), if various forms of sexism have become so subtle that it becomes difficult to measure either their degree or even which of these forms are actually sexist.  Here in the states liberals and conservatives have recently been arguing whether or not there is in fact a "war on women" right now.  Not many people seem to agree. 

yes, sexism in the west is very unconscious.  perhaps it is too in the muslim world.  how can it be sexism to beat your wife, to not let women work, to not let women attend public life if the koran says so?  similarly, how can it be sexism when the woman is paid less for equal work, when the woman is still mostly portrayed as the weak gender and the man's supplementary human in media, when only a fraction of the powerful positions in society are held by women as this is internal to the natural-evolutionary female nature? 

do you think this is because sexism is more subtle in western society?  that might play a role.  another possibility would be that strongly normalized societal dynamics are not easily recognized as sexist or discriminatory.  for example, when in sweden i was quite surprised at seeing woman drive a fire truck while a man sits on the co-driver's seat and see a woman bonding stuff on the street doing traditional male work.  i hadn't even noticed that i had rarely seen something like that at home. 

yes, sexism in the west is very unconscious.  perhaps it is too in the muslim world.  how can it be sexism to beat your wife, to not let women work, to not let women attend public life if the koran says so?  similarly, how can it be sexism when the woman is paid less for equal work, when the woman is still mostly portrayed as the weak gender and the man's supplementary human in media, when only a fraction of the powerful positions in society are held by women as this is internal to the natural-evolutionary female nature? 

do you think this is because sexism is more subtle in western society?  that might play a role.  another possibility would be that strongly normalized societal dynamics are not easily recognized as sexist or discriminatory.  for example, when in sweden i was quite surprised at seeing woman drive a fire truck while a man sits on the co-driver's seat and see a woman bonding stuff on the street doing traditional male work.  i hadn't even noticed that i had rarely seen something like that at home. 

But if it's unconscious or subtle then we can't even be sure that it is indeed sexism.  I assume your questions were rhetorical, and that you do indeed take it to be true, e.g., that the portrayal of women as "weak" is a manifestation of sexism.  But this raises the question as to what counts as being weak.  Some people think it's sexist to portray women as housewives, which could count as something "weak," while others see the role as empowering.  Personally, then, I myself can't always say whether an image of women in the media is strong or weak.  Some cases are obvious, perhaps, but those aren't the ones we'd likely debate.  Another example which you brought up related to pay differentials.  Some see it as a sure sign of sex discrimination, while others read it as the independent choice of some women to focus on friends and family rather than work.  So it begins to look like it's difficult to say whether a society is in denial or not when we're focusing on the subtle forms of sexism, since by definition the subtle, unconscious forms are open to varying interpretations.  If they weren't, then it would be blatant sexism which all of us here would be able to identify. 

Tried talking to my uncle the other day.  He is a nice guy but his is also a really devout Christian we were talking about predestination, go figure .  I was making the same argument that was made in the matrix: if everything is predestined how can we make any choices, in other words what is the point of trying if there is nothing we can do?  He made the point that we make our own choices which I agree with but I said if "God" knows what choices we are going to make and he made us then we really do not make our own choices and those choices are just an illusion.  Maybe it is like in the matrix, "we have already made the choice, now we must try to understand it..." When talking to religious people who have dedicated such a large portion of their life to their religion it is hard to get them to see outside of the box... As long as they aren't harming anyone else and it makes them fill fulfilled and happy with their lives I think religion is great for humanity.  But as far as having good open discussions with them not so much I used to not believe in predestination which maybe I still don't... Some call it fate, others call it god's plan, and some call it luck.  I'm not sure what is the right answer but personally I think it is just random luck but sometimes you have to look at certain events that have happened to you in your life and wonder... I mean the events that lead me to this forum were so highly unlikely and unpredictable yet here I am...

Frame of reference matters.  The frame of reference for a being outside of time & space is distinct & unknowable from a being that is bound by time & space.  In engineering, where you put your frame of reference matters also in terms of the rules & observations you make.  So in my mind, both predestination & free will can coexist quite peacefully.  What is predetermined in the infinite reference is perceived as a sequence of choices in the finite reference & we simply can't cross the chasm from finite to infinite so there is no contradiction. 

BTW, I really enjoy reading your posts.  You seem like a authentic & transparent person, not just arguing to show how smart you are.  Many others also follow this approach, which is great & why this forum is one of the best.  So while we may all disagree on everything, I respect that authenticity & transparency & it's nice to hear another sincere & genuine voice. 

Question: Does argument and debate help us more in attaining the truth than collaborative thinking?  I notice in this forum that we like to debate quite a bit.  Usually when a couple of us reach an agreement on something that particular conversation will come to an end.  But it doesn't have to, right?  Even in agreement an issue can be explored in more depth.  Whereas our arguments tend to be much more extended.  Does that imply at all that debate has the virtue of stimulating more ideas and discoveries?  Or do we have the tendency in our debates to simply reinforce our own positions, thus indicating that the length of the debates have little to do with absorbing new opinions and thoughts? 

Frame of reference matters.  The frame of reference for a being outside of time & space is distinct & unknowable from a being that is bound by time & space.  In engineering, where you put your frame of reference matters also in terms of the rules & observations you make.  So in my mind, both predestination & free will can coexist quite peacefully.  What is predetermined in the infinite reference is perceived as a sequence of choices in the finite reference & we simply can't cross the chasm from finite to infinite so there is no contradiction. 

BTW, I really enjoy reading your posts.  You seem like a authentic & transparent person, not just arguing to show how smart you are.  Many others do this also which is great.  So while we may all disagree on everything, I respect that authenticity & transparency. 

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

Thanks for the comment I was just thinking this right now, I'm sure its been said before but what hasn't?  Life is like the ocean and fate is the current, why fight it? 

Frame of reference matters.  The frame of reference for a being outside of time & space is distinct & unknowable from a being that is bound by time & space.  In engineering, where you put your frame of reference matters also in terms of the rules & observations you make.  So in my mind, both predestination & free will can coexist quite peacefully.  What is predetermined in the infinite reference is perceived as a sequence of choices in the finite reference & we simply can't cross the chasm from finite to infinite so there is no contradiction. 
l

I can't see the difference, if someone knows everything that is going to happen and creates everything how can he not be making the choices for you?  Maybe not in a physical sense he is not "forcing" you to make that decision but by making you the way you are he in turn is making your decisions, that is assuming he knows everything that is going to happen in the future... Logically if there was a god I highly doubt he is anything that mankind makes him out to be... If he is then so be it, hes like a kid with a magnifying glass and we are the ants which sucks for us Being bound by time and space is very annoying though...

I didn't catch the wit of your last point the first time I read this, but it's quite good. 

Conflict in the realm of ideas does seem productive.  Most of us seem more higly motivated when we are trying to win an argument.  The value of the ego can't be underestimated!  And at the same time I see the value of stepping back to honestly evaluate an opponent's position.  If that person has a better argument, then we do ourselves a favor by admitting our own shortcomings and learning what we can from the other side.  Debate and conflict are helpful, and so too is the ability to rise above the debate in an effort to grow and develop.