• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTime6 days ago
    For once, I'm with Thor. Thor's blocking of certain people from his feed is like not answering the door when Jehovah's witnesses come round. Nobody would accuse you of 'being close minded', you just don't want to be bothered by bothersome things.
  1. Comparing Jehovah's Witnesses to Trump admirers seems quite apt. biggrin
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTime6 days ago edited
    Steven wrote
    For once, I'm with Thor. Thor's blocking of certain people from his feed is like not answering the door when Jehovah's witnesses come round. Nobody would accuse you of 'being close minded', you just don't want to be bothered by bothersome things.


    Yup. Or like using an adblocker: doesn't mean you're disinterested in capitalism or consumer choice. Just that you don't want to be bothered at a time that's not of your own choosing.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTime6 days ago
    Thor wrote

    No. If I want to discuss Trump or have an engaging debate with rightwingers, I want to do it on my own terms, not have annoying propaganda shouted in my face on social media (which I use for totally different purposes).


    That's completely logical, but it wasn't at all apparent in your first post, which is why I brought it up.

    and such statements as " I have no interest in seeing, or being associated with anyone of that ilk in my own social media feed" or... "I really have no interest in being friends with people whom I disagree so fundamentally with when it comes to basic human values" don't exactly communicate the nuance of the above statement.

    yes I'm probably taking this all way too seriously, but especially during today's era of polarization, the "echo chambers" seem worse than ever. Evidently that's not what you're intending, so I apologize if any offense was given.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTime6 days ago edited
    There are elements of both. I want to tailor my social media for my personal need. I also have no interest in befriending anyone who supports Trump, or who's too far on the right, neither in real life nor on the internet. I can debate with one -- if opportunity allows and I'm up for it -- but I choose my friends carefully. If they have what I consider despicable views on some fundamental things, I'm not going to say "oh, I'm going to stick to you because I want to LEARN about your views, be open to them and have an open debate climate". Instead, I'm going to show them my middle finger and move on.

    This is basic human behaviour. Do you know about many people who willfully seek out potential friends that represent everything they are against?
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTime6 days ago
    Thor wrote
    This is basic human behaviour. Do you know about many people who willfully seek out potential friends that represent everything they are against?


    Ironically I agree with you. Or is this a paradox? dizzy
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTime6 days ago
    Thor wroteIf they have what I consider despicable views on some fundamental things, I'm not going to say "oh, I'm going to stick to you because I want to LEARN about your views, be open to them and have an open debate climate". Instead, I'm going to show them my middle finger and move on.

    This is basic human behaviour.


    basic human behaviour, yes, but (in my opinion), that attitude is one of the factors leading to how every election seems a choice between the lesser of two evils. (But that's an American's point of view. maybe things are different in Europe).
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorchristopher
    • CommentTime6 days ago edited
    And maybe if we spent more time trying to understand one another’s views we wouldnt find them so despicable. We tend to demonize opposing viewpoints in a way that makes them more despicable. Take abortion, for example. In the US public opinion is split almost exactly 50/50 on this, even though it has been legal for decades. Those who oppose abortion view themselves as the good guys. Pro-life. Who could disagree with a label like that? And they call those who champion a woman’s right to choose “baby-killers.” What could be worse than that? And these pro-lifers cannot imagine how anyone in their right mind could disagree with them. Then the other side is convinced that they are the good guys. They call themselves pro-choice, and they label those who disagree with them as women-haters and oppressors. And they can’t figure out why anyone would be so backwards as to disagree with them. The truth is that this issue has never gone away because both sides have some really good points to make. Both sides also have a very good value on their side as well. Life vs liberty is a debate that can’t ever be settled through philosophy or debate. I think that if we would really try to understand each other, then we might find that our conclusions are different because our assumptions are different. We won’t ever agree, but by trying to understand one another rather than convince or insult one another, we can foster tolerance rather than hate. It’s really interesting to me that each side of any polarizing issue thinks that their primary motive is love and that the other side is motivated by hate. That kind of thinking isn’t helping society, I don’t think.

    Anyway, that ended up really soap-boxy and wasn’t aimed at anyone, just a tangent I've been thinking about. It also probably only works to discuss ideas like this, and probably doesn’t work so well when it comes to a specific person, especially not Donald Trump. He’s such an abrasive personality. I’m a conservative, but I don’t feel like he represents me in any way, so I’m not threatened when he gets attacked. There have been two or three times when I felt that he was treated unfairly - that he actually made a good point, but that he was being dismissed unfairly, but I guess that’s to be expected when 99% of what you say is justly criticized.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTime6 days ago
    christopher wrote
    And maybe if we spent more time trying to understand one another’s views we wouldnt find them so despicable. We tend to demonize opposing viewpoints in a way that makes them more despicable.


    Well, yes, but there's a difference between differing views on governance (which is fine), and then extreme cases like Trump (and his ilk) who are just despicable in every shape and form, and no other, milder adjective is really suitable. Most of what he does every single day is worthy of 'demonizing', whether that is the constant lying about sexual harassment, the opening-up of hunting trophies or whatever mad new thing he decides to puke up.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTime6 days ago
    Thor wrote
    christopher wrote
    And maybe if we spent more time trying to understand one another’s views we wouldnt find them so despicable. We tend to demonize opposing viewpoints in a way that makes them more despicable.


    Well, yes, but there's a difference between differing views on governance (which is fine), and then extreme cases like Trump (and his ilk) who are just despicable in every shape and form, and no other, milder adjective is really suitable. Most of what he does every single day is worthy of 'demonizing', whether that is the constant lying about sexual harassment, the opening-up of hunting trophies or whatever mad new thing he decides to puke up.


    Again, agree. Trump disgusts me, but his supporters, for the most part, baffle me. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to listen to them. I know not every bit of support Trump receives comes from the same psychopathic vaults that drives the man himself, but it is admittedly a lot to get your head around.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTime6 days ago
    christopher wrote
    The truth is that this issue has never gone away because both sides have some really good points to make. Both sides also have a very good value on their side as well.


    From what I can tell, most pro-lifers, certainly in the US, seem to argue it from a religious point of view. Is there a secular argument for pro-life?
    •  
      CommentAuthorchristopher
    • CommentTime5 days ago edited
    Steven wrote
    christopher wrote
    The truth is that this issue has never gone away because both sides have some really good points to make. Both sides also have a very good value on their side as well.


    From what I can tell, most pro-lifers, certainly in the US, seem to argue it from a religious point of view. Is there a secular argument for pro-life?


    You're right that many pro-lifers are religious, but I'm not sure that their major arguments are inherently religious. Sure, if they're saying "God says abortion is wrong" then that's a religious argument, but most of the time, at least in my experience, the argument is about life and death. Obviously, life is something that everyone, religious or not, should value. And scientifically, they have a case. When a fetus is aborted, that's a living thing. Their underlying assumption that life begins at conception is the debatable issue, then. And that's what any rational person has to grapple with. When do you consider a human fetus a human? Should the burgeoning life, or potential life, of a human being outweigh the liberty of a woman in whom it is developing? Should a woman's liberty to shape her own life and control her own body matter more than the potential life of something that has begun to develop? Is there a point in the development process of a fetus where these values--life and choice--should flip? These are not easy questions, whether you're a religious person or not, and I completely understand why there are such passionate defenders of each side. I just wish we could try to understand one another's values rather than trying to paint the other side with the color of evil or hatred, you know?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTime5 days ago edited
    Thor wrote

    Well, yes, but there's a difference between differing views on governance (which is fine), and then extreme cases like Trump (and his ilk) who are just despicable in every shape and form, and no other, milder adjective is really suitable. Most of what he does every single day is worthy of 'demonizing', whether that is the constant lying about sexual harassment, the opening-up of hunting trophies or whatever mad new thing he decides to puke up.


    I think the problem I'd identify is that EVERY case is going to seem like an extreme case these days. Though I agree Trump presents some unique aspects we just haven't seen in American politics for decades.

    Somebody on this board said something like, "I like when people can put aside politics and agree that Trump is incompetent." Which of course is explicitly political, that's saying, "I like when people can put aside politics and agree with me on politics."

    Steven wrote

    From what I can tell, most pro-lifers, certainly in the US, seem to argue it from a religious point of view. Is there a secular argument for pro-life?


    The strongest argument is to me secular: To be pro-choice you have to believe there is a moment somewhere after conception and somewhere before birth where a "bundle of cells" that you could kill with no more moral compunction than clipping a toenail, becomes a human being, the killing of which would be murder. You have to pick a moment; one second ago this was a blob of cells, the next second this is a living human being.

    So where do you draw that line? Moreover how can you draw that line? What gives you or anyone else the right to draw that line? What science is there to back the idea that one moment, this is a blob of cells, and the next moment, it is a human life?

    The argument points out that at conception, a single-celled life has been created. To be pro-choice, you essentially have to believe there's a second birth somewhere down the line where the living "bundle of cells" becomes a living "human." And there's just no evidence of this. If we believe murder is wrong, then its wrong from the beginning of human life to the end of human life; and we have no evidence that the beginning of human life is some arbitrary point somewhere in the middle of pregnancy.

    Like Christopher said, "These are not easy questions, whether you're a religious person or not, and I completely understand why there are such passionate defenders of each side."
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTime5 days ago edited
    Aidabaida wrote
    Steven wrote

    From what I can tell, most pro-lifers, certainly in the US, seem to argue it from a religious point of view. Is there a secular argument for pro-life?


    The strongest argument is to me secular: To be pro-choice you have to believe there is a moment somewhere after conception and somewhere before birth where a "bundle of cells" that you could kill with no more moral compunction than clipping a toenail, becomes a human being, the killing of which would be murder. You have to pick a moment; one second ago this was a blob of cells, the next second this is a living human being.


    As with most things in biology, there is no clear delineation; it's a gradation. This is a strawman argument, which smacks of religious certitude. Like evolution, pregnancy is a gradual process. There is no moment that a bundle of cells suddenly become a person, a concept a religious person has a hard time getting to grips with, and I would imagine most pro-choice people don't argue for this (or at least I wouldn't).

    So just because religious people have picked a line, that doesn't mean a line has to be picked. The more interesting and important question is weighing up the effects, both potential and actual, on a case-to-case basis. It really depends on the situation. My gut would say that in most cases, especially if it's early in the stages of pregnancy, then the decision lies with the mother who, after all, is the one that is carrying the child. This is where pro-lifers would need to convince me, hence pro-choice.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTime5 days ago edited
    Steven wrote

    As with most things in biology, there is no clear delineation; it's a gradation. This is a strawman argument, which smacks of religious certitude. Like evolution, pregnancy is a gradual process. There is no moment that a bundle of cells suddenly become a person, a concept a religious person has a hard time getting to grips with, and I would imagine most pro-choice people don't argue for this (or at least I wouldn't).

    So just because religious people have picked a line, that doesn't mean a line has to be picked. The more interesting and important question is weighing up the effects, both potential and actual, on a case-to-case basis. It really depends on the situation. My gut would say that in most cases, especially if it's early in the stages of pregnancy, then the decision lies with the mother who, after all, is the one that is carrying the child. This is where pro-lifers would need to convince me, hence pro-choice.



    problem is you can't refuse to draw a line, because by definition, a system that permits abortions means that abortions are allowed up to a certain point, the furthest point being the moment of birth. If you refuse to name a point, the point is set at birth, beyond which, obviously, abortions cannot take place.

    therefore, if you want each condition to be evaluated separately, with no hard and fast line during pregnancy beyond which abortions are not allowed, then you are placing the line at birth. A case-by-case basis system means that you are comfortable with giving mothers and doctors the choice whether or not to extinguish the fetus inside the womb, whereas obviously you would not be comfortable with allowing mothers and doctors the choice of whether to kill an infant outside the womb on a 'case-by-case' basis, because you don't get to choose infanticide.

    so are you comfortable with drawing a line at birth, saying that before this point, doctors and mothers can decide together on a case-by-case basis whether or not to extinguish the fetus, after this point it is a baby with human rights?

    anyway that's the secular argument.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTime5 days ago
    Then it's a secular argument with little basis in reason.

    No line does not default the line at birth. It means weighing up various aspects of the pregnancy and then making an informed decision from there: the circumstance of the conception; the circumstance of the mother (her readiness or willingness to have something grow inside her for 9 months); the stage at which the fetus has developed; the pain that the mother and/or child might experience due to an abortion; the health of the baby (i.e. does it have any life-debilitating diseases?). These are things the mother can deliberate over with the help of doctors. Rules should be put in place of course, but they should also allow room for the people involved or affected by the situation to come to an informed decision. Ruling out abortion regardless of the circumstance doesn't allow this to happen.

    However, I think it's safe to say there is a clear period of pregnancy where abortion presents few moral difficulties given the lack of a nervous system. This is where pro-life's binary morality makes little sense.

    As for aborting babies post-partum, off the top of my head I can think of a situation where killing the child would be an act of mercy. People react to this emotionally, understandably, but preventing so much potential suffering in a given situation could arguably be the better moral choice, much like euthanasia. Not that I'm advocating for the death of anyone less-than-healthy, but that death might not always be the worse option. Again, few things are as black and white as you describe, or as a religious mindset encourages.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTime5 days ago
    Steven wrote
    Then it's a secular argument with little basis in reason.

    No line does not default the line at birth. It means weighing up various aspects of the pregnancy and then making an informed decision from there: the circumstance of the conception; the circumstance of the mother (her readiness or willingness to have something grow inside her for 9 months); the stage at which the fetus has developed; the pain that the mother and/or child might experience due to an abortion; the health of the baby (i.e. does it have any life-debilitating diseases?). These are things the mother can deliberate over with the help of doctors. Rules should be put in place of course, but they should also allow room for the people involved or affected by the situation to come to an informed decision. Ruling out abortion regardless of the circumstance doesn't allow this to happen.


    so yes, you are comfortable with saying that a mother and her doctor should be allowed to discuss, weigh the variables, and choose whether or not to abort the fetus, up to the point of birth. am I misrepresenting your argument? if so, stop me here. if not, I'll continue.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTime4 days ago edited
    Having become rather concerned about my far too sedentary lifestyle and its potential effects on my (far too rapidly) advancing age, I have decided to employ the help of a personal trainer (because I'm hip and suave and have money tor burn. Apparently. slant )... and a couple of weeks in I am absolutely DISGUSTED with the ridiculously poor shape I am apparently in.

    I'm not a sporting guy and never have been, so I did kind of expect an uphill struggle, but it's SO much worse than I thought that I am honestly shocked. Excercises that on paper I would have laughingly set aside as kid's stuff utterly annihilate me. Apparently I have been doing push-ups all wrong previously, and now trying proper ones I can't even finish a proper set of 15. I ache in places I didn't know existed. I sweat so much I could be someone's personal shower. My condition is so poor that I am out of breath after rowing a measly 250 meters.
    Apparently I have even been *breathing* wrong for my entire life!
    And after a session I need pretty much a full day to recuperate.

    Man, it's F*CKING hard to keep up my drive and motivation (which is the prime reason I *did* decide, after a LOT of calculations to get to a personal trainer...I simply do not have the willpower to keep this up purely by myself. Know thyself and all that. slant )

    Yeah, I AM kinda sorta content that I'm actually doing this.
    And I'm gritting my teeth and hope and dream that in a year's time I'll be laughing about this.

    But inside I'm seething.
    I have absolutely no excuse: the proof is there: I let myself go for FAR too long, following the "as long as I'm not bothered there's nothing wrong with me" adage. And now I'm running into limitations I would never have guessed.
    Ugh.
    UGH.
    UGH!!!
    angry
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTime4 days ago edited
    From what you describe, you're actually in MUCH better shape than I am. I haven't done anything, training-wise, in a year, and eat and drink rather unhealthy. Two chronic illnesses and a mental breakdown isn't exactly what inspires one to get back on the horse. Gained 15 kilos as a result, closing in on 100 kilos now.

    So remember -- there are always those who are worse off than you, even here.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTime4 days ago
    Hmmm...I have about ten years on you though (I think?), and the thing that really concerns me is that all in spite of all the work and good intentions, I have simply left it too long: I find I "bounce back" far less quickly (physically). And that's my greatest worry: that all I do is simply keeping the status quo. Not improving anything.

    Well. Early days yet. We'll see.
    I do have a tendency to be a tad on the pessimistic side.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
  2. And the beginning of a new exercise regimen is always the hardest. My guess is you'll be feeling much better in just a matter of weeks and feeling good about the gains you're making. Good for you to taking charge of your health! I need to do that myself.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBregt
    • CommentTime4 days ago edited
    Martijn wrote
    I ache in places I didn't know existed. I sweat so much I could be someone's personal shower. My condition is so poor that I am out of breath after rowing a measly 250 meters.

    biggrin

    Apparently I have even been *breathing* wrong for my entire life!

    How is that possible???

    Sounds like you need this training! But I wish you all the best. It's a good thing (and you started before the new year, so you'll be triggered to keep going with all the NY resolutions coming up. wink )

    For me, I try to go for a run once a week and can cycle to work almost every day (about 10km). Not a lot. But also the renovation has been quite intense physically. I feel much stronger than before though, but weaker every time I think it is still a few months before it is all over. biggrin

    Thor wrote
    From what you describe, you're actually in MUCH better shape than I am. I haven't done anything, training-wise, in a year, and eat and drink rather unhealthy. Two chronic illnesses and a mental breakdown isn't exactly what inspires one to get back on the horse. Gained 15 kilos as a result, closing in on 100 kilos now.

    Come on Thor! You live in a hiking paradise. Hiking is very healthy, both physically and mentally. You should take the train/bus and go out for a (serious) day hike every few weekends. You have the luck to live so close to such amazing scenery and mountains. Go for it!

    Just think about me, where mountains do not exist and the only thing that comes close is a bridge over a highway.
    Kazoo
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTime4 days ago
    Bregt wrote
    Apparently I have even been *breathing* wrong for my entire life!

    How is that possible???


    Inhale/hold breath during exertion, rather than exhaling.
    No idea how I got to that...only been doing it that way my entire life...slant
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTime4 days ago
    Martijn wrote
    Bregt wrote
    Apparently I have even been *breathing* wrong for my entire life!

    How is that possible???


    Inhale/hold breath during exertion


    I read that last word very differently.

    *chuckle*
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTime3 days ago edited
    ...I...I shudder to ask? freezing
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
  3. I think it’s brilliant what you’re doing Martijn and although it may not feel like it, it will get easier with every session.
  4. Martijn wrote
    ...I...I shudder to ask? freezing


    Either "excretion" or "erection".
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
  5. Well, who would have thought of that? tongue
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.
  6. Thor, seemingly wink
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
  7. Yup. He was evidently considering more pleasant forms of workout. dizzy
    Bach's music is vibrant and inspired.