Could we create the perfect world?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Holly-May Leslie, Nov 27, 2021.

  1. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    i could rob a bank
    but i do not wish to spend the rest of my life in jail
    & i have no personal desire to hurt people or trick or scam people
    which annoys a lot of people.

    yes indeed

    what do YOU think i mean by that is probably more important
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Can you give an example?
    There's that "properly" again. The problem is who decides on what "proper" is.
    So far it's working fine to just impress on him that his schooling is important. He has a ton of science/math games - but they are no substitute for organized learning.
    Add science and math to that, since people have to be able to do math to function in society today, and have to have a basic understanding of the world around them. (Important to understand that tidal waves are the result of earthquakes/volcanoes and not just "the will of God" for example.) Add social studies if we live in a democracy, because a democracy requires an informed populace.
    Sure that works. All that's required is that they do it.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Turns out there may be some evolutionary advantages for the community in some people not being straight. Strong relationships associated with sex tends to help the community survive, and thus a tendency towards homosexuality (rather than asexuality) is beneficial to the community as a whole.

    (BTW there doesn't seem to be much evidence that gay people become gay because they are "taught" that. Homosexuality rates are about the same in societies where it's not taught vs. where it is taught.)
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Not to mention the fact that it is quite common in nature, (and particularly in advanced social species such as primates and cetaceans).
  8. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member


    1: I'd say that such a reason would be obvious enough for me to know about it. What do you propose the evolutionary point in not being straight is?

    2: 1:I believe that sexual orientation is a bit of both, like most preferences. 2:Yes. 3: I believe this because mind is a very malleable thing, in my experience. I turned myself into almost a completely different person after all.

    3: 1:I judge pretty much everything I encounter, but in an impartial way. 2: no.


    1: 1: I am not sure. I suppose not. It might start soon though.

    2: It depends on the circumstances. If they're all caged up together, literally, then I would say no. Otherwise I would say yes, and that tighter harassment laws should be introduced to protect people from this virus instead, as seems to be happening along with a bunch of other too totalitarian solutions such as lock downs and not being aloud to interact with too many people at once.


    1: 1: No. 2: This is because the circumstances seem to be leading to a dictatorship. That is my only reason for not trusting this vaccine.


    My only idea about how to think properly is be smart. I have specific instructions on how to do this better which I use. They are: Separate all truth from all falsity in the information you take in. Separate all sure from all unsure in the information you give out. Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth at least to yourself, and etc. I would probably have to create a different thread for this topic.
  9. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    That is an ironic statement, since being brain washed is the contrary of being able to think properly, unless it is being brain washed into knowing how to think properly.
    Also, I don't.
  10. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    Paragraph 1: Some teachers are better than others, sure. Also, I am really not very stupid at all, so as long as the teacher isn't, I will probably understand what they're teaching. This is about more than just me though, and in some cases it might be necessary to dumb the subject down so that people get it. Also, I suppose that teaching, in its best form, would generally involve having a class full of people who all learnt the same way, and a teacher who taught in that way. This could perhaps be obtained simply by each student learning in a class where the teacher didn't teach the right way for them switching to a class where the teacher did. Then at the end of this, the teachers with no students would surely realize that it was time to find a new job.

    Paragraph 2: I am ridiculously flexible, not literally speaking of course, but figuratively. Also, I would say that most people barely learn a thing the traditional way. It seems like it is basically just recitation.

    Paragraph 3: That is rude, but I will let it go. Most of what I say is just speculation, and I admit that. I don't know everything or even nearly that, and I don't want to, and that stereotype was probably just made up by mommies who wanted their children to be more obedient.

    Paragraph 4: I just finished school actually. What went on though was the teacher explaining things over and over again in different ways with about 3 times as many words as necessary. Also, about a 2 thirds of my time in that class was spent discussing filming techniques or ancient Greek heroes or word definitions. what the hell?
  11. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    Okay. You win. Whatever. I think that a lot of people just automatically assume that I am pretending to know what I don't know when really, I am just speculating. I will read the page I guess.
  12. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    I had some idea that you might mean that people tend to get arrogant about their intellects, and feel superior because of them. What do you actually mean though?
  13. Bells Staff Member

    You can't know, understand, write, read or use "English" without "ENGLISH".
    What's a "straight" person?

    Such terms imply that others are somehow crooked or wrong, no?

    Homosexuality exists in all areas of the animal kingdom, if we are to apply our interpretation of same sex behaviour to other species. In other words, it is completely natural and no, it's not learned behaviour. You can't be taught to be sexually attracted to the same sex. That's something you're born with.

    To suggest there is no evolutionary point to homosexuality is blatantly wrong. On the contrary, it's now becoming abundantly clear that homosexuality has a role to play in evolution [].

    Not to mention that nothing prevents homosexuals from having children and many of them do have children.

    Parents "force" their kids to be vaccinated from 2 months of age onwards. Do you consider us "scum"?

    No one is forcing anyone to be vaccinated.

    There are businesses, organisations and even government mandates that require people to be vaccinated if they wish to enter the premises or work in particular areas (eg work in hospitals or in a school). Reason is public safety - for obvious reasons. People who choose not to be vaccinated can always go elsewhere.

    If someone is taking care of someone who is vulnerable, then that person should be vaccinated to protect those who are vulnerable in their care. It should not be mandated, because people should do the right thing. But because so many people are selfish arseholes, these rules have to be implemented to protect those who are vulnerable. If someone deliberately elects to not be vaccinated for whatever reason (aside for health reasons), then that's on them and they should not be allowed to be placed in a position that will endanger others.

    Or people could actually attempt to educate themselves about vaccines.

    This makes absolutely no sense.

    How has school taught you to be a slave?

    Do you understand what being a slave entails?

    Depends on the school or teachers, and certainly depends on the parents.

    Teaching is hard because of various reasons. Such as policies that prevent teachers from teaching science, for example, or critical thinking, history.. Not to mention having to deal with children who have no interest in learning because they think they know better or pushy parents. These are just some examples of why teaching is hard. I haven't even touched on things like low wage.

    How do you define "think properly"?

    What is "super high level thinking"?

    Aren't you the one who just complained that schools were creating slaves? Yet here you are espousing that people have to be taught how to think.

    I have no words at this point..

    Imagine if people said the same thing when small pox was still killing people and they implemented a global vaccination effort....

    Don't you find it all so stereotypical though?

    I feel like I'm reading a script from an 80's teenage angst movie.
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Exactly. So they have to be brain-washed; you just want to make sure they're brain-washed in the way you agree with.

    And who gets to decide what the "proper" way to think is?
  15. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    That is true but we have to remember we are talking to a teenager. Don't they say that certain aspects of parts of the brain aren't fully developed until 25 or so and I'm not intending that comment to be sarcastic. It's just something to consider.

    This is a forum for people to express their viewpoints and while it's only right that we respond I don't think we need to try to moderate or censor too much (regarding plagiarism or anti-vax comments). At least we have a newer member here that isn't from outer space as is usually the case.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member


    1: That might be true to a very small extent, but babies learn to speak before they go to school without being taught it so... I'd say that the subject English is more just required for learning how to read and write, and I would also say that it is taught rather well in this particular area. I just think that it is taught badly overall because of all of the extra waffle.


    1: A person who is sexually attracted to, or inclined to be sexually attracted to people of the opposite gender, without being attracted to those of the same gender, and without being inclined to be so.
    That is what. I'll bet you already knew that though.
    2: Such terms might imply this. Sorry if they did. I don't believe that anyone is crooked or wrong for having any sexuality, despite the implication here. I do believe that some people are crooked and wrong though. That is what I intend to change. I was thinking that a bit of writing along with a bit of money wight change it, if I use these things correctly.
    3: Fine. Whatever. You win. I was just speculating despite the implication that I was pretending to know what I didn't. Actually, I can see now why being gay or lesbian or bi may have advantages amongst many social species, by strengthening relationships and group dynamics.
    4: They would probably find the act required gross though, unless they grew the child in a test tube and avoided said act, or adopted. I recommend adoption for gays and lesbians who want children.


    1: No, because I don't consider babies to be fully fledged people, or maybe, in some cases. It depends upon the age of the child.
    2: Yet.
    3: Okay. As long as people retain the right to decide who gets to go on THEIR OWN property, that will probably be fine, and beneficial in hindering the spread of the virus.
    4: Of course. However, I have an estimation contrary to one of yours. It is that most of the people refusing to get the vaccine are refusing it just because they're scared of it, because of the lock downs and the not being allowed to form groups with more than a certain number of people and all of the other totalitarian bs. To put it into perspective, they're pretty much scared of the vaccine like you are scared of the virus.


    Or they could and should do both.


    1: It would if you were smarter.
    2: It has taught me how to be one because the teachers were way too bossy and the system was too and there was a ridiculous amount of work to do. I would say that this experience is common to almost every student.
    3: Being a real slave would probably be a lot worse and a lot stricter. I don't know much about it, but I know enough to know that I have been taught to be a slave.


    Of course. This is just a generalization.


    Of course. So how do we deal with these obstructions?


    1: Thinking properly=Being smart in the way I was using this phrase.
    2: Super high level thinking=Being very very smart.
    3: I admit that complaining about schools then espousing that people need to be taught how to think may cause me to appear hypocritical. However, although I am a tad hypocritical, I am not THAT hypocritical. I think that school is a good idea, implemented in a terrible way.
    In order to be implemented properly, it should probably go more like this: Subjects: Debate, English, Health. Optional for those who want to invent stuff: Science. Math. This was not my first idea. I have come to this conclusion based upon a series of arguments for these subjects.
    I also think that school should not be a part of the meritocracy, because the fact that people will not hire people for something that they are rubbish at in most cases, and will fire them if they do this accidentally as soon as they find out, creates a natural and perfectly sufficient meritocracy which the schooling system doesn't even change much and might even worsen by excluding people who didn't get enough credits by preventing said people from getting any of the jobs they would have been really good at.


    You had those pointless words.


    They'd probably just be ignored.
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Thank you. That's what I've been feeling.

    I think most of us go through this phase of thinking we know how the world works when we're in our 20s. (And oh my God we get it so wrong.) But then we grow up.

    This whole thread is so ... cringy. Like how women and homosexuals were cardboard caricatures in 80s films. You can't go back and re-watch the films without cringing.
  18. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    I want to brain wash them into being able to think effectively. That is what I mean by properly in this context.
  19. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    Rob a bank was a joke.
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    It is very hard to take you seriously. You're either very young, very sheltered (or both) or you are yanking our chains.
  21. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    Okay. It is all true except for the sheltered bit.
    I do mean what I say too though. Why is it hard to take me seriously? Or was that just a dig?
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    It's the classic conundrum.
    It is often difficult to tell the difference between a genuine user who is young and naive and a troll pretending to be young and naive.
    SciFo has a horrible track record for trolls and banned members coming back as sock puppets, so it makes the latter highly likely. Explicitly identifying as female is another red flag.

    You do seem to be systematically ticking off hot button issues from a troll list: education, idealism, homosexuality, fascism, the science of Covid-19, etc. I'm anticipating your views on race theory, on right-to-life/choice issues and on Trump.

    But without evidence, you get the benefit of the doubt, which means you get to voice your opinions without molestation. And since I don't have the patience or inclination to treat this as sincere, I am only hurting this thread.

    So I will do the right thing and Unfollow and Ignore. Carry on.
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2021
  23. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    Okay. I'm no innocent though. I'm a bit of a bully tbh.

    Also, I can debate really, really well, so I don't care if my idea's are attacked. Sometimes it even helps me refine them.
    What gave away that I was inexperienced in life in general?
    You are actually annoying me a bit now.
    You seem patronizing.

Share This Page