Posts by Clementulus@qoto.org
(DIR) Post #AUBZmKFJ4LQSq9bT6m by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-03-31T20:28:30Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@freemo Another interesting conversation! (Especially for a dabbler in symbology). I think the fundamental difference is that femininity (associated with water or geometrically, the circle) is a spiritual stance of accepting information; which is why it is associated with empathy because to do so you must take in the information being given by other people in order to empathize with them. Masculinity (fire or geometrically a line) is the opposite, a blocking out of information so that one can act (since the world produces a huge abundance of information that we cannot possibly process, we are required to block out some to not be overwhelmed all the time). Thus action (getting from point A to point B, like a line) is considered masculine and reception (ability to contain like a circle or a receptacle) is considered feminine. What is unclear to me is whether the association to human sexes came from the geometric association (the main distinguishing feature of the sexes, the genitals, resembling a line for men and a circle for women) or if some observations of generalities in human behavior led to the association (men being more prone to action without as much thought and women being more likely to "overthink" things, or at least think more than men do). That is my concise answer, believe it or not :ageblobcat:
(DIR) Post #AUBfOqrijpFUmblFvU by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-03-31T21:31:30Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@freemo I agree with a lot of that. You also reminded me of another reason I believe it became associated with the division of human sexes is that the two energies are required to be in balance with each other for the act of creation (perhaps seen as positive organization of matter) to take place, just as both male and female bodies are required for procreation. This is opposed to the imbalance of these energies which causes dissolution; excess male energy is how we view aggression symbolically and excess female energy as anxiety.
(DIR) Post #AX7IokCciZK2vEI9oG by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-06-27T12:31:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icedquinn @freemo Obviously expressing joy at someones death is horrible. However, I suspect that some people were more trying to poke fun at the way our media trains us to care about relatively inconsequential things. I have seen dozens of news stories suggested to me over the past weeks about this group of foolhardy people (who also happened to be extremely wealthy) dying in a completely foreseeable way. Everyone at my workplace knows this story inside and out. Yet a few weeks ago not a single story appeared anywhere about the chinese helping to put an end to the decades long war in Yemen, a war in which american drones were killing women and children so that they could have better relations with the Saudis. Most of these same people dont even know that there was ever a war in Yemen, let alone that their tax dollars were probably used for war crimes.
(DIR) Post #AX7Krk0U6OCn5lAe4e by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-06-27T12:58:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@icedquinn @freemo I think it's all to distract us from the orca uprising.
(DIR) Post #AX8IQIyAVqtsfTpxfE by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-06-28T00:06:11Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@freemo the hands attached to these guns :blobflexmoustacheL: :blobflexmoustacheR:P.S : I live in Canada
(DIR) Post #AX8IzQiBieFMod6x8a by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-06-28T00:12:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo hilarious. When I went in 2010 they pulled me aside and questioned me for 30 minutes because I was 20 cm shorter when my passport was made (they couldnt believe that I had grown that much in less than 2 years.)
(DIR) Post #AXAGeJSlfBhqf1cZwe by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-06-28T22:52:23Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@LouisIngenthron @Unit @unchartedworlds @futurebird The deplatforming question is an interesting question to me. If we set aside legitimate targetted harassment, intimidation and threats, I cannot work out good first principles for deplatforming on social media. For one, if you don't like what someone is saying, you can just ignore them, block them, dont follow them or whatever. Deplatforming is only done to limit other peoples access to a certain individuals ideas. In the case of children I could understand having parental controls on what ideas they come into contact with since they are not yet mature in their thinking. But for adults I can't come up with a non-paternalistic reason why I should be allowed to limit what other people see online and I also don't trust other people to make these types of decisions for me.
(DIR) Post #AXnfKch7BFXu8FYjKK by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-07-17T23:01:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@PBruce @freemo @NMBA This has to be intentional irony, right? There is no way it could not be. But maybe.... nah. Its gotta be intentional. I hope.🙊
(DIR) Post #AanMEjhjXUF9jLHwoK by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-10-15T13:08:24Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@freemo Its a circulatory system thing. Heart not as strong and vascular system less rigid than in youth, you end up keeping more fluids in your extremities. Lots of commonly used medications for that age group can also exarcebate the swelling, especially blood pressure meds.
(DIR) Post #AbbFLttXpKzFSPDU6i by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-11-08T14:46:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo I would add a fifth option: "because it's ugly". Meaning that to live in a reality where the willfull killing of thinking beings is justifiable is simply much less beautiful than the reality where we consider life to be sacred.
(DIR) Post #AbbfQZiEtDET7QomS8 by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-11-08T19:39:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo all motives are based on subjective criteria. Justification for any action is ultimately a statement about what sort of reality you believe we should live in. Sartre writes about freedom causing anguish for this very reason. Killers always justify their actions in terms of "doing what is right or necessary" and real world conflicts are usually spoken about as good vs evil, light vs dark, true-human vs. Sub-human. Ultimately it is all statements about Beauty; the beautifull reality is one where light triumphs over the dark, where good has overcome evil, where the less-than-humans (read: terrorists) are erradicated and only the pure (read: us and ours) are all that remain. If you were to think that way you would be joining probably the majority of people as they currently view the world (at least consciously). I do think, however, that with a little serious reflection, most people would realize that the reality where life is sacred is far more beautiful, but to sustain that belief in a conflict ridden world is another matter altogether.
(DIR) Post #AbbzkjatrEqAdoH8Ay by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-11-08T23:26:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo I am also talking about morals. We always choose what our morals are. For instance, at one time, most people in our society found it morally wrong to have sex outside of wedlock but many nowadays no longer see this as immoral; following that thread though, many people even back then would *say* that they believed that extra-marital sex was immoral so that they would be seen as a moral person by the rest of their society; but they would still practice it in secret. Of those that did it in secret, some would repent their actions, believing they had made a mistake and therefore still believe it immoral even though they did it; but others simply did not think it wrong at all and so to them it was clearly not immoral. Same can be applied to any moral question: different people will see different things as moral / immoral and they will not necessarily be forthright about their beliefs, depending on prevailing social attitudes.Nothing humans can come up with can be considered "objectively moral" since no one is an objective observer of the universe. The closest we could come would be something like "divinely moral" by believing that the universe has a divine purpose which would necessitate certain behaviors to fulfil that purpose. How to discover that purpose would be a spiritual question.
(DIR) Post #Abc2ErBoNmmQnG21mC by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-11-08T23:54:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo its true that your choice of morals will depend on your ethical framework and how you interpret it, but that itself is a choice. you reference utilitarianism as what you would choose but even within that ethic there is huge margin for interpretation. How do you measure relative happiness / suffering? There are many things that would make me happy that other people dont care about while many things I can easily tolerate other people find insufferable; not to mention state of mind: should we brave-new-world ourselves into chemical bliss so that we can all be maximally happy? Also are we considering only currently living persons or do we consider future generations as well? If so, how many? Do we include only our own species, all species or only some arbitrary number of them? I dont expect you to answer all those questions, I was just demonstrating that even a single ethical standpoint could yeild wildly different morals, none of which are "objective" as you correctly point out. Which comes back to why I mention Beauty, because the experience of beauty, while subjective, provides the best overall guiding principle for determinig ethical frameworks and their moral outcomes; I do find that when you seriously discuss with people what is beautiful, humans seem to have rather similar experiences of it which is why when someone exemplifies a beautifully lived life, other people are more likely to change their outlook to match that one rather than another.
(DIR) Post #Abc4sgapOou1Q8qvPk by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-11-09T00:24:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo But you do see that that framework for an ethic is itself a subjective choice? Because the weight you give to those various factors changes the morals drastically. If Thanos appeared tomorrow and said that the most intelligent supercomputer in the galaxy predicted that humanity would be extinguished in 1000 years but if he instanly vaporizes all but 1000 select individuals that we would regain our population and humanity would then go on to thrive for 100 000 years, he could claim the moral right to do so using a utilitarian ethic by citing all the immense happiness that the unborn trillions would be denied if he allowed the current billions to keep on living. Also, it is actually not entirely logical to posit that happiness could be proven to be objective if a hypothetical machine existed to measure it properly (you can't prove something based on a hypothetical).
(DIR) Post #AbdSrcPs2E9KEdi9jc by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-11-09T16:27:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo who decided what "objective good and evil" are and why should we listen to them? What is the source of their authority?
(DIR) Post #Abf9abDxhihannERhg by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-11-10T12:01:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo Nature created animals that fulfil their needs by killing each other, sometimes their own young. They are driven to do so by their instincts. Humans are not without instinicts and desires that would cause harm to others if acted upon. Nature clearly demonstrates that it cares not for happiness only survival of the fittest. If nature came up with the idea of maximizing happiness across all species, why would it make violent creatures (including humans)
(DIR) Post #AcT0dIU5uG2xVEROqW by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-12-04T13:16:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo speaking for the canadian market, while there is some merit to the suggestion that we simply buy more stuff along with our houses than we used to this accounts for very little of the increased cost in most areas. The vast amount of the increase is in the cost of land because increased demand for living space. For instance, a half acre plot of land near where I live is now going for around 275 000$ with no house on it at all. An identical plot right next door with a brand new bungalow on it back in the 90s would have been around 120 000$.
(DIR) Post #AcV5m0Ee0vO9b56Ya0 by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-12-05T13:23:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo but if most working class people cant afford a 0.25 acre plot to plop a house on and all the available supply is in use, rental or otherwise, it's not hard to see why most young people will laugh in your face when you tell them how much wealth is in a modern home, because they are literally sleeping in their car.
(DIR) Post #AcVwShIlTmRAwbiBPM by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-12-05T23:13:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo but im not comparing to 70+ years ago, im comparing to less than 20 years ago where houses that were brand new then have more than doubled in price since then with very little done in terms of renovation. My point is that its not the materials in the dwelling that have driven increased cost of housing, which was your original post, but rather an increased demand for limited supply of land.
(DIR) Post #AcW5Cdwv4h5bV8ugqW by Clementulus@qoto.org
2023-12-06T00:51:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@freemo The point is not really moot. Sure anyone could move into the wilderness and try to live a self sufficient lifestyle for almost no cost (who even has the skills to do that nowadays anyway?) Or move somewhere with no jobs or opportunities and try to scrape by on welfare or whatever meager opportunities are there. But thats not what people want, they want to be in or near cities where they can pursue a profession and enjoy at least the basic amenities and the fact is that it was much easier for working-class people to do just that as far back as the 50s, even before.