zapatos

While I understand the sentiment I don't think the comparison of the question of the existence of gods and fairies is quite fair. The question of the existence of god seems perfectly reasonable and has been asked by people since people began. Nearly every culture has an origin story. It can even be considered a scientific question; given existence, how did it come to be? While the proposed answer (god) has no scientific evidence, it is at least a proposed answer to a fundamental question that most everyone would like to know. The question of the existence of fairies on the other hand is rather minor. I for one don't even know what question their existence might be intended to answer. Not all people and cultures have wondered about the existence of fairies. So while you are correct we have no evidence that supports the existence of fairies at the bottom of your garden, asking if god exists would at least address some larger, more significant question.

I like 'cancel culture' as it lets the little guy make a difference in real time. If you are a racist today, you hear about it today. If you are polluting today, you hear about it today. No more letting your bad behavior go on for years before anyone can organize meaningful deterrence. The two downsides I see are that innocent people can be hurt before all the details come out, and that meaningful protest can be dismissed simply by saying "cancel culture" instead of actually addressing the complaint made against you. All sides participate in cancel culture, but they only call it cancel culture when it is directed against themselves. Otherwise it is presented as a reasonable response to poor behavior. I'm not sure but it seems to me like conservatives claim 'cancel culture' more than liberals, but that seems likely as conservatives by definition want to conserve things (attitudes, statues, mascots, etc.) that progressives often find offensive and believe need to be canceled.

Ah, I see. Thanks.

Perhaps I've misunderstood but I was under the impression that it was transgender rights where all the heat was now, not so much gay rights.

You misunderstood what I said. I didn't say "the adversarial system works best". I said the Kathleen Stock story (and the extended brouhaha surrounding society working out how to handle gender) was an example of "the adversarial system AT its best". I would say your examples were the adversarial system at its worst.

Lots. Why?

Was there something wrong with that post?

Three democracies! (although Putin has been a bad influence)

Regarding Kathleen Stock: I think because of the hypocrisy in politics recently it has become more obvious to me when people express views that are good for themselves or their group, rather than when their views are based strictly on some objective reasoning. Kathleen Stock falls into this category. I'm sure there is reason involved in her arguments to exclude trans women from the 'real' women group, but I think it likely she developed a reasoned argument in part to be able to exclude others from her 'space'; that is, the sex-based-female space. Kathleen's feminism resulted in her fighting to break into the sex-based-male space in her quest for equal rights while many men fought to defend their space from intruders. Now the shoe is on the other foot and people are fighting to get into HER space for equal rights (i.e. the sex-based-female space), and she is pushing back just as men did against her. Think of Mitch McConnell making a reasoned argument why when close to a Presidential election you should NOT confirm any Supreme Court Justices so the People can have a say in the selection (when the sitting President is a Democrat) then four years later following that up with a reasoned argument why when close to a Presidential election you SHOULD confirm a Supreme Court Justice since 'elections have consequences' (when the sitting President is a Republican). Personally I am not in the least concerned that Kathleen Stock is running into trouble. That is how society works through new paradigms. There is a lot of pushing, shoving and yelling, people get mad, some people get hurt, and in the end society has worked out a reasonably good approach to a new type of problem. The adversarial system at its best.

If you are headed to another planetary system you could of course turn your solar sail around to use it for deceleration.

So how does that work? Some (or all) people never completely rid themselves of the virus?

That is GREAT! I'll have to give that one a shot. Thanks!

Welcome Sid! Glad you decided to join us. 😃

Just an observer here, but are you claiming length contraction is an illusion, or are you simply trying to have someone help you understand where you might have gone wrong in your examples?

Overall I have no idea if your plan will work (sounds interesting to me though!) but for your mirror could you simply put a mirror on both sides of your object so that it reuses the photons as you suggest, but also gets pushed along with your craft. Having a larger mirror facing the sun than facing the craft could allow it to keep up with the craft.

You have not successfully made the case that there is One True Definition. If two different dictionaries have two different definitions, how do you get to claim one is the standard and the other is not? On another subject, why do you think everyone is "willfully" rejecting what you claim to be the "standard" definition? Did anyone check to see if these people using the supposedly wrong definition were even aware there was a "standard" definition in the first place, and that it didn't match their definition? And further, how could a disagreement about word usage be unsettling? Is this disagreement disrupting the world order in some way?

I'm not trying to be insulting, but you are clearly a religious bigot. You know of examples and are applying them universally, even when someone is giving you an example of how it was different for them. Not all religions and religious settings are as you claim.

So I'm coming away with the feeling that indoctrination can mean with coercion (e.g. re-education camps) or without coercion (e.g. military college). If used in a negative context (e.g. as mistermack has done wrt religion) it seems to imply with coercion. If a religion tries to teach but does not coerce (as with me) then I don't feel I should be lumped in with the Taliban, and thus I don't think all religion follows indoctrination. At least I now feel that way and will until someone convinces me otherwise. 😀

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case, as the definition I provided included the word "uncritically". Perhaps if we could agree upon which of the many books to use...

And looking back I know that I wasn't. In either Catholicism or Monroe.

And that just indicates YOUR feeling of what the word should mean. Indoctrination: the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. While I may be mistaken here, if feels as if you are using the term too broadly. I don't feel indoctrinated after having learned the Monroe doctrine, the Reagan doctrine, military hit and run tactics, or any of the many legal and political doctrines.

Again, that means I was indoctrinated wrt good manners. Is that your understanding of 'indoctrination'? I would suggest there must be some level of, not sure what word to use, but maybe coercion? If I question the validity some teaching, am I given more explanation or am I smacked upside the head? Is love withheld? My religious studies were meant to instill and strengthen my belief in the doctrine, but I was a bit of a pain in the ass wrt to my tendency to question everything, and I never suffered any meaningful negative consequences. Sort of like learning history in school and how wonderful America is!

So a university student who studies some religion or other is being indoctrinated? Seems a bit of an overreach. Yes, probably. If you are not allowed to ask questions, are beaten for suggesting something else, then that certainly seems like indoctrination. Perhaps. But then I was probably also indoctrinated into a life of hard work, preferring soccer over tennis, manners, and dressing conservatively. "Indoctrination" loses its meaning if it is applied too broadly.

Based on me as an example, I would say being brought up religious doesn't necessarily mean you are indoctrinated. I was brought up Catholic, which around here is as much about family events with lots of beer as it is about going to church. Learning about Catholicism seemed similar to learning about history.

Do you think that everyone brought up 'religious' has been indoctrinated?