StringJunky

At the individual level, pragmatism keeps you alive but at the societal level ones pragmatism, in conjunction with everyone elses similar pragmatism is detrimental. I don't disagree with you but here lies a dilemma of which matters most; self or society? It depends which perspective you are looking from, doesn't it? It's about aiming towards risk reduction rather than risk avoidance, which is a pipe-dream.

I think this is going off on a tangent to the general direction of this thread. To keep this very short: you can't quantify these things and one has to use general experience of the neighbourhood one is in to decide what might be attention-grabbing to undesirable people or not.

i think It may tip the balance on a potential rapist's decision-making. No, I don't think that if all women dressed modestly it wouldn't happen. You have framed your question as all or nothing; it isn't.

From your link: In Reuters "Editor's Images of the day" today is a picture that encapsulates perfectly, what the above quoted piece is talking about is partly wrong with the US police force. I find the image poignant and very, very sad that this is modern America. The overkill here is unbelievable: http://uk.reuters.com/news/picture/editors-choice?articleId=UKRTSHD37 The point I was labouring was to Ten Oz who was insistent that pursuance of principle mattered more than personal safety. I don't disagree with you here in your post. I've exhausted my thoughts on it so I shall retire from that point I was addressing.

No, I don't "recommend" it because it might cost someone their life; it's their choice. That would be akin to a mullah encouraging young muslims to blow themselves up in the name of Allah. Thinking of doing something and actually doing it are very different things; only the person doing it can make such a decision. It's easy to chat about principles on the internet but I'm also being mindful of the reality in upholding such things.

In principle...

But your posts appeared strongly biased towards the former and there is a clear distinction between the two. Indeed and that's what Rosa Parks did.

Rosa Parks made a personal choice to potentially become a martyr, and I bow with admiration to people like her, but not everybody is prepared to make such potential sacrifice of themselves. Do we have the right, as elders, to tell the younger ones it is beholden upon them to potentially sacrifice themselves in order to pursue a principle?

Yes, there are broad parallels between the two scenarios. My point was: should people respond defensively in a passive way until the root cause has been dealt with societally or take the risk of being attacked, shot etc whilst it happens?

OK, tell your teenage daughters they are allowed to wear mini-skirts with diaphanous tops when they go out because they have a principle to uphold. Picture a relevant scenario with a black person/police officer confrontation too. My point is one of trying to highlight the real life practical dilemma and not your principle which I agree with, in principle.

You are muddying the discussion by referencing a culture that is polar to the Western one. They are a different kettle of fish.

I agree with the principle, in principle, but is it justifiable or ethical to ask girls to become potential martyrs for that principle, bearing in mind some will get attacked, or rather, more will be attacked if they dress such a way than if they don't? I'm butting up ideology against pragmatism; which to choose?

Yes, however we may view it personally it will always be considered 'normal' for any particular generation in any given time period, just as what we older ones consider to be normal; that's why I asked about relative differences. I wonder if there will be significant, objective, pathological effects at the societal and/or individual level relative to the pre-internet generation.

I had a conversation a while ago with someone who regularly viewed pornography, who was of an age that the internet has always been an integral part of their lives. It transpired that what they viewed, in the various styles and approaches in them were things to emulate themselves and had bodies to aspire to which were outside the norm; like supermodels, only often surgically enhanced. The overall theme I got from them was that what they saw depicted was what sex should be like in real life; seen as sex education videos, I suppose. I’m sure this perception is replicated amongst young people the world over. What will be the longterm effect on how such individuals, and the emerging society in general they grow up in be, relative to those who matured before the internet? I'm not asking about ones personal ethics on porn, or ethics per se, although it's effects on ethics at the societal or individual level might be relevant.

The thing about Windows now is that it is undergoing constant evolution which is evident month-to-month that occurs in the now silent updates; this contrasts with the quantum changes that occurred from one edition to the next every few years. It's development is also more quickly reactive to threats and locked down security-wise,which is a good thing for the Windows ecosystem collectively, although a pain for those that like more personal control.

Like I said earlier, they'll just realise, one day, AI has reached the equivalent of a sapient level of consciousness and cognitive autonomy.

Yes. I have a feeling that it will, one day, just be realised that computer function has evolved to become functionally indistinguishable from a brain rather than a premeditated design from scratch; consciousness will emerge 'accidentally' ..."Ooh! Eureka!"

....for now. With increasing functional complexity, consciousness will emerge.

Yes. Computers are evolving mirrors of our brain functions; how can they be anything else? We make them in our own image, in effect.

It's easier to spot the crazies than it is to find the sane ones.

I've agreed with most of what you've said in this discussion but for this post I must say "Bollocks". Every other first world country doe not engage in the daily, totally unnecessary, carnage that occurs in the US for wont of the unregulated freedom to own an arsenal, Most of the first world has evolved to control their violence. Please don't conflate what is happening there with the other countries.

I was a headbanger in my early teens when Halford was the lead singer. This is a good cover of Floyd's Time:

I like the variety of conversations on here. It is a rare place to have discussions on many topics with disciplined thinkers, which is what scientists and sciency-types are. The trick is to treat the forum subjects as discrete places i.e. non-science from science. The science is the core but not the whole. Forums are like shops or restaurants; find one that suits you. Pure science forums don't suit me; tend to be too dry and exclusive in the makeup of their membership for my taste but they may be right up another person's street