Night FM

I'd argue that exceptions don't make the rule. And that if a significant enough amount of "universality" exist, we can declare it a "universal belief" regardless of odd possible exceptions.

My view is that the term "conspiracy theory" is often misused to refer to theories which are considered "patently absurd". As an example, I've heard the "flat earth theory" referred to as a "conspiracy theory", even though it's technically not one, just a fringe theory. (Though some flat earth believers do believe that there is a conspiracy to manufacture false evidence of a round earth). A lot of conspiracy theories are absurd on the basis of common sense alone (e.x. the idea that alien lizardmen secretly rule the word), though others, even if false, are more plausible (e.x. that JFK's assassination was part of a political conspiracy), and some, like Watergate, have turned out to be true. Basically, my perception is that when some people throw around the term "conspiracy theory" they're not using the technical definition of the word and are immediately implying an absurdity of sorts.

One could just as easily ask "is natural science (aka "hard science") a real science?".

"Extraordinary" is purely subjective. Given that belief in a God is universal among cultures, I'd argue it isn't particularly extraordinary. And all axioms (e.x. materialism) are based on faith, so it's a moot point. I'd argue that there is evidence for a God. The problem would be people demanding very specific types of evidence and refusing to accept the possibility of a thing otherwise, while happily accepting different standards of evidence for other things that they believe in. (For example, I could argue that, unless someone provides a full-length video recording of a single-celled organism evolving into a human, that there is "no evidence" of evolution, and of course such evidence would be impossible to provide).

This is my summary of the thread so far. 1. The OP is erroneously conflating "mythology" with "religion". "Mythology" is only a part of religion, and not exclusive to religion. And often the word "myth" is erroneously used simply to mean "not true", when that's not what mythology actually is. This is similar to how people conflate "religion" with "moral codes" (which, of course, aren't exclusive to "religion" either. The law's of one's nation or state are "moral codes". 2. The idea that religion served a cultural purpose "prior to science" is something of a cultural myth in and of itself. Science in the modern sense is simply an institutionalized system for gathering information, and such institutionalized systems pre-existed modern science and often existed in conjunction with established religions. Science is only one of many such systems or hypothetical systems and is predicated on certain philosophical axioms (e.x. materialism). 3. It is, likewise, something of a myth that evolution "came along" and made it unnecessary to invoke God as an explanation for the creation of life. The idea that mankind has purely natural origins has always existed (e.x. materialism as a philosophical axiom has been around since the ancient Greeks, and Anaximander of Miletus was one of the first known philosophers to propose that mankind descended from animals. Darwin's theory of evolution was essentially just a revival of ancient thought which had presumably declined in popularity up until then. The rise of Christianity after the fall of Rome may have had something to do with why ancient evolutionary thought didn't become popular). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought Likewise, the argument that evolution or purely material origins of humanity isn't a sufficient explanation would be just as valid an argument today as it would have been in ancient times, since this would be debating the materialist philosophical axioms which said explanation is based on.

If we're talking about someone as young as 11, they would need to at least communicate the abuse with people who can address it (e.x. parents or authority figures), and most of the resources would be dedicated to the parents and authority figures who are better able to address the situation than the 11 year old girl herself. You're not thinking this through very well. That's what the law does. A school shooter can't say "I was bullied" as a cop out to being sent to prison. You seem to have contempt for the notion of personal responsibility, and enjoy misusing the term "victim blame". No one is saying that what a bully does is "right" simply because the person doesn't handle it properly.

I'd argue it's not extraordinary but rather ordinary.

It sounds like this is based on the left/right brain theory, which may not be entirely accurate. (I've read that both sides of the brain can share roles). Though I do think there is some accuracy to the idea of their being a duality of cognitive functions (e.x. empathizing and systemizing), based on my personal experience.

Right, the security system analogy is only one possible solution. People would need solutions tailored to their individual circumstances. This discussion is about finding ways to help teens cope with bullying who aren't currently able to do so. (And cope doesn't simply mean "get over it", it means being able to take action to prevent it and not use it as an excuse to act out in antisocial ways, such as in the case of school shooters).

Right. If a person's home constantly gets broken into, it's their responsibility to take action such as installing a security system. Obviously, this doesn't mean it's "right" for a burglar to break into a person's home just because they didn't install a security system (and the law obviously wouldn't agree with that either). But it's more likely to happen to people who don't have one. You're being obstinate and misusing the term "victim blaming" to avoid acknowledging simple realities.

That's not really a good argument for there being no God, and just falls back onto the "problem of evil", which could be postulated about anything destructive, regardless of whether the earthquake is a moral-natural process. Since philosophers have dealt with the problem of evil for millennia, I'm sure they have plenty of good answers which don't just fall back on assuming there "is no God" simply because destructive things occur.

Not sure what to say. It's a person's responsibility to use adequate coping strategies, but not their fault in the sense that the other person isn't accountable for their behavior. The latter would be like saying "it's okay to break into someone's home if they neglected to install a security system", which isn't what I'm saying.

Provided the marriage or relationship is of high quality or involves high quality parenting, I think it's viewed as socially beneficial. I'm aware that marriage is associated with "love", though, especially historically (when issues such as heirs and inherence were more socially significant, or even in the case of "transactional relationships" which exist to day), not all marriages necessarily contain love. However, I see little benefit to the couple or to the offspring in the event that it is unhappy or abusive, beyond anything that potentially leads to procreation being viewed as better than none at all (and, obviously, society only needs to maintain procreation to a certain degree and to as much as it has the resources to properly support). In essence, I'm not sure what the purpose in recognizing marriage "for the masses" is, since even unhappy or abusive cases of it can be legally recognized or recognized in a private ceremony. If it was only recognized in cases which demonstrate a high quality union or high quality parenting (while the rest were simply left to "do their own thing" without any legal recognition), I think it would have more social benefit as an ideal for society to strive for. I'd be interested in learning more about the history of marriage in the Western World prior to the Catholic Church denoting it as a sacrament, such as how often the state played an active role in recognizing it, as opposed to it being left a matter to families or the private domain.

My thoughts are as follows. Marriage generally consists of both a legal institution and a private ceremony. A private ceremony and whatever non-legally binding vows they take is purely in the domain of the individuals getting married, their loved ones, their church, and so forth. (e.x. Some churches would hold gay weddings even prior to same-sex marriage being officially recognized by their state). Marriage in the legal sense obviously can't and does not obligate people to live together, or even have a formal ceremony (e.x. in most states that I'm aware of, people who decide to live together as a couple can file for common law marriage if they meet the legal requirements) and in addition to providing certain legal benefits to couples (e.x. hospital visitation rights) primarily exists to provide a legal remedy to property and child custody disputes in the event of a separation (or legal divorce / annulment). Some aspects of legal marriage may be outdated, for example some states are considered "community property" states, meaning that all property acquired during the marriage is considered jointly owned. (To me, the above is a holdover from past times where husbands were generally assumed to be the main income provider, and the wife primarily dependent on the husband's resources. Though I'm aware that women have always done "work", both including work done if they were a homemaker and supplementary work even if the husband was the main income provider. Similarly, some people erroneously blame "feminism" for the perception that courts tend to favor women in child custody disputes, however, if anything, this is also a holdover from past times where women were presumed to generally be the more naturally-fit caretakers). Some issues I have with marriage in the 21st century are as follows: Obviously, people will naturally from couples and have offspring whether marriage is legally recognized or not. (e.x. Some cultures have no legal institution of marriage, and couples are considered "married" simply by agreeing to live together as a couple). However, since there is no way of determining whether or not a couple is fit to be married or have children (e.x. many cases of unhappy or abusive marriage and parenting exist, and in some cases, it may be functionally easier to perpetuate unhappy marriages, particularly if there is outside social pressure to remain together even in the event that it would be better dissolved, which is why markers such as longevity by itself aren't markers of high quality marriage or relationship), Therefore, I don't see the social benefit in promoting it as an institution, and whatever aspects of it as a whole are seen as "sacred" ideals obviously aren't actually present in many actual marriage. Essentially, even without legal recognition of marriage, people would still come together as couples and procreate for obvious biological reasons, and unless there was some way of testing people for high levels of competency to be legally married or have offspring, then I don't see it as providing a social benefit, beyond providing the legal remedies for setting child custody or divorce issues, and reducing the social chaos that might result if those matters were left solely in the private domain.

Not at all. Teaching someone how to install a home security system isn't "blaming them for getting burglarized" if they don't have one, or claiming that the burglar isn't responsible for their actions. This, to me, is similar to only offering women the advice to "call the police" if they are a victim of domestic violence, when, in reality, much of it occurs when the police aren't available and the police are not able to permanently stop it if it occurs outside of what can be legally done. (This is why resources on how domestic abuse victims can remove themselves permanently from the situation exist, for example): https://www.thehotline.org/plan-for-safety/

I don't consider that an accurate way of assessing the safety of a situation. Personal safety requires more than just assessing the sex ratio of a given environment. There are many situations which a person could view as potentially unsafe regardless of gender (e.x. a man entering alone in a bar full of rowdy bikers might view the situation as unsafe). I'm assuming that you're basing this assessment on either: 1. Physical differences between men and women which make it more likely that a woman could be overpowered by a male attacker 2. Statistics that show that men are more likely to be instigators of violence. Correct me if I'm wrong. And if this safety concern is presumably based on biological differences between men and women (e.x. that a man is more likely to be able to physically overpower a woman), I'm curious what solution you propose to it. I'd happy to do some research on statistics which involve non-physical aggression (e.x. verbal aggression, cyberbullying, etc). There will likely be less of a discrepancy between men and women when the physical variables are removed. (Similar to how differences in performance ability in sports are less pronounced when the sport or competition is less physical. For example, there's a noticeable difference in weight-lifting ability between the top male performers and top female performers, but women in less-physical sports such as Danica Patrick in auto racing are able to compete with the top male performers).

I'm convicted that car attacks may increase if gun violence becomes rarer, not necessarily at schools, but on other victims. Given that car attacks can result in high death tolls: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/07/us/brownsville-texas-car-crash-accident/index.html Again, though, this is political. I created this topic to discuss the social and psychological side of things, rather than posting a topic in the politics section.

Often violence committed by God is a point of criticism of religion (generally in relation to the Abrahamic religions), however violence committed by nature (e.x. earthquakes) doesn't tend to draw the same criticism of nature. (e.x. people often hold that "caring for the planet" is a good axiom, sometimes to a quasi-religious degree, even when nature seems apathetic to the suffering of humans). I'm curious why this is. I suppose one could take a purely pragmatic approach and believe that human intervention in nature could cause loss of human life, and therefore should be avoided purely for the sake of consequences to humanity, however this wouldn't explain a reverence of nature (e.x. such as a desire to preserve endangered species even if they offer little to no practical benefit to humanity.

That's the political side of things, not the psychological. Plus, if we hypothesize about legislation, it at best would reduce the amount of violence which occurs, but wouldn't end violence, since perpetrators would find other, possibly less effective methods to perpetuate mass violence (e.x. committing mass violence using knives or cars).

Romantic attraction isn't purely physical to begin with. Being attracted to a "person" is multifaceted (e.x. it can include attraction to elements of their character, personality, life experiences, and so forth). This is why most people don't consider porn a substitute for dating, since the desire to be in a relationship goes beyond merely the desire to achieve orgasm. Maybe we can reference Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs again. Purely physical needs (e.x. orgasm) are at the lowest end of the hierarchy, and the needs people achieve through relationships (as perhaps opposed to one-night stands) likely relate to needs (e.x. love) which are higher on the hierarchy. It's a common marketing fad to claim that something will make you sexually irresistible to the opposite sex (or perhaps have the opposite effect), generally requiring money in exchange. But application of a bit of common sense (such as the fact that people have free will and can't be made to do things they don't want by a "magic pill") generally refutes this.

The political side of this focuses on legislation, however I'm curious what other social resources are that can prevent school shootings and mass shootings. People may suggest investing into "mental health", but I think there are other variables as well. Some of the school shooters may have been bullied, though that doesn't excuse their actions, and may not always be the case. Perhaps better resources which teach people how to properly handle bullying so that they don't feel powerless are in order (since simply punishing bullying when it happens won't break the cycle or be able to address all of the unseen or unreported bullying which inevitably occurs). Likewise, some shooters may invest time into toxic parts of social media where antisocial worldviews are reinforced by others (and I find social media in general is prone to toxicity, particularly when related to politics or controversial issues, but that's a separate discussion). There seems to be a trend to politicize this (e.x. such as the association of "incels" with far-right politics), though I prefer to look at the psychological side of things which aren't limited to a specific political label (e.x. there are toxic parts of social media which are apolitical or span the political spectrum). There are other issues which I'm not sure how society can properly address, such as bad or abusive parenting practices which go on in the home and which are often unseen. Even in the event a parent is charged with child abuse or neglect, this may not stop the abuse if it is part of a continuous cycle which goes on unseen by most of society.

To me, it has poor implications even with the "for the most part qualifier", and doesn't accurately address the motives behind violent or criminal behavior.

That can be countered by looking at plenty of examples from true crime as case studies, whether physical violence or verbal violence (e.x. cyberbullying): https://thecinemaholic.com/skylar-neese-murder-where-are-shelia-eddy-and-rachel-shoaf-now/ https://fox2now.com/news/megan-meier-mom-still-helping-after-online-bullying-led-to-st-charles-girls-2006-death/ Even if you want to argue that there is a statistical prevalence of men being the perpetrators of physical violence against women, "only men hurt women" is a ridiculous statement. (And regarding verbal abuse statistics, which might be harder to ascertain, I don't think the discrepancy is quite as noticeable, though I'd have to do some digging to find sources on that).

Well, I did miss this, so I take this as a fair response: “Using more detailed and expansive data than was previously available, the analysis shows that about a third of the gap between full-time, year-round working men and women’s wages can be explained by worker characteristics, such as age, education, industry, occupation, or work hours. However, roughly 70% cannot be attributed to measurable differences between workers. At least some of this unexplained portion of the wage gap is the result of discrimination, which is difficult to fully capture in a statistical mode”

We need more context here, such as job descriptions, hours worked, and so forth. That's the point. That's very anecdotal and we'd need to better contextualize it. Such as in terms of frequency and how it would compare to something similar being done to another demographic (e.x. men, racial groups, etc). Regarding the safety concern, if it's based on presumed physical differences between men and women (e.x. that a woman is more likely to be overpowered by a potential attacker), then that's not something I see as being remediable since it's grounded in biology. That would fall into the domain of decisions that people make with personal safety in mind.