Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Escape the rat race and slip on into Pub Nutters Inn.
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2910
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by magentaflame »

Come in and put your feet up.

If its cold we have an array of Ports and scotches. The large leather club chairs at the open fire place with the pipe holders.

If its hot? We have the lovely beer garden with outdoor lounges and hammocks shaded with the best oriental styled awnings. Beer on tap at the 'shady bar'....pull up a stool, and have a bit of a think.....or a contemplation if you will?
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2910
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by magentaflame »

I thought of this thread because ive been thinking lately ....where do people get their ideas for life choices from? Why do we have the legal systems that we do? Why do people believe in ancient myths and legends turned dieties? How come like some species we 'dont' kill off our parents when they become infirm? What ecactly is punishment and whats the sence in retribution, compensation and revenge?

Another words......"what's all that about?"

First topic of discussion.....John Stuart Mill...basically said...'the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community , against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant'....

Discuss. :)...Whats your take on that assertion?
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12434
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by LarsMac »

magentaflame;1516799 wrote: Come in and put your feet up.

If its cold we have an array of Ports and scotches. The large leather club chairs at the open fire place with the pipe holders.

If its hot? We have the lovely beer garden with outdoor lounges and hammocks shaded with the best oriental styled awnings. Beer on tap at the 'shady bar'....pull up a stool, and have a bit of a think.....or a contemplation if you will?


I'd be happy to join ya. Draw me Stout and I'll be along directly
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2910
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by magentaflame »

Guiness?.....hang on no....aussie pub...holgate chocolate porter? Or a coopers extra?

Or may i introducr you to a portergaff? Third stout,third lemonade third draught beer?
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12434
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by LarsMac »

Coopers, indeed.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2910
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by magentaflame »

Id also like to marry that last philosophical argument up with Rousseau's "Social contract" ....where by we all live to a degree today, that the individual in return for protection gives up certain freedoms (not rights) to an authority in return protected from ie war starvation unemployment etc)

That liberty and equality will basically be there for everyone.and this system protects the will of one person against another. But laws made collectively will not impinge on individual freedoms.

Just wondering if this philosophy of governing still works?
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12434
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by LarsMac »

magentaflame;1516808 wrote: Id also like to marry that last philosophical argument up with Rousseau's "Social contract" ....where by we all live to a degree today, that the individual in return for protection gives up certain freedoms (not rights) to an authority in return protected from ie war starvation unemployment etc)

That liberty and equality will basically be there for everyone.and this system protects the will of one person against another. But laws made collectively will not impinge on individual freedoms.

Just wondering if this philosophy of governing still works?


When we join society, we naturally must surrender a certain amount of our perceived liberties, as we rightfully expect others to do. In exchange, we receive some protection in numbers and the cooperative efforts of the society provide a pool of necessities, as well.

The rule of the majority, though, can become oppressive at times for those of us who find ourselves constantly in the minority. At times a minority may find that those protections become another weapon of the majority for suppression. It can then become a choice of which hardships one wishes to face.

The twisted version of "Transaction Analysis" comes into play.

"I'm OK, so you MUST be OK. ..., or ELSE!"
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2910
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by magentaflame »

Well see heres the thing...it seems that rights, liberty and freedoms are seperate things entirely but seem to be confused. Even by the 'collective' because the 'collective' is government who dpeals on behalf of the people,......the collective.

Now its a measured philosophy that "freedoms" are sacrificed but not 'liberties' or "rights".

A quick definition search.... liberty- state of being free in society......a right or privilege

Freedom- the power or rightto act speak as one wants.....the state of not being subject to or affected by ( something undisirable).....special privilege or right of access ie full citizenship.....openness in dpeech or behaviour.

Rights- moral or legal entitlement to have or do something........anything that accords eith the pri.icples of legal moral justice.......the fact or state of being in acordance with reason, truth or accepted standards



I believe that all over the world since caveman days weve understood the safety in numbers part....but even historic humans knew "societies" didnt last too long if you made life hard for individuals. They would just leave the group...... so in what way do humans leave the group these days? Refugees? Off grid?

I wonder if rule of the majority even exists anymore?
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2910
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by magentaflame »

Half an hour of a 12 hour shift to go.....ill be certainly having a beer in around about .???? 45 minutes :)
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6447
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by FourPart »

Prevention of harm to one's self is a restriction of Civil Liberty.

Prevention of harm to others is an entirely different matter.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15917
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

magentaflame;1516800 wrote: I thought of this thread because ive been thinking lately ....where do people get their ideas for life choices from? Why do we have the legal systems that we do? Why do people believe in ancient myths and legends turned dieties? How come like some species we 'dont' kill off our parents when they become infirm? What ecactly is punishment and whats the sence in retribution, compensation and revenge?

Another words......"what's all that about?"

First topic of discussion.....John Stuart Mill...basically said...'the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community , against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant'....

Discuss. :)...Whats your take on that assertion?


I'd say that is one of the most fundamental statements of rights that could possibly be made and that it should be made in every capitol in the world.

Then we need to define what constitutes harm to others.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15917
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

magentaflame;1516808 wrote: Id also like to marry that last philosophical argument up with Rousseau's "Social contract" ....where by we all live to a degree today, that the individual in return for protection gives up certain freedoms (not rights) to an authority in return protected from ie war starvation unemployment etc)

That liberty and equality will basically be there for everyone.and this system protects the will of one person against another. But laws made collectively will not impinge on individual freedoms.

Just wondering if this philosophy of governing still works?


Too much danger that the authority will not keep up its end of the bargain - protecting us from starvation, unemployment etc. Too many of our governments are failing even such basic commitments.
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2910
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by magentaflame »

Fourpart

Could be why suicide isnt illegal anymore and (in my state anyway) assisted dying is legal
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2910
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by magentaflame »

Whats happened in the past when people have lost confidence in government ?

Last time it was a swing toward socialism/communism/republics/nationalism.....do we have any other ideas??
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2910
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by magentaflame »

Bryn Mawr;1516832 wrote: Too much danger that the authority will not keep up its end of the bargain - protecting us from starvation, unemployment etc. Too many of our governments are failing even such basic commitments.


I wonder if we even have individual governments anymore?

I mean, the establishment is there, they are voted for.....we percieve a government.

But....are our governments illusions? Are they really in charge to the extent that they can protect us?

Privatisation? Do the people(governing body) own their own countries anymore?

Is there a shift just like there was when monarchys were set aside as supreme rulers and parliaments/republics took control?

And if there has been a shift.......whos in control now?
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15917
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

magentaflame;1516835 wrote: I wonder if we even have individual governments anymore?

I mean, the establishment is there, they are voted for.....we percieve a government.

But....are our governments illusions? Are they really in charge to the extent that they can protect us?

Privatisation? Do the people(governing body) own their own countries anymore?

Is there a shift just like there was when monarchys were set aside as supreme rulers and parliaments/republics took control?

And if there has been a shift.......whos in control now?


The multi-national corporations - they have a higher GDP than many governments and appear to be able to buy what they want.
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2910
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by magentaflame »

Bryn Mawr;1516848 wrote: The multi-national corporations - they have a higher GDP than many governments and appear to be able to buy what they want.


Including governments?

I wonder if thats just our perception of the world? You can buy what you want, become very powerful.....but that doesnt wash over people as governning.....unless ....there is an ownership going on with a new genepool of over 6 billion slaves owned by 1% ers.(in my view thats what the multi nationals are. They may be giving it a good go.....but i doubt that kind existance would last very long. Tops 200 years? Before a new revolution?
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
Wandrin
Posts: 1697
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:10 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Wandrin »

So many issues rise from those basic questions.

As I recall a college course (so many years ago) that discussed the issue, one of the examples they gave was a person that owns a piece of property with a river running through it. Those who own property, or live, downstream depend on it for drinking water and to tend their crops. Does the person have the right to put a dam on the river to keep all the water for himself? Does he have the right to charge those living downstream for water? Does he have the right to divert the river to a neighboring property owner who is willing to pay more for it? Does he have the right to dump toxic refuse into the river if it increases his profit margin?

If you substitute "state" for "person", wars have been fought over this issue, throughout history.

Right now, I could assemble a group of friends who would strongly disagree on some of the issues raised, yet all are "reasonable" people.

If the "person" is a corporation, do they have a duty to the community in which they live, regarding the use of the river, to their employees, or only to their stockholders?

Even now, the US government is making yet another change to the standards regarding parts of this ancient issue.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15917
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

magentaflame;1516849 wrote: Including governments?

I wonder if thats just our perception of the world? You can buy what you want, become very powerful.....but that doesnt wash over people as governning.....unless ....there is an ownership going on with a new genepool of over 6 billion slaves owned by 1% ers.(in my view thats what the multi nationals are. They may be giving it a good go.....but i doubt that kind existance would last very long. Tops 200 years? Before a new revolution?


I think that there are quite a lot of instances of multi-nationals bribing / blackmailing governments by promising to move facilities to a country / threatening to close their facilities in a country. Until there is a global taxation agency they can play one country against another as to who gets their tax payments / who gets their employee count.
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2910
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by magentaflame »

Oooohhhhh.....thats happened a couple of times down my way. One fixed itself with a flood (dont screw with nature right?) The other was a local policeman that stopped water from going to a dairy of all places...(that was a natural stream, and he got into trouble)

Im not sure about the laws regarding that but doesnt the government own (or has jurisdiction ) to a certain depth under the ground a.d a certain height above it? And thats how they can rule in these cases? Hence emviromental departments etc? Interedtingly that answer could change every decade i reckon.
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2910
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by magentaflame »

Bryn Mawr;1516854 wrote: I think that there are quite a lot of instances of multi-nationals bribing / blackmailing governments by promising to move facilities to a country / threatening to close their facilities in a country. Until there is a global taxation agency they can play one country against another as to who gets their tax payments / who gets their employee count.


Yes, there is a list of multi nationals who dont pay any tax at all in this country. And our government just decided to give those who pay very little more tax breaks.....go figure. Global taxation? Cant see it happening myself......but i suppose the threat of an uprising because of corruption could put it right. It happens all the time .
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2910
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by magentaflame »

Is there a philosophical argument for women studying philosophy?.....why would you want to know old thoughts of men when their thoughts didnt involve females
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
Wandrin
Posts: 1697
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:10 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Wandrin »

magentaflame;1516859 wrote: Is there a philosophical argument for women studying philosophy?.....why would you want to know old thoughts of men when their thoughts didnt involve females


It's a good way to discover how we got to where we are now and the inclusions/exclusions that were only imposed specific civilizations. Besides, in a college class, you get to write interesting papers. Taking a philosophy course a few years back, long after I needed any additional degrees, I wrote a paper that the prof thanked me for. In trying to grade it, he had to consult the physics department and the religion department. The assignment was "who is your favorite philosopher and why". Oh, that one was fun to write! A year or two later, I took a class called "the psychology of women". I was the only male in the class (after the first class session). That one was interesting and fun too.
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2910
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by magentaflame »

Oh dear god....

Okay everyone ! Huddle around the bar .....come on wandrin, you know darn well we all want to know what you learned about the psychology of woman.

Bar tender!!!! Lock the door! Nobody leaves!

Ga head, Wandrin :) waiting with baited breath...... which begs the question why i would eat bait in the first place .....(btw, that was an example of Wittgenstein)
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
User avatar
Wandrin
Posts: 1697
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:10 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Wandrin »

Ha ha... It actually was an interesting course, made even more interesting by the age gap between me and my fellow students.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Clodhopper »

"Women. They aren't like us, people."* (Comment by a friend's Dad when driving years ago shortly after the map reading instruction, "Take the last left...")

We can go through a list of stereotypes: When faced with a friend's situation, men offer solutions, women offer sympathy. But that just deals with individual cases, it doesn't produce any overarching theory about the whole spectrum of possible behaviours.

I'm told that a girl baby will sit quietly and play when a boy baby will be smashing the table lamp, then that an adolescent girl will sulk for weeks where a boy will sulk for maybe a day. We all know the stereotype that girls spend hours doing themselves up to go out where the boys try to impress them.

So is it all about sex, babies and family, when we actually get down to the differences? I'm inclined to think so. Let's say we've been around as our current human species for 200,000 years. We've gone from hunter-gatherer groups such as are now occasionally still found in the Amazon Rainforest or highland Borneo to modern in the last 10,000 with a lot of that change in the last 150 years.

If those figures can be accepted as a rough guide, then for more than 95% of our existence as a species our individual existence has depended on being part of a small extended family group of perhaps thirty. All the evidence we have, and there's not a huge amount, suggests that the women looked after the kids and picked berries and the men went off and killed something. Fighting women seem rare but not unknown: Boudicca is our British one, and what set her off? The violation of her family. Besides, childbirth was incredibly dangerous. I think it's been calculated that before modern medicine, about 44% of women would die as a result of childbirth. Would you really have risked them in a Mammoth hunt as well? Possibly...but only in a safe role such as waving burning branches in a group to steer the animal in a particular direction, perhaps?

My point is that for almost all our existence as a species, women have been killed by childbirth more than anything else, but they kept doing it. It's an incredibly strong drive, as is a mother's love for her kids. That's not to say there isn't some complaining, but watch almost any Mum...and bear in mind it's only recently that more than half kids born made it to 7 years old. Many didn't make the first year. So either you avoided sex completely, were infertile, or you spent your life with a 50/50 chance of death for every baby and a 50/50 chance that kid wouldn't make it to adulthood. One of the few women I can think of from those times who made a name for herself was St Hilda, an Abbess.

Grim. Though perhaps not entirely so - I love the recent find of 6,000 year old footprints in the mud of the Severn Estuary which show a group moving slowly long a shoreline, while all around them there are smaller footprints going here there and everywhere. It is assumed that these were women collecting shellfish while the kids played around them.

Being a man seemed much more about hunting and fighting. Food and protection.

To survive at all, women have had to be enormously tough, both physically and mentally. Oh, and from a species point of view, for women sex is the start of something. For men (forget love for a moment and just think species) it's the end, job done. If women were spiders we'd be eaten at that point because at no point after that are we necessary. Just potentially enormously helpful because as many have pointed out, raising kids takes a lot of food. Thank heavens for love ;)

Then above and beyond those basic survival-as-a-species functions we have these big brains which appear to be connected with surviving extreme ecological stress but have left us, in combination with those survival instincts, with imagination, empathy, the ability to think in symbols and plan ahead and the ability to recall and reflect on our experiences.

Hmm. Would women want an external womb if they could have it? Literally all done in a test tube and incubator so you just turn up to collect on the due date? What difference if any would it make to how you felt about the kid?



* I've put a comma in the quotation but if it was there, it was only just...
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6447
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by FourPart »

magentaflame;1516833 wrote: Fourpart

Could be why suicide isnt illegal anymore and (in my state anyway) assisted dying is legal
In the UK it is still illegal - it was decriminalised in 1961 (meaning that you wouldn't be prosecuted for it). However, you can still be sectioned (be forcibly detained without trial & made to undergo psychiatric treatment).

Assisted dying is not legal in the UK, although there is a growing degree of support to make it so.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15917
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

magentaflame;1516859 wrote: Is there a philosophical argument for women studying philosophy?.....why would you want to know old thoughts of men when their thoughts didnt involve females


I cannot see any argument for restricting who can study what in any area.
User avatar
Wandrin
Posts: 1697
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:10 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Wandrin »

When you think about it, large multi-national corporations can bring a lot of bargaining chips to the table for almost any country. If you give them the tax break they would like, they will buy land and build some huge data center and power it with renewable energy (the leftovers being available to the local power grid). They will then hire and train the engineers, technicians, office staff, and specialists needed to run the operation, thus creating a lot of new well paying jobs. Such a project could be a boon to any country or region. It's all in the trade offs. What do you gain vs what do you lose?
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15917
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Wandrin;1516884 wrote: When you think about it, large multi-national corporations can bring a lot of bargaining chips to the table for almost any country. If you give them the tax break they would like, they will buy land and build some huge data center and power it with renewable energy (the leftovers being available to the local power grid). They will then hire and train the engineers, technicians, office staff, and specialists needed to run the operation, thus creating a lot of new well paying jobs. Such a project could be a boon to any country or region. It's all in the trade offs. What do you gain vs what do you lose?


What you get, once a government has started to give the multi-national perks to move to that country is blackmail - give us more perks or we'll take all of those jobs away and move to another country.
User avatar
Wandrin
Posts: 1697
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:10 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Wandrin »

Bryn Mawr;1516886 wrote: What you get, once a government has started to give the multi-national perks to move to that country is blackmail - give us more perks or we'll take all of those jobs away and move to another country.


I can't disagree.
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2910
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by magentaflame »

Clodhopper;1516871 wrote: "Women. They aren't like us, people."* (Comment by a friend's Dad when driving years ago shortly after the map reading instruction, "Take the last left...")

We can go through a list of stereotypes: When faced with a friend's situation, men offer solutions, women offer sympathy. But that just deals with individual cases, it doesn't produce any overarching theory about the whole spectrum of possible behaviours.

I'm told that a girl baby will sit quietly and play when a boy baby will be smashing the table lamp, then that an adolescent girl will sulk for weeks where a boy will sulk for maybe a day. We all know the stereotype that girls spend hours doing themselves up to go out where the boys try to impress them.

So is it all about sex, babies and family, when we actually get down to the differences? I'm inclined to think so. Let's say we've been around as our current human species for 200,000 years. We've gone from hunter-gatherer groups such as are now occasionally still found in the Amazon Rainforest or highland Borneo to modern in the last 10,000 with a lot of that change in the last 150 years.

If those figures can be accepted as a rough guide, then for more than 95% of our existence as a species our individual existence has depended on being part of a small extended family group of perhaps thirty. All the evidence we have, and there's not a huge amount, suggests that the women looked after the kids and picked berries and the men went off and killed something. Fighting women seem rare but not unknown: Boudicca is our British one, and what set her off? The violation of her family. Besides, childbirth was incredibly dangerous. I think it's been calculated that before modern medicine, about 44% of women would die as a result of childbirth. Would you really have risked them in a Mammoth hunt as well? Possibly...but only in a safe role such as waving burning branches in a group to steer the animal in a particular direction, perhaps?

My point is that for almost all our existence as a species, women have been killed by childbirth more than anything else, but they kept doing it. It's an incredibly strong drive, as is a mother's love for her kids. That's not to say there isn't some complaining, but watch almost any Mum...and bear in mind it's only recently that more than half kids born made it to 7 years old. Many didn't make the first year. So either you avoided sex completely, were infertile, or you spent your life with a 50/50 chance of death for every baby and a 50/50 chance that kid wouldn't make it to adulthood. One of the few women I can think of from those times who made a name for herself was St Hilda, an Abbess.

Grim. Though perhaps not entirely so - I love the recent find of 6,000 year old footprints in the mud of the Severn Estuary which show a group moving slowly long a shoreline, while all around them there are smaller footprints going here there and everywhere. It is assumed that these were women collecting shellfish while the kids played around them.

Being a man seemed much more about hunting and fighting. Food and protection.

To survive at all, women have had to be enormously tough, both physically and mentally. Oh, and from a species point of view, for women sex is the start of something. For men (forget love for a moment and just think species) it's the end, job done. If women were spiders we'd be eaten at that point because at no point after that are we necessary. Just potentially enormously helpful because as many have pointed out, raising kids takes a lot of food. Thank heavens for love ;)

Then above and beyond those basic survival-as-a-species functions we have these big brains which appear to be connected with surviving extreme ecological stress but have left us, in combination with those survival instincts, with imagination, empathy, the ability to think in symbols and plan ahead and the ability to recall and reflect on our experiences.

Hmm. Would women want an external womb if they could have it? Literally all done in a test tube and incubator so you just turn up to collect on the due date? What difference if any would it make to how you felt about the kid?



* I've put a comma in the quotation but if it was there, it was only just...


I'm having an issue with your whole premise to be honest.

But I'll get to that later . Meanwhile read this Why men historically propose to women it sort of undoes your fluff and bubbles outlook on females . You've written as a person who's fallen for societal sexism. It's an easy mistake to make. We only percieve what we experience.
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Clodhopper »

The fluff and bubbles was just intro. Look at what I said and you'll find I take women's strength very seriously (even though I get my stats wrong - 44% of female deaths being as a result of childbirth doesn't mean an approximate 50/50 chance of surviving each pregnancy, I suspect). That strength is based in the requirements of children but can be used in any field really.

Women use fluff and bubbles as cover in many cases, good and bad and indifferent. Because they can. Doesn't work so well for men. I'm less often fooled, nowadays ;)
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2910
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by magentaflame »

I take umbrage of the fluff and bubbles notion of womens' existence ......the 'drive' to have babies? that's a nonsense.

My point is that for almost all our existence as a species, women have been killed by childbirth more than anything else, but they kept doing it.


No, women actually survived more than men because they didn't do the soldiering/protection of the clan/group/........unless of course the men weren't very good at it and the clan/group was wiped out which happened more times than not .....until someone came up with the bright idea of slavery....you kill off the boys and take the girls. this makes your clan stronger and you get to force girls and women to increase your clan numbers.

But in saying all that ....women did take up arms more often than not because they were the back line of defense. (and they basically knew what was going to happen to them if they didn't ...suicide was the better option .

Oh and biologically women only need males for four years after giving birth.
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Clodhopper »

Sorry, the drive to have babies is NOT nonsense. Some may not have much drive, but others have it bigtime. Really, how many women are indifferent to the idea of having children? Take it or leave it? Then, when even the indifferent actually HAVE a baby, how many shrug and say, nothing has changed? Or do they look into the baby's eyes and realise everything has changed for ever?

I wasn't arguing that more men or less died. It's irrelevant. I'm saying that the very rough figures are that nearly half of women died of childbirth, historically. Yet even knowing that childbirth was very dangerous they kept doing it. There's a very strong reason then for it to keep happening. What is that reason?

Oh and biologically women only need males for four years after giving birth.


That long? I didn't think they needed them at all after conception - it's just convenient. Also there seems to be some evidence from long distance running in particular that childbirth actually makes women physically tougher in the year(s?) after giving birth.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
magentaflame
Posts: 2910
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:11 pm
Location: Victoria, Australia

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by magentaflame »

Do you know what a pelvic floor is?
The 'radical' left just wants everyone to have food, shelter, healthcare, education and a living wage. Man that's radical!....ooooohhhh Scary!
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Ahso! »

Bryn Mawr;1516886 wrote: What you get, once a government has started to give the multi-national perks to move to that country is blackmail - give us more perks or we'll take all of those jobs away and move to another country.That is true all too often, however, should the company pull out what remains should be well-trained people capable of picking up the pieces and potentially putting things back together unless they transfer out with the company.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Ahso! »

Clodhopper;1517034 wrote: Sorry, the drive to have babies is NOT nonsense. Some may not have much drive, but others have it bigtime. Really, how many women are indifferent to the idea of having children? Take it or leave it? Then, when even the indifferent actually HAVE a baby, how many shrug and say, nothing has changed? Or do they look into the baby's eyes and realise everything has changed for ever?I've often wondered how much of the reproduction of the past was due to what we now call rape along with other types of forced sex. My guess is that it could have been pretty significant considering how prevalent it is now even with legal (and other) consequences.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Clodhopper »

Ahso!;1517055 wrote: I've often wondered how much of the reproduction of the past was due to what we now call rape along with other types of forced sex. My guess is that it could have been pretty significant considering how prevalent it is now even with legal (and other) consequences.


I think we can get an idea of the amount of rape by looking at modern "primitive" tribes. Within the tribe it is rare - there tend to be strict social structures. We are talking people with the same size brain as us over a period many times longer than our approx. 8,000 or 10,000 years-ish of known human history: These people were not stupid or incapable but there were not many of them so my guess - and it is no more than that - is that rape was rare because there wasn't that much opportunity until comparatively recently as populations began to fill the land from Japan to Portugal and Australia to Finland (Africa being where we started). Once we stop being family groups related to all the neighbouring family groups and start being tribal and settled and people have resources in considerable amounts that can be taken, then I suspect warfare and rape became more common. Apparently anthropologists have recorded instances of tribal warfare in New Guinea (iirc. Might have been Borneo) where the men line up facing, there are individual combats very much as described in Homer, there may or may not be a general engagement, and it's rare to have a conclusive result since the engagement is spears at a distance and not close order infantry combat. However when you DO get a conclusive result the winners rush into the losers' village, nick everything they can and run, after raping all the women who then let THEIR men know precisely what they think of them for letting it happen (you don't get many actual deaths even in the battle).

So I think what I'm saying is that until we had moved past the hunter-gatherer stage rape was rare because the opportunity was rare, you knew your neighbours who might be 30 miles away or more and were often related to them. I would imagine that in early times the issue was more of finding people you were NOT related to, since the dangers of inbreeding have been known a long, long time and the taboo is very strong (with Egypt a curious and very successful exception - I don't know of any other culture which encouraged incest. I also saw a report somewhere that modern Egyptians have a lower incidence of genetic disorders than other populations because they weeded out a lot of bad genes in the times of the Pharaohs...). The history of Stonehenge era Britain might be an example of this, where much of the population met up at Stonehenge for the winter solstice but lived dispersed the rest of the time. Once you have settled villages you have high concentrations of resources in single locations, plus competition for resources with neighbouring villages if your population expands. It's not just rape on its own, either, that's when we start seeing slavery for the first time we can be sure of in Britain, for example (slave chains look much the same across culture and time, it seems). Slaves seem to have been a bronze age Celtic British export business. Slavery and rape are closely linked...



...and I have to say, your Voltaire quotation seems to have gained bite in the last year or so...

edit: The existence of neanderthal genes in the human genome strongly suggests rape to me. I find it hard to believe there were marriage alliances going on. I do wonder if human legends of trolls are in fact a distant memory of neanderthals...

edit edit: I'll have to check up on Viking or maybe Anglo-Saxon fines for rape and where it stood in the scale of offences. Something is ringing bells there...

edit x3: If we take terms of modern rape then a lot would count. Arranged marriages, for example? Sex under 16? I think what we call rape would have been endemic in the Dark Ages because local warfare was endemic. Horrible, brutal times.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Clodhopper »

magentaflame;1517051 wrote: Do you know what a pelvic floor is?


Enough to know where you are going with this. I don't think it needs a male though. Some one, an aunt or a sister preferably both would probably be better though because their understanding is likely to be better. In fact, thinking about it, wherever there seems to be a choice isn't it the case that the women throw the men out around the time of childbirth?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by AnneBoleyn »

I have so much reading to do to join this thread I might wait for the next topic.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Clodhopper »

I claim no certainty. When I spout off like this it's the best I can do with bit and pieces I've picked up over many years, some of which will in the nature of things be wrong. If I sound certain it's because I'm thinking hard and putting pieces in place so my effort is into trying to make sense. Getting lost in the doubts and uncertainties would mean I never made the point in the first place, probably.

Please never be concerned about saying you think I'm wrong. I could be. Reasons help, though :)
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15917
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Ahso!;1517054 wrote: That is true all too often, however, should the company pull out what remains should be well-trained people capable of picking up the pieces and potentially putting things back together unless they transfer out with the company.


So if, say, amazon pulled out of the UK then the ex amazon employees would be able to put together a company to rival amazon?

I don't think so.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Ahso! »

Bryn Mawr;1517159 wrote: So if, say, amazon pulled out of the UK then the ex amazon employees would be able to put together a company to rival amazon?

I don't think so.Amazon wasn't always the powerhouse it is now. I was thinking that the former employees might have the potential to implement any number of ideas as individuals or collectively. Business environments often spawn new ideas and creations as well as new relationships.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Ahso! »

Clodhopper;1517147 wrote: I claim no certainty. When I spout off like this it's the best I can do with bit and pieces I've picked up over many years, some of which will in the nature of things be wrong. If I sound certain it's because I'm thinking hard and putting pieces in place so my effort is into trying to make sense. Getting lost in the doubts and uncertainties would mean I never made the point in the first place, probably.

Please never be concerned about saying you think I'm wrong. I could be. Reasons help, though :)No worries, CH, your posts are always good reading.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15917
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Ahso!;1517163 wrote: Amazon wasn't always the powerhouse it is now. I was thinking that the former employees might have the potential to implement any number of ideas as individuals or collectively. Business environments often spawn new ideas and creations as well as new relationships.


All companies have to grow but there's very little room for another amazon and no way you'd compete unless you start big - a new start up in that area would not have the government holding it's collective breath waiting for the tax revenue to start rolling in or the jobless totals to drop.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Meg's Pub..... philosophers club.

Post by Ahso! »

Bryn Mawr;1517165 wrote: All companies have to grow but there's very little room for another amazon and no way you'd compete unless you start big - a new start up in that area would not have the government holding it's collective breath waiting for the tax revenue to start rolling in or the jobless totals to drop.There are several insights gained through training and experience. I'm not saying former Amazon employees knowledge is limited to that business model. There is lots of potential in administrative experience and people skills or understanding other aspects of the experience. Another Amazon might not be spawned, but some other category of business. Though, with enough smarts, the former employees could collectively seek investors and indeed compete with Amazon. There are actually lots of competitors out there. Amazon enjoys name-recognition presently, but so did Yahoo not that long ago.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple

Return to “Pub Nutters Inn”