If everyone allowed them to peacefully protest in Virginia then there wouldn't be injuries and deaths. But that hasn't happened, because for every inbred white supremacist there's some nutjob, pink haired leftist crackpipe that will come screeching, resulting in a giant clusterfuck in the middle of town.
For any harm that comes to them as a result, they bring it on themselves by publicly endorsing such vile and disdainful views in the first place - views which understandably and knowingly provoke such angry reactions. It's practically inevitable. It's just a real shame that these counter-protesters who took things too far ended up getting themselves hurt or killed.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 14, 2017 at 11:28#962720 likes
sniff sniff...one week from today, my youngest Indian will be in his dorm at college, away from home for the first time in his life.
What on Earth am I going to do? I feel something needy building inside of me, is this what an impending empty nest feels like? :-O
Reply to Agustino I'm still trying to figure out whether that would make a bad situation worse. He's worse in ways. Less erratic, more of a homophobe. Neither should be president of anywhere - or over anything - of any importance.
Reply to Baden I wonder how popular Pence is - or would be - with the American population. Probably nothing comparative to the Trump factor, I'd wager.
Trump's on a 36% approval rating at the mo'. Pence is probably higher but he wouldn't have the pull with some crucial demographics in swing states that Trump had. He definitely could win an election though.
I'm still trying to figure out whether that would make a bad situation worse. He's worse in ways. Less erratic, more of a homophobe. Neither should be president of anywhere - or over anything - of any importance.
I don't care if you're sexist or not. I just don't want to see you posting sexist comments. Baden says that won't be a problem. :D
Unfortunately, YOU will still see me posting "sexist" comments, because talking about Kierkegaard is sexist to you for example. Talking about the Church is sexist. Talking against abortion is sexist. Etc. Then I'm sure that Baden will, despite his ill feelings towards me, be unable to grant your wishes, and then you'll start over again >:O That's how crazy works ;)
Reply to Agustino It's more stuff like asserting that women want to be assaulted. I'm fine with discussing sexism, sexuality, gender whatever. When the comments begin to drift toward the topic of violence toward women and some sort of implicit approval of it, I think a line has been crossed.
Say it again. I want to try this flagging thing out. >:O
An assault is just an attack. Doesn't have to be unwanted, so not a contradiction in terms.
E.g. if two people consent to a street fight then it's still assault.
Hmm in the very technical sense of the term I agree with you. But when we use assault with regards to women we generally refer to rape and sexual intercourse, not just attacking them in the street - although it is sometimes used that way.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 15, 2017 at 12:40#968320 likes
:) Should you send a note to your mom: "Now I know how you felt..." ?
I call Mom and apologize often for some of the things I have done, that I am now getting to experience first hand. I asked her if she was getting tired of hearing these calls because I don't want to annoy her but she assures me that THOSE kind of calls are never annoying. :D
Personally, I'd advise against it. It won't lead anywhere good.
Why? It's very important for members of this community to know what counts as sexism, so that the guidelines are clear. So far the guidelines are very unclear. In addition, don't you reckon it's good that we have a rational discussion about what sexism is or is not so that we may better understand the underlying issues?
It's a loaded topic and people have very strong opinions. In the same vein I'd advise against discussing religion and politics at the dinner table with family.
It's a loaded topic and people have very strong opinions. In the same vein I'd advise against discussing religion and politics at the dinner table with family.
Okay, I see. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this matter.
I feel that a discussion about the submissiveness of men and women doesn't jive with what's particularly appropriate for being discussed in a philosophy forum. Just my opinion, anyway.
Reply to Michael Would it be possible to have a clear statement from the moderators as to what will count as sexism? The reason I'm asking is that there seem to be very very different opinions. SLX for example would count issues of biological differences between men and women as "myths". I don't think that's true for other moderators. So clearly for there to be a policy that's shared by all of you, there needs to be a common criteria for judgement. Would it be possible to make that criteria public?
Would it be possible to have a clear statement from the moderators as to what will count as sexism? The reason I'm asking is that there seem to be very very different opinions. SLX for example would count issues of biological differences between men and women as "myths". I don't think that's true for other moderators. So clearly for there to be a policy that's shared by all of you, there needs to be a common criteria for judgement. Would it be possible to make that criteria public?
I think that what counts as sexism can itself be a complicated philosophical (or sociological) issue, so this question is like asking what counts as a game. And it's not like we can list all the possible sexist statements that can be made. We're just going to have to use our best judgement (as we do with what counts as a flame too far or as low quality - with different moderators having different lines), and if you disagree with a particular post being moderated then there's PMs or the feedback forum.
They're clear enough. They're intended to guide you in the right direction, not pick you up and carry you there.
Okay, but you do understand that sexism is a very big word right? And people don't have the same understanding of it - in fact, as proven by the responses in that thread, even the moderators don't. That's a problem. Because one moderator may deem a comment sexist and remove it without asking the other moderators, even though it could be possible that all others would disagree with him/her.
Personally, I'd advise against it. It won't lead anywhere good. Just more head-butting
Well true, there was some "I know you are, but what am I?!" and "nyah nyah nyah!" going on, but I think it it a valid (if not important) topic. Even without the accusation and Trial of Socrates drama. But all that made it almost necessary, imho. But admittedly, it the thread continued it would have to be under tight moderator editing of BS and insults.
I think that what counts as sexism can itself be a complicated philosophical (or sociological) issue, so this question is like asking what counts as a game. And it's not like we can list all the possible sexist statements that can be made. We're just going to have to use our best judgement (as we do with what counts as a flame too far or as low quality), and if you disagree with a particular post being moderated then there's PMs or the feedback forum.
Okay, I understand now. The guidelines state that :
Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.
So if a post is deemed sexist by one moderator, is the punishment for it that the author of it will be banned? Or how will this work?
Reply to Agustino Just deleted. A single sexist comment isn't going to get you banned (unless you're a new user and your one and only post is "fuck women"). It's persistent bad behaviour that pushes us to discuss if a ban is warranted.
And people don't have the same understanding of it - in fact, as proven by the responses in that thread, even the moderators don't. That's a problem. Because one moderator may deem a comment sexist and remove it without asking the other moderators, even though it could be possible that all others would disagree with him/her.
Any complaints about moderation can be dealt with at the time and on a case-by-case basis, if it's brought to our attention.
[quote=Site Guidelines]Admins have the right to ban members. We don't do that lightly, and you will probably be warned about your behaviour if you are under consideration for a ban. However, if you are a spammer, troll, racist or in some other way obviously unsuited to the forum, a summary ban will be applied. Bans are permanent and non-negotiable. Returning banned members will be rebanned.[/quote]
I find this to be particularly worrisome coming from a moderator, granting what he considers to be the "myths" regarding the sexes:
SLX:I think it is fair to consider the perpetuation of myths regarding the sexes as sexist.
Either he's not aware that what he calls "myths" are actually very controversial issues, or he just wants to put an end to freedom to discuss those issues and enforce his own view that such things are myths.
unenlightenedAugust 15, 2017 at 16:09#969610 likes
Either he's not aware that what he calls "myths" are actually very controversial issues, or he just wants to put an end to freedom to discuss those issues and enforce his own view that such things are myths.
Myths are frequently controversial issues. Personally, there are things I don't find worth discussing, and anything is controversial to someone or other. My testosterone levels might be controversial, but in this case, I think your freedom to discuss the issue comes second to my right to privacy.
Do other moderators share his views, that for example:
"On the myth that testosterone largely accounts for differences in behaviour between men and women"
?
The scientific community doesn't at all seem settled about this:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201602/sex-gender-and-testosterone
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/02/11440/male-and-female-behavior-deconstructed
While the connection between sex hormones and behavior has been known for years, scientists have only recently made significant headway in demonstrating how profoundly one affects the other by altering the levels of male and female hormones in laboratory animals.
The fact that such a person is allowed to be a moderator who thinks these issues are settled and that it should be considered sexist for someone to be out of line with his thinking on it is a SERIOUS problem in my own humble opinion. And it's not the first time we've seen such dictatorial tendencies.
SLX:I think it is fair to consider the perpetuation of myths regarding the sexes as sexist.
The van Anders study cited in the psychology today blog - if you bothered to read it - is all about how behaviour regulates testosterone. This is how it concludes: "Gendered behavior modulates testosterone", further recognizing “an additional reason for differences in testosterone: the understudied role of nurture.” This being a study explicitly cited - along with others by van Anders - in the book by Coredelia Fine that I linked to.
What is 'mythical' about using testosterone as an explanation for gendered behaviour is that testosterone levels are themselves explanandum and not merely explanans. So by all means, cite what studies you like, but let's not pretend that the results of those studies in any way enable the primitive inferences that you draw from them.
The van Anders study cited in the psychology today blog - if you bothered to read it - is all how about how behaviour regulates testosterone. This is how it concludes: "Gendered behavior modulates testosterone", further recognizing “an additional reason for differences in testosterone: the understudied role of nurture.” This being a study explicitly cited - along with others by van Anders - in the book by Coredelia Fine that I linked to.
What is 'mythical' about using testosterone as an explanation for gendered behaviour is that testosterone levels are themselves explanandum and not merely explanans. So by all means, cite what studies you like, but let's not pretend that the results of those studies in any way enable the primitive inferences that you draw from them.
Thanks for your answer. I now see what you mean to say. Yes, it's true that the first study does show (apart from other things) that behaviour influences CHANGES in testosterone levels. Namely that "bossy" behaviour leads to larger percentage changes in testosterone levels in females (and smaller in males), but also larger numeric changes in males. Now this doesn't change the fact that testosterone levels remain MUCH larger in males than in females overall, regardless of behaviour. No study has shown that they have equal testosterone levels on average.
testosterone levels are themselves explanandum and not merely explanans
Sure! It is like a two way street, but this isn't to deny that they aren't also explanans. As even the first article linked recognises, testosterone levels remain significantly higher in males, despite changes in behaviour. As the third article linked shows, hormone levels do modulate behaviour to a large degree, so granted this, it is only fair to assume that male behaviour will tend to be different than female behaviour on average due - amongst other things (which include social expectations and the things that postmodernists love to talk about) - also to significantly higher testosterone levels.
Unfortunately, some media reports have focused on an inappropriate inference from these findings, suggesting that men tending to inhabit masculine social roles and women tending to inhabit feminine roles is a key source of sex differences in testosterone. That is, some journalists are assuming that if women fired people as bosses just as much as men do (and men and women inhabited identical roles throughout society), there would be no sex differences in testosterone levels. While certainly possible (however biologically implausible), the data from this study do not support this inference. Sex differences in testosterone were not reduced in the acting condition, in fact the sex difference may have gotten bigger!
So in light of this, it seems that you are completely erroneous to call it a myth:
[quote=]On the myth that testosterone largely accounts for differences in behaviour between men and women[/quote]
Testosterone levels DO largely (it would obviously depend how you define this now) account for such differences.
And I think your dictatorial attitude here:
SLX:I think it is fair to consider the perpetuation of myths regarding the sexes as sexist.
Is absolutely dangerous and should be shunned. And remember that you called my post "fucking disgusting" and worse, and when I questioned you about it, it ended up that there was actually only ONE phrase out of the entire essay that you found to be sexist (even though as I argued, I don't think it was). Now I have no problem that you have such feelings towards my writing, but I don't feel safe having someone like you being a moderator, when it's clear to me that your worldview just makes you biased & hostile to anything that's remotely different from what you believe in. Such a strong emotional reaction doesn't permit for clear judgement I believe.
Even if it is granted that there are average differences of testosterone levels between the sexes, this too needs to be complicated by the fact that testosterone levels remain one among a number of factors that influence behaviour. To quote Fine, “Sexual differentiation of the brain turns out to be an untidily interactive process, in which multiple factors—genetic, hormonal, environmental, and epigenetic (that is, stable changes in the “turning on and off” of genes)—all act and interact to affect how sex shapes the entire brain. And just to make things even more complicated, in different parts of the brain, these various factors interact and influence one another in different ways. ... And it gets even more complicated than this. A particular environmental factor can have a profound effect on sex differences for one brain characteristic, but the opposite influence, or none, for others.”
To put it shortly, that such differences make a difference is itself not at all straightforward. And one can contexutalise this a 'level up' as well: granting such already precarious differences, are these themselves differences that matter for the concrete contexts in which they are expressed (workplace, home, etc)? And this is to say nothing still regarding points of policy regarding how we ought, as a society, to treat such differences, precarious as they already are. So yeah, any straightforward claims regarding testosterone and gendered behaviour ought to be treated with extreme and uncompromising skepticism.
Finally, the perpetuation of myths regarding the sexes is sexist. This is no less 'dictatorial' a policy than if one were to consider as racist perpetuating myths about race. If it is 'dangerous', then so much the worse for those so endangered.
So yeah, any straightforward claims regarding testosterone and gendered behaviour ought to be treated with extreme and uncompromising skepticism.
I don't think this follows at all from what you say. You say that there's basically a lot of factors that can have an influence, and therefore it's unreasonable to draw a conclusion with regards to the influence of testosterone. That's not what most scientists think, quite clearly from the articles I've posted. In addition, we do notice that hormone changes can produce changes in behaviour while other factors such as environment are kept constant. So it's not all straightforward - but it is plausible, and likely.
Finally, the perpetuation of myths regarding the sexes is sexist.
Yes - that's IF - and that's a big if - they are actually myths. Because if they're not actually myths, then it's an entirely different story. And the problem comes precisely because it seems that what you take to be a myth, isn't actually that much of a myth at all. It's actually something that is very plausible in the eyes of many people, including scientists themselves. So the fact that you consider such a thing to be a myth, combined with your ideology of not tolerating any myths regarding the sexes, leads to a very dangerous situation in my opinion. Your "perpetuation of myths regarding the sexes is sexist" means that whatsoever you consider to be a myth - regardless of whether it is or is not - will be taken to be sexist. That's a problem, because your judgement, quite frankly, seems to be not so good in deciding what is or is not a myth when it comes to this subject.
So don't take this the wrong way, I think you're a smart guy, but I certainly think you're biased with regards to this.
Symmetry is related to androgens. More symmetrical women and more symmetrical men have higher estrogen and testosterone respectively.
It's also interesting to consider that women become more attracted to higher testosterone men while ovulating, but not so much any other time. Then there is the fact that since birth control, women don't ovulate as much, or at all if they don't want to. With control over their hormones, more agreeable men may be preferable.
I can definitely attest to the increased health benefits of improved symmetry. Though I have difficulty maintaining balance under pressure, unfortunately mine isn't natural, it's supranatural.
Did you do like a five second google search and conclude the first couple click bait headlines must be right? Articles rarely deliver on their titles (read them, and watch them qualify out of it).
What was I saying? Leftist organisations are the very big companies. The bigger they are, the more to the left they go. Communism is capitalism. Quoting Agustino
Go to Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. - you reckon you'll find Christians there? No.
I'll show off some, because I can't believe how defined I'm getting, and my muscles and tendons aren't getting harder, but softer, and I'm not really working out any, and my body weight hasn't changed either. It's totally all to do with balance, and opening up. I have been practicing trying to do lotus, and I did think that putting the weight on the tops of the feet wasn't something we evolved doing, so probably was inferior to keeping the feet grounded, but recently I noticed while sitting that I could move to the right some, and get lower into my hips, which really helped out.
The secret though, is the center line. See, you want to push the center line into the extremity of your joints, so that everything properly flows without getting cut off anywhere. Something going white? You're cutting that group of, move things around until it isn't. Visible tendons? You're lifting up too much, gotta press more. Skin crinkling around ankles, wrists or elbows? You're sunk in too much, gotta lift more.
Hands are the most annoying, I imagine because rotating the wrist is so new, but you gotta make sure that the wrist elbow, and shoulder don't all rotate as one, but can independently, and make sure the hand is flat but also gripping with every inch (like, around anything that you're toughing or holding, and nothing is rotating, or pulling away, or flatting too softly). With the feet, gotta make sure that you get complete knuckle connection, from the outside heel, to the pink knuckle, and then the ball, and up through the arch. No weight in toes, they're just for balancing when you roll over them. Missing the connection from the outside heel to the smaller toe knuckles and moving right to the ball means you're flat footed, and joints will compress, making you slow and shitty congrats. spending all of the time on your toes will only get your front muscles, without the heel missing your back. You'll get pretty thin though. That's all you really need to know.
I realize that I don't have the greatest body ever, but I think I look pretty damn good for not having to actually work hard, plus, because of how loose and soft I am, so I'm so so damn fast.
It took me a long while to realize he was trolling me because I honestly never expected him to take to trolling. I was trying in good faith to present my views on the topic of the thread. How sad that it was hijacked. I probably won't be discussing anything with darth anymore. He's lost a good deal of the respect I had for him.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 16, 2017 at 00:02#971580 likes
Change is in the air here in Arizona. As my youngest Indian heads to college, my very best friend sold her ranch a half mile away from ours and is moving an hour North. She wants to see her horses free grazing, not in stalls, taking the speed of her and her husbands life down a few degrees and try to have more hammock time. The blessed thing is that her new ranch is halfway between our ranch and my Indian's University. :D I am going to call her ranch my "Halfway House" as I retreat there on my way home from visiting his school.
What would white supremacists do if they actually had power?
Lol, they do have power, the power of life and death is one that every human has, but it is a very powerful one nonetheless.The groups in question just don't know how to use it properly, much like most people in power.
TRUMPFLASH: Don't believe the fake MSM! It was alt-left agitators who provoked those fine people at the white supremacist rally to run them over. BOTH SIDES AT FAULT!
Reply to Baden Trump defended his delay in condemning the attack because he wanted to know all the facts first, but is very quick to condemn on initial reports that the attackers are Muslim. Sad!
The Antifa/BLM people and the Neo-Nazi/white supremacist people are mirror images of each other. A pox on both their houses I say. Both buy into the repugnant ideologies of collectivism and identitarianism.
We have developed the words "racist", "sexist", "misogynist", "neo-nazi", etc. and we throw them around on people we don't like, and who don't agree with our views. We noticed recently exactly this kind of witch hunt here as well.
I don't know if all the people who want to keep Robert Lee's statue up are "neo-nazi" or "white supremacists" or whatever. But notice that when the media speaks, it's always "the neo-nazis", etc. - they label everyone like that, and we're all supposed to go like "oooh they're neo-nazi, they're the devil! Let's grab our pitchforks and go take them out!!". And if anyone doesn't grab their pitchfork, then they too are the devil. I've been reading that in some US universities if you speak something against, say, feminism - you'd effectively get lynched by the leftists, or physically abused at any rate (by having objects thrown at you, etc.). That - in my view - is totally unacceptable. It seems to me that some people are intent on maintaining this culture of violence, otherwise they don't feel safe.
What the hell is this kind of antagonistic witch hunt?! If these neo-nazis really are the devil, we should outlaw their views and take them out with the force of the police. But the citizens should have no right to take their pitchforks and go witch hunting for those people. Witch hunts belong to the state - if they are to belong to anyone.
And Trump is right here about comparing Robert Lee with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson the slave owners. He's an American personality just as Washington and Jefferson are. Of course they had shortcomings, but we can't reject our history because of people's shortcomings. Who are these crazy people who want to take their statues down?!
And look at what the crooked media asks Trump when he says that (I paraphrase) "in the group of protesters there were people other than KKK, Neo-nazis and white supremacists and the media has treated them unfairly" - just look at what the crooked reporters ask: "You are saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly?"........ *facepalm*
Is absolutely dangerous and should be shunned. And remember that you called my post "fucking disgusting" and worse, and when I questioned you about it, it ended up that there was actually only ONE phrase out of the entire essay that you found to be sexist (even though as I argued, I don't think it was). Now I have no problem that you have such feelings towards my writing, but I don't feel safe having someone like you being a moderator, when it's clear to me that your worldview just makes you biased & hostile to anything that's remotely different from what you believe in. Such a strong emotional reaction doesn't permit for clear judgement I believe.
StreetlightX:Finally, the perpetuation of myths regarding the sexes is sexist.
Yes - that's IF - and that's a big if - they are actually myths. Because if they're not actually myths, then it's an entirely different story. And the problem comes precisely because it seems that what you take to be a myth, isn't actually that much of a myth at all. It's actually something that is very plausible in the eyes of many people, including scientists themselves. So the fact that you consider such a thing to be a myth, combined with your ideology of not tolerating any myths regarding the sexes, leads to a very dangerous situation in my opinion. Your "perpetuation of myths regarding the sexes is sexist" means that whatsoever you consider to be a myth - regardless of whether it is or is not - will be taken to be sexist. That's a problem, because your judgement, quite frankly, seems to be not so good in deciding what is or is not a myth when it comes to this subject.
And I was the one accused about not seeing behind labels :-}
Demonte was a successful young man. Successful, that is, in permanently destroying part of his brain in a failed suicide attempt. Laying in the hospital bed, he stared blankly. His mother fretted over him. "He's sick again", she said, unable to comprehend that his fever wasn't from an infection. His central nervous system just couldn't regulate his temperature anymore.
She explained what his tattoos meant.. dark outlines on dark brown skin. His lover only came to the hospital once. He stood with his arms crossed, looking down at Demonte as if he was looking at a piece of roadkill. He smiled sweetly as he walked out the door.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 16, 2017 at 18:21#974310 likes
And Trump is right here about comparing Robert Lee with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson the slave owners. He's an American personality just as Washington and Jefferson are. Of course they had shortcomings, but we can't reject our history because of people's shortcomings. Who are these crazy people who want to take their statues down?!
Didn't watch the entire video, but just wanted to mention that most people don't know much truth about these men. Thomas Jefferson was 14 when he inherited his father's farm. It was against Virginia State law to release the slaves. He was actually against slavery. Many of the Fathers were.
Anyone watch Game of Thrones? The next episode has leaked early, so be careful of spoilers (and in unlikely places; some twat posted it in Reddit's /r/politics).
Anyone watch Game of Thrones? The next episode has leaked early, so be careful of spoilers (and in unlikely places; some twat posted it in Reddit's /r/politics).
It's difficult to post stuff with your twat, so that's impressive.
Reply to Michael If you have a moment when you feel like the whole world is shit, watch it. It's about the Kennedys, but the themes he touches on are (Y)
I think the US should put in place laws regarding what is allowed and what isn't allowed in protests. The protests in Charlottesville illustrate very clearly the need for this, as it seems that people are incapable to control themselves otherwise. I've now watched the footage in full, and what both sides have been up to, and it's quite despicable.
First of all, pricks like these white nationalists, KKKs, neo-nazi and whatever who promote the use of violence, and assert that they will resort to violence themselves if they are provoked should immediately be arrested. Guys like this one:
This brutish behaviour and acceptance of violence has no place in civilised society and this should be clear. If I was the President, I would use military force if necessary to arrest these people immediately. They don't understand anything except force, and they are a declared danger to society.
Secondly, we also have to speak of some of the leftist savages, which seek to provoke, insult without regard, beat, attack, behave like animals, have no respect for public decency, culture, or anything that is of value in society. For example savages like this one who go naked into the street, because apparently that's acceptable if someone is killed...
I think such people should be first of all fined, and second of all, if they repeat the offence sufficiently, should be jailed. We are a civilised society, we cannot accept disgusting and shameless behaviour. And protesting should not give one the right to shamelessness. Neither should the presence of neo-nazis, KKKs, or whatever. Nothing is an excuse for shamelessness. And before someone says "oooh this would be a victory to the Nazis, etc" - that's bullshit. First of all, it's unimportant what they take it to be. Whether they feel it's a victory or not, is irrelevant. The Nazis should be arrested for encouraging & promoting the use of violence, and that's that.
I wish today's BLM movements, etc. would be like this man, whom I much admire:
At least he and his people understood integrity and had some notion of decency and morality, however inadequate.
But no, they have to be shameless feminazis who go naked into the street, disrespect our society, scream, shout, swear and behave like savages. This cannot be a civilised country. These are not reasonable people. I was disgusted by looking at the images. I think Trump was absolutely right to say that both sides were guilty. Sure, the Neo-nazi, KKKs, etc. share a much greater degree of blame due to their outrageous statements/actions (and extreme violence just to be clear), but that's not to say the others were innocent.
Yes, just like the second world war. Those guys who fought the Nazis did bad things too. So, both sides were guilty.
Drawing an equivalence between fascists/racists and those who oppose them just because some of those opposing them did some things you don't like is disgusting.
But no, they have to be shameless feminazis who go naked into the street, disrespect our society, scream, shout, swear and behave like savages.
Is the real problem that they scream, shout, swear, and behave like savages, or that they're naked? Or to put it another way, is it bad if they're naked and peaceful and bad if they're aggressive and clothed, or must it be the whole package?
Yes, just like the second world war. Those guys who fought the Nazis did bad things too. So, both sides were guilty.
Drawing an equivalence between fascists/racists and those who oppose them just because some of those opposing them did some things you don't like is disgusting.
Wait, so how did Trump draw an equivalence between them? He said the other side (the alt left) also has its degree of moral culpability. He didn't say they are equal, nobody said that. Promoting the use of violence, and encouraging the killing of people is significantly worse than simply being violent, attacking, hitting, swearing, ignoring standards of decency, etc. But if somebody uses violence, that doesn't mean you have a license to go naked on the street or anything of that sort, does it?
Also, you know Adam and Eve were naked, right? It's only because they ate of the forbidden fruit and became shameful that they decided to cover themselves. God didn't seem to think that them being naked was savage, else he would have made them clothed.
Even Fox News, Redstate.com and several top Republican politicians know what it means to draw an equivalence and that Trump did it, and that it was wrong. You don't have to literally say the Nazis and those who fought them in WWII shared exactly equal blame to draw an equivalence. All you have to do to make you a moral idiot is to talk about the fine people in the SS and that some of those yanks fighting them were really nasty, so, both sides were at fault. Understand?
This is the relevant part of Trump's comments. I don't see how he's drawing an equivalence. He asks if they (the "alt-left") have a semblance of guilt - and they do! It's just the truth. This doesn't change the badness of the Neo-Nazis, KKKs, etc. Neither does it reduce any bit from the wrongness of the neo-nazis and the filthy views they advocate. Nor does it put the "alt left" on the same moral field as the neo-nazis. But I don't think we should allow people like the BLM to feel justified for using violence, and the like just because they were fighting against the Neo-nazis, who were significantly more violent, ruthless and despicable.
All you have to do to make you a moral idiot is to talk about the fine people in the SS and that some of those yanks fighting them were really nasty. So, both sides were at fault. Understand?
Hmmmm... I'm struggling to see what you mean by equivalence. To me, to draw an equivalence between two things means to say, in this case, that they're equally bad morally speaking. To put them on the same level of wrongness.
My point is, don't you think it's wrong, for example, if someone murders and tortures an entire village, and then someone rapes and kills them, wouldn't you say that despite the murders and the tortures of the village, it was still wrong for the person in question to rape them? That seems to me like letting one evil go, just because there's another greater evil around the corner :s How is that moral?
Reply to Michael
I believe some America soldiers got naked on D-day. Scared the heck out of the Krauts in the process of saving Europe, but of course, it was totally wrong of them and they should have been harshly punished.
I believe some America soldiers got naked on D-day. Scared the heck out of the Krauts in the process of saving Europe, but of course, it was totally wrong of them and they should have been harshly punished.
So supposing that someone assassinated Hitler successfully and then proceeded to rape his wife/girlfriend Eva. Would that be okay, just because he saved Europe from the leader of the Nazis?! :s I don't think fighting one evil justifies committing another. Do you?
So supposing that someone assassinated Hitler successfully and then proceeded to rape his wife/girlfriend Eva. Would that be okay, just because he saved Europe from the leader of the Nazis?! :s I don't think fighting one evil justifies committing another. Do you?
Degree matters. Bitching about two people killing bystanders as they fight each other is fine. Bitching about one person for shouting and not wearing clothes after bitching about another for driving a car into a bunch of people and killing one seems like you have strange priorities. The evil of the one overshadows the inappropriateness of the other.
It's like condemning an Islamist terrorist for shooting up an office and then condemning the cartoonist for mocking/insulting Islam in their cartoons. The latter might have been more reasonable if the former weren't a factor. But given the former, you really shouldn't do the latter.
The liberators did rape Germans actually unlike the anti-fascist protesters even though one of them was murdered. And you comparing actions like getting naked in the street to rape is bizarre, frankly.
Reply to Baden It seems to me that you're okay with ignoring evil, so long as that evil is lesser and the person who commits it is fighting a greater evil. Is this the case? Or are you willing to condemn both evils, each according to the moral culpability it deserves?
And was it right for the liberators to rape Germans? :s I fail to see how a greater evil - like the Nazis - can act as an excuse for lesser evils so long as they're done in opposition to the greater evil.
Bitching about two people killing bystanders as they fight each other is fine. Bitching about one person for shouting and not wearing clothes after bitching about another for driving a car into a bunch of people and killing one seems like you have strange priorities.
Yes, I bitched about each to very different degrees. Against some of them (the neo-nazi bunch) I said they're a declared danger to society, and if I was President I'd go as far as using military force to arrest them immediately.
The others I've accused not just of being naked, but of provoking, being violent as well, etc. I suggested such behaviour should be fined in the first instances, and if repeated sufficiently it should receive a jail sentence. So the gravity of their offences is much smaller, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Let me put it another way, it may be literally true to say that both sides did wrong. But when the degree of wrong, e.g.murder vs getting naked in the street (or etc) is so lopsided, the blame should be placed squarely on the far more heinous side. Otherwise, you are drawing an unfair equivalence.
No, none of that is the case. We're talking about drawing equivalences. I've tried to explain it several times, and it's hard to know why you don't get it yet. I'll give you one more example: A young girl tells me to "fuck off" so I punch her in the face until she's unconscious. For someone to emphasize that both sides did wrong would be moral idiocy. It would not be not "ignoring the evil" of the girl telling me to "fuck off" even though from a literal point of view that was wrong. Do you understand yet?
Let me put it another way, it may be literally true to say that both sides did wrong. But when the degree of wrong, e.g.murder vs getting naked in the street (or etc) is so lopsided, the blame should be placed squarely on the far more heinous side. Otherwise, you are drawing an unfair equivalence.
I've watched the footage though, and the alt-left was also violent. They didn't kill anyone, or run anyone over with a car, but they did hit and attack. I don't think violence should be acceptable from citizens. The state should stop dangerous groups like KKK, Neo-nazi, etc. but it's a fundamentally wrong thing for people to take matters into their own hands and resort to violence, or to be encouraged to resort to violence.
Do you think it's right, for example, if those people who were in the "alt left" side, consider that they've done a good thing by being violent and will desire to be violent again in the future? I don't - I think we should condemn all violence.
A young girl tells me to "fuck off" so I punch her in the face until she's unconscious.
Well obviously with such an extreme case I will agree, because "fuck off" isn't even that big of a deal. But if she, say, kills your dog purposefully, and you punch her in the face, I don't think I'd be drawing an equivalence if I condemn both of you, although I'd probably condemn you more in that case for attacking another human being. It ultimately depends on the gravity of both offences.
If one offence isn't grave (like fuck off), and the other is, then yes there would be equivalence if I were to condemn you both. But if both offences are grave (even if one of them is significantly worse than the other) - like raping Germans - and putting your own people into gas chambers, then I don't think there's equivalence if we condemn both. Both offences are serious. One is much more serious than the other since it's genocidal. But rape is also a grave offence, and it shouldn't be excused in my view.
Well obviously with such an extreme case I will agree
You don't think murder vs. getting naked in the street, or vs. some minor acts of violence is an extreme difference? you don't think being a fascist/racist vs. being anti-fascist racist is an extreme difference?
You don't think murder vs. getting naked in the street, or some minor acts of violence is an extreme difference?
The question isn't if it's an extreme difference. The question is first of all if both are grave offences. I believe murder is terrible (and even more terrible when those who commit it don't feel they've done anything wrong). But violence is also bad and should be condemned. And they weren't "minor" acts of violence, they were full-blown attacking.
you don;t think being a fascist/racist vs. being anti-fascist racist is an extreme difference?
Well yes, I do think there's a huge difference there. But being anti-fascist and anti-racist shouldn't justify the use of grave moral offences such as resorting to violence. The state should be the only one allowed to employ violence to stop the fascist/racist groups if necessary, not common people in the street. That's why police, military, etc. exist.
Well obviously with such an extreme case I will agree, because "fuck off" isn't even that big of a deal. But if she, say, kills your dog purposefully, and you punch her in the face, I don't think I'd be drawing an equivalence if I condemn both of you, although I'd probably condemn you more in that case for attacking another human being. It ultimately depends on the gravity of both offences.
If one offence isn't grave (like fuck off), and the other is, then yes there would be equivalence if I were to condemn you both. But if both offences are grave (even if one of them is significantly worse than the other) - like raping Germans - and putting your own people into gas chambers, then I don't think there's equivalence if we condemn both. Both offences are serious. One is much more serious than the other since it's genocidal. But rape is also a grave offence, and it shouldn't be excused in my view.
But if both offences are grave (even if one of them is significantly worse than the other) - like raping Germans - and putting your own people into gas chambers, then I don't think there's equivalence if we condemn both. Both offences are serious. One is much more serious than the other since it's genocidal. But rape is also a grave offence, and it shouldn't be excused in my view.
Who are you arguing against here? Who claimed rape should be excused? However, if you are talking in broad brushstrokes directly after WWII and you say "Well, both sides were at fault", you would be drawing a false equivalence. Exactly the type of thing that the right complained the left were doing after 9/11 by the way. And many of them are smart enough to realize that.
However, if you are talking in broad brushstrokes directly after WWII and you say, well, both sides were at fault, you would be drawing a false equivalence.
Yes, I agree. Because the Nazi's were responsible for brutally attacking other countries in the first place. So we had all the right to go and attack them to put an end to their reign of terror.
Yes, I agree. Because the Nazi's were responsible for brutally attacking other countries in the first place. So we had all the right to go and attack them to put an end to their reign of terror.
Good. Hopefully then, you understand where those who objected to Trump's statement are coming from then even if you still don't agree with the objection.
Exactly the type of thing that the right complained the left were doing after 9/11 by the way. And many of them are smart enough to realize that.
If you're referring to condoning the violence against - say - Iraqi people at the hands of American soldiers, just because of 9/11, then I agree with you, that that was despicable. Since violence and abuse is a grave offence, even though it is less significant morally than flying planes into buildings.
Good. Hopefully then, you understand where those who objected to Trump's statement are coming from then even if you still don't agree with the objection.
I do understand that, but I really feel they're so extreme in their reactions. It's true that in my opinion Trump should be more clear about the fact that there's no moral comparison between the gravity of the offences, but other than that, I think he did well by condemning the violence from the other side as well.
I meant when some on the left immediately after the attacks said America bore some responsibility for 9/11, the right complained this was drawing an unfair equivalence. People lost their jobs over it.
I meant when some on the left immediately after the attacks said America bore some responsibility for 9/11, the right complained this was drawing an unfair equivalence. People lost their jobs over it.
Ah okay... I wasn't even aware of this. I will look it up. Anyway, I'm going to have to prepare dinner now.
Let me put it another way, it may be literally true to say that both sides did wrong. But when the degree of wrong, e.g.murder vs getting naked in the street (or etc) is so lopsided, the blame should be placed squarely on the far more heinous side. Otherwise, you are drawing an unfair equivalence.
I suggest watching this video, especially at 8:03:
I suggest watching this video, especially at 8:03:
Yes I agree with this. And the fact that these leftist groups appeal to the existence of groups which are even worse than they are is no excuse for what they do. This is a serious tragedy.
I've never been on a US college campus, but I heard things can get quite abusive on some campuses towards anyone who doesn't share in the postmodernist extreme left culture. This is not a sign of education or culture, especially in learning institutions.
I keep having this feeling that we promote an "anything is permitted" attitude so long as people are opposed to groups like Nazis, etc.
I mean the media outrage is amazing... Literarily CEOs are calling Trump out, J.K. Rowling is saying it's an abomination, etc.
Like why so much outrage? He never said the two groups were equivalent... Why are people so vindictive towards him, and calling him a white nationalist, racist, etc? :s
I mean I could understand people being like: "I think what Trump said is wrong, it made it seem like there's some equivalence between the two groups, and while it's true that the 'alt-left' was violent and yada yada, there is still no comparison to the white supremacists, etc. who resorted to murder and were even proud of it" - but why the hate? Why the extreme moral condemnation? Some people's reactions are the reactions I'd imagine someone to have to someone like Hitler.
But I think the media is right now misinterpreting his comments on purpose - either that, or they're peddling the leftist ideology and want to see the ascendency of groups like BLM who also encourage violence. That can be my only conclusion.
The EU and Merkel's immigration and open door refugee policies could not have been more disastrous for Europe. One by one, each European country has become subject to horrific acts of Islamic terror. Mark my words, Italy is next, as it's the last major nation to have so far avoided this fate.
NOTICE: The reveal function here does not give you license to post whatever you want. Anyone who posts pornography or the like as @Thorongil just did in the Kevin discussion is apt to be banned. I don't care if it's a joke and I may not give you a warning like I did him.
EDIT: @Thorongil did nothing wrong. The link is some kind of troll/hack. Seems to appear differently to different users.
Looking at the thread, I see you deleted my reply with the Three Stooges GIF. I wasn't aware the antics of vaudeville comics constituted pornography. Please fill me in.
I hesitate to post it again, but if you do a Google search for Three Stooges GIFs, you can find lots of them, including the one I used. Curly and Moe were fully clothed, I assure you. *scratches head*
Ok new notice is: Be careful of linking to pictures. Better to download and then attach if possible. I'm not sure exactly how this happened so I can't say more than that. Maybe @Michael?
Hey guys, I have just given a short and brief summary of my idea on truth here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1848/descartess-i-think-therefore-i-am
in the last post.
Please let me know if you liked it or loved it.
Reply to Baden Yeah, they can make it so that different people see different things, or even that different things show at different times (e.g some places detect the source of the link and if it isn't their own domain they instead show a warning image that you're not allowed to link to their images on your own page). I think I recall @Thorongil's image, and it wasn't porn for me.
Reply to Sapientia If I didn't have so many PMs to write and so much work to catch up with outside of here (+ find time to go to the gym), maybe I could give that a look.
Seriously? This guy really does just want to be a dictator, and doesn't make a secret about it either.
The Obstructionist Democrats make Security for our country very difficult. They use the courts and associated delay at all times. Must stop!
Well, actually he does have quite a good point. The US is a failed democracy because each party tries to use entirely legal means (such as the courts) to block the policies of the other party, not because they actually have anything against them, but merely because they belong to the other party. This conflictual system where conflict ceases to be based on reason, and becomes based on partisanship is broken and cannot work. So Trump is actually bringing up a very important point.
Well, actually he does have quite a good point. The US is a failed democracy because each party tries to use entirely legal means (such as the courts) to block the policies of the other party, not because they actually have anything against them, but merely because they belong to the other party. This conflictual system where conflict ceases to be based on reason, and becomes based on partisanship is broken and cannot work. So Trump is actually bringing up a very important point.
So what is the point? That we shouldn't use the courts and whoever's the President should be able to push his own partisan agenda with nothing to stop him?
unenlightenedAugust 18, 2017 at 16:27#982490 likes
So what is the point? That we shouldn't use the courts and whoever's the President should be able to push his own partisan agenda with nothing to stop him?
Clearly not any president. Only white male ones perhaps?
Seriously? This guy really does just want to be a dictator, and doesn't make a secret about it either.
Where in that quote did you surmise this? The bolded part? As far as I can tell, you just pulled this accusation from your rear end.
It's ironic, because he's right that the Democrats are obstructing his policies by means of the courts. The ridiculous challenge to his travel ban by that Hawaii judge was mostly struck down by the Supreme Court. That judge and others like him are not fooling anyone about what their intentions are.
So what is the point? That we shouldn't use the courts and whoever's the President should be able to push his own partisan agenda with nothing to stop him?
The point is that the other side shouldn't irrationally block legislation that would be good for the country MERELY because it belongs to the other party. Legislation should be blocked and amended only if they have rational grounds to disagree with it.
The DEMs are doing exactly what the GOP did for the last 4 years, which culminated in the denial of Obama's choice for the Supreme Court. It's legal, and Trump is batshit.
>:O More legal proceeding will be the end of the American experiment in democracy, since people will very soon start losing faith in it. And this isn't a matter of DEMs vs GOP. I know the Republicans did the same, that's exactly the point I'm making.
Apart from the laughter points, the very fascinating thing psychologically, is why the hell is he so afraid the cops will KILL him? I mean he's not afraid of the arrest, he's afraid he'll be killed! Why? Why does he even think they'll kill him? Is there something here about American society I don't know?
unenlightenedAugust 18, 2017 at 19:38#983050 likes
You know that thing about rats deserting a sinking ship?
As I said, I am quite puzzled by all the outrage against Trump. I really haven't found Trump's speech to be as crazy and as bad as these people make it sound like. He never said there's good Nazis for that matter, so that's again a false representation of what he said.
I don't think Trump is a sinking ship, I think he's doing mighty fine in fact. When you have $4 billion dollars and you hold the chair of President of the United States, it's not difficult to replace these rats, with some hungrier rats if you need them.
I'm actually more upset at the hypocrisy and lack of loyalty these people show, and they seek to profit from every little thing so that they appear better in the eyes of the public. The CEOs, etc. - it's very clear, they'll do whatever it takes to make more money. At least Trump doesn't care what other people think and he's willing to stick for what he believes in even if he loses support, that's an admirable trait. These CEOs, etc. are slaves of money - they'd do ANYTHING for popularity and money. I can bet that if things were the other way around, and the press gave good publicity to Trump instead of bad, then MOST of these very same people would be licking up to him like there's no tomorrow.
At least Trump doesn't care what other people think and he's willing to stick for what he believes in even if he loses support, that's an admirable trait.
What does he believe and stick to?
Jake TarragonAugust 18, 2017 at 20:18#983130 likes
His fan base, even if they are white supremacists.
Whatever his views happen to be. That's been a general trend with Trump. For example when the whole media was up in arms about his desire to build a wall with Mexico, he didn't switch, like most other politicians would do, and start peddling something that would be more popular, he sticked to what he was initially proposing. That in my view is a good thing about Trump, granting how most other politicians are such big snakes and have no integrity & honesty.
But there are some problems with Trump as well, I've been very critical of him as of late as well, I'm only being more positive now because there's just too much unjustified hatred of him around I think.
His fan base, even if they are white supremacists?
Why do you think that? In his last speech, Trump actually said, for example, that "the driver of the car was a disgrace to himself, his family and the country", "the driver of the car is a murderer and what he did is a horrible, horrible thing", "I've condemned neo-nazis, white supremacists", "the neo-nazis, the white nationalists, [because] they should be condemned totally", "rough bad people: neo-nazis, white nationalists", and so forth. I find these to be condemning the white supremacists and their actions...
Ugh, I hate online orders. Supposed to have a mattress delivered today. It wasn't. The delivery people don't deliver on the weekend. 3 nights sleeping on the sofa. And I'll have to try to get off work on Monday so that I'm actually available when (if!) it's delivered.
And I hate the council. Paid to have the old bed frame and mattress taken away today (the only day they could do it for weeks). They told us to leave it outside (so it's wet and dirty at the moment). But they haven't collected it. So it's making the outside of the house look like a tip, and the mattress that I could have slept on is taunting me.
During his campaign he claimed that Mexico would pay for the wall, which was a popular idea with his supporters. He switched on that part of it, and even requested of Nieto that he go along with the ruse that Mexico would pay, or at least not publicly deny it.
There's this thing that bothers me that people don't readily see.
Namely, the difference to proving to one's self (as that seems to be the only thing of value to Trump, himself) that one is a good politician and the difference with actually being a good politician.
Jake TarragonAugust 18, 2017 at 20:48#983230 likes
His initial reaction to the car murder was to say something on the lines of "I condemn violence on all sides" Weasel words gratefully received by the WSs.
During his campaign he claimed that Mexico would pay for the wall, which was a popular idea with his supporters. He switched on that part of it, and even requested of Nieto that he go along with the ruse that Mexico would pay, or at least not publicly deny it.
I am not aware of the Nieto thing, do you have a link? As far as I know, he still claims that Mexico will ultimately pay for it.
Yes, I am aware of those, but those are very long ago. And even then, he said he hates abortion. So it's not that inconceivable at all that he would switch over this over time. And he was quite open to discuss this, and explained that he has changed his position over the years. At least he doesn't change from day to day like many other politicians do.
Reply to Jake Tarragon If there were an alternative he'd turn on them as quickly as he's turned on other strong supporters, such as Sessions. I imagine he could only be loyal to close family.
His initial reaction to the car murder was to say something on the lines of "I condemn violence on all sides" Weasel words gratefully received by the WSs.
Well, why does it matter what the white nationalists think? They are very deluded people if they think they can associate themselves with a man who has openly condemned them, even by name in 2 of the 3 speeches. As far as I'm concerned, what the white nationalists think is irrelevant. They should simply be arrested by the police whenever they encourage the use of violence - as many of them have done at their protest. This obsession "oooooh what are the white nationalists thinking?" etc.... what's the point of that? They're a fringe group whose ideology is very violent and repugnant, who should simply be dealt with by law enforcement. As simple as that. If they find a white nationalist threatening someone over the internet, in public, or anywhere else they should identify who it is and issue an arrest warrant. Very soon they'd be all gone.
Around the time he switched to being a republican?
I imagine pretty much everyone hates abortion, btw, and it's not inconceivable that anyone's view on the issue will change over time. Point is that it's not admirable to switch on a position like this for political gain.
We shouldn't now condemn the violence of groups like Antifa and BLM just because if we do the white nationalists will feel happy?! Why the hell should we allow the crazies to influence what we say and what we don't say? Are we some sort of slaves to the white nationalists that we have to be afraid "ooooh what are we going to say, because they'll take it the wrong way", etc.? To my mind that's nonsense. You don't let evil control you and dictate your actions. To me, to give a damn what the white nationalists think or feel is already to give them legitimacy.
Maybe. I think he wants to be seen as being loyal with the option (or ready intention) to dump later. I think he thinks if he can do something slowly no one will notice. Like Mr Twit who whittles down his wife's walking stick a slither a day.
Why do I think that? Because he promised very big things, like "the wall" which is getting the Mr Twit treatment already ("the wall will not necessarily go along the whole border...").
At least he doesn't change from day to day like many other politicians do.
What about his position on NAFTA? In the election, it was called the worst trade deal in the history of the world. Then, after being elected, to the Canadians, he said it just needs to be "tweaked". Later he goes off saying NAFTA needs to be totally renegotiated. But then he was later back to it just needs to be tweaked. He clearly changes his statement of position depending on whom he's talking to.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 19, 2017 at 23:23#986330 likes
Reply to Posty McPostface Why do you want an obese cat? If they get too fat, they have difficulty grooming themselves (like, keeping their nether regions clean). My neighbors' cat got so fat, the other cat in the house took over it's grooming, sort of. They put the fat cat on a diet and now it is relatively thin and can take care of it's own needs and is healthier.
On the other hand, a fat cat might make a better football.
Reply to Michael Speaking of mattresses, I bought a mattress for my son and the morons who strapped it the top of rental van didn't do it right, and it caught some wind and almost went airborne down the highway, but I was driving behind him and honked and called him and he pulled over. That is a much better mattress story than yours.
Reply to Posty McPostface Yes, they are really cute when they're fat. There's one in the area I used to live, and I would always stop to stroke it. It's colouration made it look like it was wearing a tuxedo, which I find amusing, given that it's a fat cat. It just needs a monocle and top hat to make the look complete.
Let me be blunt. Have you ever seen an unhappy fat cat? I mean the poor creature is already neutered, at least let it enjoy some food, even if in excess.
Speaking of mattresses, I bought a mattress for my son and the morons who strapped it the top of rental van didn't do it right, and it caught some wind and almost went airborne down the highway, but I was driving behind him and honked and called him and he pulled over
Did you get the kind of mattress that will slide down the dorm stair case the fastest or the safest?
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 21, 2017 at 13:40#989770 likes
@Mongrel
They call it Stormy Monday but Tuesday's just as bad...
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 21, 2017 at 13:42#989780 likes
I thought this was kind of fun though I haven't read them all.
More legal proceeding will be the end of the American experiment in democracy, since people will very soon start losing faith in it. And this isn't a matter of DEMs vs GOP. I know the Republicans did the same, that's exactly the point I'm making.
You mean they still have faith? Wow, US citizens do grow up in a media bubble that's all about the US. If it was the Netherlands I had moved to Canada by now.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 21, 2017 at 14:30#989800 likes
You mean they still have faith? Wow, US citizens do grow up in a media bubble that's all about the US. If it was the Netherlands I had moved to Canada by now.
Yes we still have faith and Canada suddenly doesn't want any immigrants.
No, we actually got the kind of mattress that only dad can figure out how to carry up the stairs.
Lmao!! OMG The Visual!!!
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 21, 2017 at 14:54#989890 likes
My Indian is leaving on Wednesday and Family day is Thursday. I am trying really hard not to get emotional and nesting has begun as though he was coming home for the first time but everything is going in crates and such.
He has two dorm mates, three guys one bedroom, one bathroom and 300 sq ft total.
One of his room mates is from out of state and is an Air Force ROTC and his other room mate has not logged in yet as to where he is from and studying what but I am already suspicious as he has an 800 number for his contact number. Hmmmmmmm..... you never know....
I know, I know, fake news... if you don't like this link I can find another.
I see. I'm not sure how trustworthy that is, since it is leaked material.
"The transcripts were prepared by the White House but have not been released. The Post is publishing reproductions rather than original documents in order to protect sources. The reproductions below also include minor spelling and grammatical mistakes that appeared in the documents."
The facts though are that Trump is still claiming, even today, that Mexico will pay for the wall. Whether this is true or not, remains to be seen.
Your mission is to show something that he believes in and sticks to in the face of adversity, demonstrating admirable virtue.
The Mexico wall is something he sticks to. If I have to pick another thing, it's his view on China. He has been having the same complaints against China since the 1980s!
What about his position on NAFTA? In the election, it was called the worst trade deal in the history of the world. Then, after being elected, to the Canadians, he said it just needs to be "tweaked". Later he goes off saying NAFTA needs to be totally renegotiated. But then he was later back to it just needs to be tweaked. He clearly changes his statement of position depending on whom he's talking to.
Okay, but don't you think that his intention remains the same in that case, it's just the way he phrases it that changes? Yes, I might phrase something one way with one group, and another way with another group as well. What's wrong with that?
The facts though are that Trump is still claiming, even today, that Mexico will pay for the wall.
I believe the difference is that after the election the story switched to that of American taxpayers paying for the wall and then somehow recouping the money from Mexico in the future. Also the estimated price for the wall steadily increased from a ridiculously low number to something closer to reality, around 25 billion I think. This isn't admirable, it's a shallow political tactic.
If I have to pick another thing, it's his view on China. He has been having the same complaints against China since the 1980s!
Are these complaints controversial?
He sticks to a lot of things, but sticktoitiveness is not itself a virtue. He stuck to the birther thing for years. Did he actually believe it or was it just another shallow political tactic?
I believe the difference is that after the election the story switched to that of American taxpayers paying for the wall and then somehow recouping the money from Mexico in the future. Also the estimated price for the wall steadily increased from a ridiculously low number to something closer to reality, around 25 billion I think. This isn't admirable, it's a shallow political tactic.
That's not the number that I know... 8 billion is the number that I know. I think 25 billion is another "fake news" story to tell you the truth, similar to the leaks.
He sticks to a lot of things, but sticktoitiveness is not itself a virtue. He stuck to the birther thing for years. Did he actually believe it or was it just another shallow political tactic?
Yes, compared to other politicians who when the wind changes immediately take to running for their lives - who literarily have no integrity - he is better.
During his campaign, Trump initially said he could build a wall for $4 billion. In January 2017, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said the wall would be $12 billion to $15 billion.
Which "official" numbers do you know? :P
Metaphysician UndercoverAugust 21, 2017 at 21:55#990710 likes
Okay, but don't you think that his intention remains the same in that case, it's just the way he phrases it that changes?
No, actually I don't think he knows what his intention is, or more precisely, does not have any particular intention. So he makes various somewhat random statements to elicit response. Then he might form an intention. But then again, he might just keep up with the back and forth.
During his campaign, Trump initially said he could build a wall for $4 billion. In January 2017, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said the wall would be $12 billion to $15 billion.
Which "official" numbers do you know? :P
I've heard of the $8 billion number, but I'll look into it. Hopefully, this doesn't turn out to be another conspiratorial thing.
My son had an ROTC roommate also. He got up really every morning and woke him up.
I think that is going to be the best part as a parent, that and the haircut they have to have. They have a haircutting place on campus so the ROTC's have no reason to not be in compliance and the non ROTC students get the bonus of never having to leave campus to get a clip. I also like that they have a Chiropractor and a Massage therapist at the wellness center in addition to a Doctor. It turns out that the Pilots in training can get stiff necks so the rest benefit.
Do the Mayan tour and you'll end up just over a couple of mountains from my place.
I want to be by the Ocean Sir, I am flipin tired of the desert. Especially in the late part of August in Arizona, there is no time more miserable than now.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 22, 2017 at 12:41#992670 likes
So help me if "IF" President Trump, pardons Sheriff Joe Arpaio, I am going to... :-x best retain attorney representation.
Reply to Hanover My step-mum used to do reflexology, and my girlfriend's mum is trying to get her to see a reiki practitioner. Even my mum, who was a nurse, said good things about alternative medicine.
I often find it difficult to keep my cool around my family.
Even my mum, who was a nurse, said good things about alternative medicine.
The "alternative" is that they do not adhere to the scientific method. If these alternative treatments were scientifically shown to work, they would then be called "mainstream."
I don't know, why don't you watch his speech? It was quite honest, he actually did say that he changed his mind and he explained why. It's a great speech I think.
An entire website dedicated to this question of the legitimacy of chiropractic care: http://www.chirobase.org/
My brother, the Richard Dawkins style ultra-rationalist of the family (I am the woffly Green), nevertheless has insisted, gazing into his blind spot, that his chiropractor was the go-to man for aches and pains. Two weeks ago, alas, the chiropractor damaged a nerve in my brother's shoulder leaving him in bad pain. It has been a Herculean struggle to sympathise in proper fraternal fashion.
But even more important than this is that fact that evil on that scale should not be trifled with nor tolerated because it can spread, and the damage it can cause is extreme. Therefore it has to be exterminated. It seems to me that you don't realise what kind of danger these beasts pose to the civilised world. You seem to think it's fine to let them fume around the Middle East, take over land, terrorise the people there, maintain their brutal and uncivilised regimes, destroy local culture (Syria is in ruins now) and so forth.
There is no question of "turning the other cheek" here. Remember that with the money changers in the temple Jesus didn't turn the other cheek. He grabbed the whip and chased them out.
I was looking over a list of unsolved problems in philosophy to find a new topic of discussion and there isn't really that many. All stuff that's been rehashed lots of times recently here.
Must be something new(ish), interesting, and accessible to talk about.
I'm not sure about that. A real leader is one who honours his traditions and ancestors, not one who bows down to what is in vogue and popular while abandoning integrity.
I was looking over a list of unsolved problems in philosophy to find a new topic of discussion and there isn't really that many. All stuff that's been rehashed lots of times recently here.
Must be something new(ish), interesting, and accessible to talk about.
Let's discuss a resolved problem in philosophy and see if anyone can get the answer right.
I don't know, why don't you watch his speech? It was quite honest, he actually did say that he changed his mind and he explained why. It's a great speech I think.
I don't know what Trump's military advisors told him; I don't know what his political advisors told him; I don't know what a little bird whispered in his ear. But... if anyone thinks we are going to win in Afghanistan, and win handily, they are deluded.
Afghanistan is far too fractured by competing tribal loyalties, too much corruption, too little history of effective, central government, too little development, too many islamic lunatics, too porous a border with Pakistan (which has all sorts of problems of its own), and other factors of this sort to expect that ANY number of troops performing whatever services might be asked of them, will make a significant difference. And even if we found a way to solve all these problems (which we won't) what is our stake there?
Sounds like Rome struggling with the Vandals back a while ago. Let them be, just introduce a lot of high-tech and see how long it takes them to realize that we've got things pretty well figured out instead of forcing it on them.
Sanctions didn't stop Iran from getting a nuke. It was the will of the people, manifest through modern day technology to spread the word and tell the Ayatollah to stop his crusade.
We're at war with the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS, all of which are present, and the latter newly present, in Afghanistan. We are also obliged to provide humanitarian assistance and security to the Afghan people.
I'm so glad Bannon was canned, since he apparently wanted us to pull completely out of Afghanistan, which would have been disastrous. I'm equally glad that Trump has decided to trust his military advisers on this issue.
Just a friendly reminder that there are different kinds of conservatism. ;)
We're at war with the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS, all of which are present, and the latter newly present, in Afghanistan. We are also obliged to provide humanitarian assistance and security to the Afghan people.
So, the likes of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS are in lots of different places in Asia and Africa. Have we successfully rooted them out anywhere?
I don't like any of these groups. I would just as soon see them all drop dead. But... by what means do we seek, find, and kill amorphous enemies such as these?
Suppose the world ganged up on the United States and wanted to kill the dangerous terrorist conservative Republicans who live here. There are invasions, drone strikes, bombings, troop training -- boots on the ground, Euro/African/Asian/Latino army bases scattered around the country -- like in Kansas and Georgia. the whole ball of wax. But they have a major problem: How do they identify a bona fide conservative Republican? Especially when they can quickly look and sound like liberal Republicans, or conservative Democrats (at least to the world's invading forces). These dangerous terrorist conservative Republicans can fade back into the crowds at the shopping malls, and it upsets people when allegedly conservative cities (like Mobile) are nuked.
The world declares victory, (meaning they throw in the sponge) and pull their forces out. Everybody happy. But... before long the terrorist conservative Republicans are back, regrouped, stronger than ever, and doing their dirty work again.
Does not this assume that all Afghans support terrorists? Clearly they don't, so they won't feel animosity toward the US by it bombing terrorists.
Americans don't actually like terrorist conservative Republicans. In fact, many people hate them about as much as they hate the occupying troops. While the invaders have managed to kill quite a few of the loathsome terrorist conservative Republicans, they haven't really made that much of a dent. Meanwhile, peace loving liberals deeply resent the presence of foreign troops on American soil and are as willing as Republican guerrillas to blow up their vehicles as they cruise down the freeway or sneak up behind the troops as they shop at Walmart and shoot them in the back.
Metaphysician UndercoverAugust 23, 2017 at 00:26#994110 likes
No, I think Jesus would hug them. That's all they really need, just a little love. They're behaving badly because they're feeling cast out, living in the caves of Afghanistan. That's worse than the dog house.
So, the likes of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS are in lots of different places in Asia and Africa.
They're not in countries in which we're already militarily engaged on the ground. Rest assured, we have special operations trying to take out these groups in other countries.
Right, and neither do I. But thankfully, they don't exist. You may trying for sarcasm here, though, I'm not sure.
No, not trying for sarcasm. I was illustrating how difficult it is for outsiders to identify enemies who don't want to be identified. A Taliban fighter can disappear into the community. The people in his community will most likely have knowledge about who is who. Look at the ISIS criminals who have attacked European targets. They didn't have blinking lights on their heads making it easy to identify them.
People in the United States, like people everywhere, know more about the people who live around them than an outsider can know, at least under normal circumstances.
They're not in countries in which we're already militarily engaged on the ground.
For God's sake, ISIS was practically invented in Iraq while we were there. It isn't our fault that some people decided to become Islamic extremists par excellence, but we couldn't have prevented this from happening either.
Hmmm... special operations. I hope we have spies, various kinds of observers and operatives everywhere (else, what are we paying the intelligence agencies for?). Take the Central African Republic or parts of the Philippines. We may have assayed the level of chaos, insurgency, dysfunction, and so on in those places, but a few skilled operatives aren't going to wipe out an insurgency movement which is highly committed and has local support, any more than the French could come over here and wipe out the KKK.
For God's sake, ISIS was practically invented in Iraq while we were there. It isn't our fault that some people decided to become Islamic extremists par excellence, but we couldn't have prevented this from happening either.
Oh yes we could have. Get the sequence of events right. We decided to pull completely out of Iraq and then ISIS emerged in the power vacuum that we left. If they were going to emerge regardless, then, by staying, we undoubtedly would have prevented them from seizing as much territory as they did for as long as they did. The genocide and murder of Christians, Yazidis, and other groups would never have happened either or would not have been as severe if we had a strong US military presence on the ground.
I think the CIA does a better job than any military at subversion of a population. Then again, there's Cuba and many South American countries that will resent our efforts of doing so for the rest of their existence.
Really, we should just keep to ourselves and let the other cave dwellers envy us till they die from humping camels or donkeys and protracting some disease.
It's "contracting" not "protracting". I'm not sure what diseases men catch from actually humping camels--or donkeys, either. If you have a choice, opt for the donkey. Camels have a transmissible respiratory disease (a coronavirus). In humans it causes a disease abbreviated CHARM -- Camel Humping And Related Malfunctions. Guys inhale the virus (exhaled by camels) while spending way too much romancing the hideous, stinking beasts. Camels smell bad. Really bad, I've heard.
Reply to Thorongil If we hadn't gone there in the first place, we would probably not have upset the sunni / shi'ite applecart. When we invaded Iraq, I thought we would fail miserably because we had far too little expertise to understand, intervene, and peacefully reconstruct Iraq.
I don't think we had a lot at stake in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a bad man. So what? We've cultivated scum like him many times. Oil? How much oil were we/are we getting from Iraq?
So, the likes of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS are in lots of different places in Asia and Africa. Have we successfully rooted them out anywhere?
Well, if I was in charge, I'd demand obedience and military support from the Saudis who should actually be the police force of the Middle East, instead of the main state sponsor of terrorism. Furthermore, if countries like Iraq and Afghanistan cannot manage by themselves, I'd transform them into American colonies and install American governments with the full force of the military. I'd negotiate with the Ruskies to allow them to do similar in countries like Syria. Then the Middle East will slowly become colonized by larger and stronger forces who can control both their resources and ensure adequate government. Those resources (thinking about Iraqi oil and Afghan rare earth metals) should be sufficient to balance out the costs associated with policing them - and there should be no shame in taking them. American governments will certainly be better at preventing the terror and brutality that currently exists in those regions, as well as the radicalization that is currently going on.
Really, we should just keep to ourselves and let the other cave dwellers envy us till they die from humping camels or donkeys and protracting some disease.
This is the NUMBER ONE military mistake in all of history. All the time when the stronger guy is like "Eh! I don't give a fuck about that small ant, let it be!" he will get screwed by that ant who will grow into a big tiger over time - and then it will be too late to deal with it. Underestimating evil is a serious military mistake. Evil is not to be trifled with. If you let evil grow, it will come and destroy you.
No, I think Jesus would hug them. That's all they really need, just a little love. They're behaving badly because they're feeling cast out, living in the caves of Afghanistan. That's worse than the dog house.
Oh yeah, if you hug them, they'll stab you! You think these beasts are stupid? If they get an opportunity, they'll kill you without mercy. They're not pink cloud-dwelling liberals who're just sad that they live in an undeveloped region. These are merciless warriors, who are intent on destruction, as proven from what they've done in Iraq and especially Syria. Listen - these people are incapable of feeling love. After you engage in the kind of brutality they engage in on a day to day basis, you think that all you need is a little love?! You cannot even feel love by that point.
Nah. Tradition be damned. Get with the times. They be a-changing. For the better, too.
The so called times are nothing but a fashion, which is temporary. History is cyclical, and it will continue to be cyclical. We're at the end of Western Civilisation as we know it. We're not becoming better, we're becoming worse, much worse. And the abandonment of traditions is one of the reasons why we have reached this stage - a stage reached by other civilisations who abandoned the values that made them great, including the Romans and the Islamic world in its golden age. The thing is, even Trump cannot do much, because there's many many people like you who despise traditions, and there's no way to stop you, we have to admit that.
What the future holds is a period of great darkness that looms over the whole world. After we emerge from it - probably through some major conflict - the world will be reborn anew, with very different and transformed values compared to what we have today.
The so called times are nothing but a fashion, which is temporary. History is cyclical, and it will continue to be cyclical. We're at the end of Western Civilisation as we know it. We're not becoming better, we're becoming worse, much worse. And the abandonment of traditions is one of the reasons why we have reached this stage - a stage reached by other civilisations who abandoned the values that made them great, including the Romans and the Islamic world in its golden age. The thing is, even Trump cannot do much, because there's many many people like you who despise traditions, and there's no way to stop you, we have to admit that.
What the future holds is a period of great darkness that looms over the whole world. After we emerge from it - probably through some major conflict - the world will be reborn anew, with very different and transformed values compared to what we have today.
Nah, tradition sucks. We're in a better world now.
The so called times are nothing but a fashion
But the historical time that established a tradition wasn't just a fashion? I wonder, in what year or decade did we finally get things right? Make America Great Again? When exactly was America great? 1776? 1865?
Nah, tradition sucks. We're in a better world now.
Yes, I know you think that, and there's nothing that can convince you otherwise, but that doesn't make it right. You're merely the expression of the spirit of the times.
Yes, I know you think that and there's nothing that can convince you otherwise, but that doesn't make it right. You're merely the expression of the spirit of the times.
And you're the expression of the spirit of conservative rubbish. ;)
If we hadn't gone there in the first place, we would probably not have upset the sunni / shi'ite applecart. When we invaded Iraq, I thought we would fail miserably because we had far too little expertise to understand, intervene, and peacefully reconstruct Iraq.
Everything could have gone better in hindsight. If we hadn't gone in, however, then Saddam would have continued trying to build a nuclear weapon, which would have made a conflict with Iran that much more likely and deadly a prospect, for we know that Iran had been and is still trying to build one itself. Iraq would have continued to harbor some of the most wanted terrorists in the world. Saddam perpetrated the Anfal genocide and there's nothing in his character that would have prevented him from attempting another genocide. We don't know if Saddam would attempt to invade other countries, causing much the same destabilization as our invasion. When Saddam died, there's no telling whether there would be a transfer of power without horrendous violence, as his sons weren't exactly the nicest people in the world. In sum, it's not at all clear that not invading would have been better for Iraq and/or the surrounding region. What is certain is that Iraq now has a better future once ISIS can be defeated and terrorism in general clamped down, owing to the fact that it has representative government, respect for rights built into its constitution, and the US as its strongest ally, economically and militarily.
It is very tempting to play military strategist like retired generals do on CNN. But that frames the entire situation as an NFL football game or something. Aerial attacks and ground game. Muscle and firepower. Calling it "win or lose" tilts the discussion unfairly. Then it follows that one must go for "victory", because who wants to lose, tie, or forfeit? Nobody! This is all top-notch brainwashing, because only the best for us. Iraq was raped, stolen, and assaulted. To justify that is like saying a woman was asking to be raped because they were loose or provocative... times about a million. Close your eyes for a minute and imagine your city being invaded and bombed. Drones flying overhead, people screaming, lifeless bodies in the middle of your street. Still feel like a game?
Iraq was raped, stolen, and assaulted. To justify that is like saying a woman was asking to be raped because they were loose or provocative... times about a million. Close your eyes for a minute and imagine your city being invaded and bombed. Drones flying overhead, people screaming, lifeless bodies in the middle of your street.
A fairly accurate description of Iraq under Saddam.
A fairly accurate description of Iraq under Saddam.
But he was a relative amateur, as evil and corrupt as he was. He was taking his good old time and lacked focus. He wasted too much time cultivating his image as the Good and Fearless Father. The situation needed trained professionals to destroy the country in a matter of months.
The situation needed trained professionals to destroy the country in a matter of months.
That you would impute such a motive to the US and its coalition allies tells me that a reasonable discussion with you on this topic is impossible. I don't have time for people with pathological hatreds such as you possess. Good day.
It is completely fine not to discuss this. FWIW, I can only stand to think about it for short periods of time. You may take your ball and go home. But I expected a little more from a philosopher and thinker (based on your many other posts) than a huffy claim of unpatriotism.
Well, if I was in charge, I'd demand obedience and military support from the Saudis who should actually be the police force of the Middle East, instead of the main state sponsor of terrorism. Furthermore, if countries like Iraq and Afghanistan cannot manage by themselves, I'd transform them into American colonies and install American governments with the full force of the military. I'd negotiate with the Ruskies to allow them to do similar in countries like Syria. Then the Middle East will slowly become colonized by larger and stronger forces who can control both their resources and ensure adequate government. Those resources (thinking about Iraqi oil and Afghan rare earth metals) should be sufficient to balance out the costs associated with policing them - and there should be no shame in taking them. American governments will certainly be better at preventing the terror and brutality that currently exists in those regions, as well as the radicalization that is currently going on.
This is at least a plan. I have some doubts. For one, how large an army would it take? How long would it take? How much would it cost? When we invaded Iraq, we didn't--at that point--know what to do with it. Whence will come the machiavellian shrewdness to delicately balance one batch of hateful bastards against its opposite batch of hateful bastards? It isn't that we can't apply machiavellian tactics, it's applying them effectively in a quite dissimilar culture.
this sort of approach requires an "all in" commitment and support of Americans, at least, and if the Russians are going to do it too, then Russians.
What is certain is that Iraq now has a better future once ISIS can be defeated and terrorism in general clamped down, owing to the fact that it has representative government, respect for rights built into its constitution, and the US as its strongest ally, economically and militarily.
The respect for rights built into the Iraqi constitution and 50¢ won't get you a cup of turkish coffee. Workable representative government, respect for rights, and all those good things require conditions Iraq hasn't had, doesn't have, probably won't have in the intermediate future.
Workable representative government, respect for rights, and all those good things require conditions Iraq hasn't had, doesn't have, probably won't have in the intermediate future.
... but is working to have at present, such work being hampered by terrorism. Iraq isn't destined to be a failed, terror-filled state, though pulling out prematurely did greatly increase the chances of that.
Well this would be for the generals to have their say in, I'd be in no measure to estimate it. But it's definitely one of those things that we must include amongst the costs.
The idea would obviously be to have a larger army force to control the region at first, and as things improved it should be transitioned to locally trained troops. Local people need to be trained by the American government and become part of a local military force that can, over time, displace American soldiers. As for how long it would take - it would be forever. Afghanistan would become part of America effectively. Some of the future leaders would be groomed from the local population, American businessmen and the like would be given incentives to go there and rebuild it, and America would have access to the resources AND the geostrategic position.
this sort of approach requires an "all in" commitment and support of Americans, at least, and if the Russians are going to do it too, then Russians.
That is true. The population of America has shown though that it's quite unstable with regards to war, which is also why American politicians are careful these days what they do. I doubt the population would agree.
The respect for rights built into the Iraqi constitution and 50¢ won't get you a cup of turkish coffee. Workable representative government, respect for rights, and all those good things require conditions Iraq hasn't had, doesn't have, probably won't have in the intermediate future.
Yes, that does seem to be the grim scenario. I honestly don't know if the average Iraqi citizen is happier/ better off now than they were ten years ago or fifteen years ago. Either way, it is perilous for just about everyone, including government employees.
Reply to Agustino How long were the British in India? A 150 years, counting the East India Company and the Raj. The British were economically and militarily exhausted after WWII, and no longer felt like defending the Empire against the independence drives (like Ghandi's). Was a century of the Raj long enough?
Probably not. The British had been there long enough to establish a reasonably high standard of civil government, railroads, and had not despoiled the country too badly (though that's a disputed estimation). Maybe another 50 years would have left them in better shape. Maybe partition could have been avoided, but... maybe not.
The British had, of course, gotten a good share of Africa and were definitely not there long enough. Plus, they had divided up ethnicities in such a way that once they did get independence there was a lot of internecine conflict. Had the British been in charge of their colonies longer, they might be doing better now.
ASIDE: Now before someone calls me a racist... The British were not beneficial for India or Kenya because they were white Europeans (even though being a white European is a fine thing too). They were good for India because they were more technically and civically sophisticated.
The idea would obviously be to have a larger army force to control the region at first
Well, why don't you get your ass over here and become an American Citizen. Then you could serve in this unilateral force and help bring the blessings of culture to the Afghan shit hole.
Reply to Bitter Crank Well I spoke with a few people from India while in UK, and the consensus was, quite surprisingly to me, that the British Empire actually helped India more than they harmed it. All the railroads and infrastructure was set by the British. So I think you're right.
Excellent response. Are you seriously asking me? I have very high standards so I might not be the one to gauge what a "proper gentleman" is.
If you are asking what traits I find a "proper gentleman" to possess the list is long but simple. Honesty is my obligation in life and so I feel that Honesty is a high priority in what makes up the character of a "proper gentleman". Humor, wisdom and a quick wit are also very important facets of a "proper gentleman". I believe sharp communication skills as well as a daring cunning linguist are very important to me and my intellect level. I believe a "proper gentleman" should be capable of handling empathetic, sympathetic and sometimes unreasonable feelings of others. My respect of a "proper gentleman" is pretty quick to tag if someone has "it" or not. But then occasionally I run into not only a "proper gentleman" but one that likes to play hard to tag.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 23, 2017 at 23:23#996620 likes
My Eaglet left my nest this morning for his NEXT step in his educational life. He called and is worried that he might fail the classes. I told him I have faith in him and that we will be up on his campus for "Family Day" so we spend the day with our Indian while we go through events together and then apart and then together. One of the events is called "Letting Go while Holding On" and if they have a question and answer period, it might make for a really long day!
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff What about a massive schlong? Surely that plays some role in what constitutes a proper gentleman. If not, I fear I might not be so proper after all.
Isn't 'It is what it is', put together the three laws of thought into one propositional attitude entity? It has all three properties of thought put into one proposition true for any modality and state of affairs that are observer dependent.
The law of identity, check. (It is what it is, ontology affirmed via self-identification)
The law of non-contradiction, check. (Either it is what it is or it isn't -> It is what it is -> thus affirming its own ontological status)
The law of excluded middle, check. (It is what it is, affirming its own state of affairs.)
What's not to like about something being what it is?
After all, it is what it is! (shouting quietly)
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 24, 2017 at 11:45#998990 likes
This is something I've been wondering about myself. Why aren't there any funny conservative comedians? I've seen some try, Milo tries, but there just aren't any good ones.
This is something I've been wondering about myself. Why aren't there any funny conservative comedians? I've seen some try, Milo tries, but there just aren't any good ones.
Is conservatism inherently unfunny?
No it's not inherently unfunny. One of my favorites is this guy:
Reply to Agustino Not funny. If you give [i]that[/I] as an attempt at an example of funny, then you should probably just give up trying. I got to around 4 minutes before I couldn't bear any more, and my facial expression remained flat throughout. Not even a slimmer of a smirk. Very lame.
And that audience! They're actually laughing. What a peculiar phenomenon, given that the guy on stage is not in the least bit funny.
Reply to Sapientia Huh. Apparently there's only one British comedian who's a declared Conservative voter: Geoff Norcott. Never heard of him, so he's probably rubbish.
Edit: actually, he lies. There's also Jim Davidson.
Reply to Sapientia Only meant to say that the other guy lied about being the only UK conservative comedian. Not saying Jim's funny. 'cause obviously he ain't. He's a conservative.
Please. I'm an example of a really funny conservative. I've got amazing material.
Yes, you are quite witty, but you're not very conservative (or traditionalist) on cultural issues, you're more of an economics conservative I'd say. More like libertarian.
Libertarianism might work as an ideal with a level playing field for all companies to start with while not abusing patent laws. But I digress, just as Capitalism has digressed monstrously over the past hundred years.
Then again some semi centrally planned economies work too.
I just like playing with words; but, I'd be a conservative if the people representing it were actual conservatives.
>:O I agree. There are some people who say they're conservatives and even religious but they're really not. Some even go to Church and then they are like "God, I hope in Heaven you will reward me greatly because here I sit while my friends are fucking super models every day, and I'm here all alone. You must reward me for bearing all this for you!" >:O >:O
I've been trying to locate this from a Christian forum I frequently visit and read (but don't participate in), and I've been unable to find it again. But there was this guy - it was so hilarious >:O >:O >:O - he was crying about how his friends have so much sex (with supermodels too!), and he cannot have any, in fact, he is forced to watch and God must surely reward him in heaven and make sure those unbelievers burn in hell! He was very adamant about them burning in hell to make up for their enjoyment in this life, which is currently so torturing him >:O
That guy was a shame and a disgrace upon conservatives and Christians.
I've been trying to locate this from a Christian forum I frequently visit and read (but don't participate in), and I've been unable to find it again. But there was this guy - it was so hilarious >:O >:O >:O - he was crying about how his friends have so much sex (with supermodels too!), and he cannot have any, in fact, he is forced to watch and God must surely reward him in heaven and make sure those unbelievers burn in hell! He was very adamant about them burning in hell to make up for their enjoyment in this life, which is currently so torturing him >:O
Sad thing is that suffering becomes a pretext for martyrdom and platitudes of righteousness.
I see nothing wrong with bearing one's own cross, as long as nobody has to clean up after you or hold hands with you together.
In Buddhism, the starting pretext is like something of the sort, *Look, you're gonna suffer, so just suck it up and stop suffering so much and help others bear the cross together*. Other religions will go out of their way to exact their suffering on others.
Well obviously I don't know he never mentioned. However, using my imagination, I'd think his friends etc. are talking about having sex, how awesome it is, etc. as many young guys do, which obviously makes him feel jealous because in his heart of hearts he values the same things that they value, and isn't actually a Christian with a different set of values. For example, his speech showed that he doesn't value chastity, he thinks it's a restraint, something that is difficult to bear, and that must be greatly rewarded (in heaven) in order to be worth undertaking. That's why he feels offended that others aren't chaste while he has to be. He effectively treats chastity as a burden instead of a value.
Sad thing is that suffering becomes a pretext for martyrdom and platitudes of righteousness.
I see nothing wrong with bearing one's own cross, as long as nobody has to clean up after you or hold hands with you together.
In Buddhism, the starting pretext is like something of the sort, *Look, you're gonna suffer, so just suck it up and stop suffering so much and help others bear the cross together*. Other religions will go out of their way to exact their suffering on others.
Hmm okay, but don't forget that Buddhism is meant to lead to the cessation of suffering and that Noble Truth must also be taken seriously. In other words, there is hope that suffering can end, and even more, it's to a large extent in our power to end it. "Be a light unto yourself" - what did Buddha say?
If you just acknowledge the first Noble Truth, that can lead to very problematic attempts at living, as it does for many Western Buddhists. For example, they say "life is suffering" so it doesn't matter if we get drunk like pigs and can't get up from the floor, because life is suffering! Then it becomes a justification for whatever behavior they engage in.
The deeper problem is that some people think they are religious if they have the outward appearance of religiosity - namely if they don't engage in promiscuous sex, if they go to Church, etc. etc. - but while that may be good as a start, it's certainly not being religious. For being religious is a cognitive switch, where your system of values simply changes. A religious person no longer values what the non-religious values.
So someone like the person in question who bares chastity as a great burden to be cast off in Heaven, when God will greatly reward them (by giving them 70 virgins to enjoy all for themselves, or probably something of the sort they imagine), is fooling themselves. They don't actually value chastity at all. They value sex, that's why they are lusting after it.
Well obviously I don't know he never mentioned. However, using my imagination, I'd think his friends etc. are talking about having sex, how awesome it is, etc. as many young guys do, which obviously makes him feel jealous because in his heart of hearts he values the same things that they value, and isn't actually a Christian with a different set of values. For example, his speech showed that he doesn't value chastity, he thinks it's a restraint, something that is difficult to bear, and that must be greatly rewarded (in heaven) in order to be worth undertaking. That's why he feels offended that others aren't chaste while he has to be. He effectively treats chastity as a burden instead of a value.
Your attack on all those who you claim aren't "real" Christians isn't terribly Christian. All (as in every single one) Christians fail to live up to the perfect Christian standard. All fail to align their personal behavior to their beliefs. All fail to fully understand the implications of their belief system. It is for that reason that all Christians struggle throughout their lives to maintain an acceptable standard of behavior, and it is why they continue to try to better understand what is required of them throughout their lives through study, prayer, and discussion. It would seem, therefore, that a true Christian (which I am most certainly not) would not walk around declaring others unworthy of the Christian name, but would instead offer positive encouragement to move them in the right direction and would open a discussion of what proper Christianity demands with an open mind to their views and their concerns(which is the polar opposite of what you do when you pontificate about righteousness).
That it is to say, if someone tells you that they are Christian, but you see them doing what you consider to be unchristian things, it would seem the compassionate position would be to engage them in a discussion of why you are concerned for them since they have professed an honest desire to adhere to Christianity. Such a discussion would require not you just telling them why they are wrong, but it would require that you listen to what they say, with fully consideration of their views, and a full acceptance that you might be terribly incorrect in your understanding of what Christianity specifically dictates.
Your tactless condemnation is an unfortunate element that pervades organized religion, not just Christianity. It is generally inhumane, and certainly not something I would ever seek out if I found myself downtrodden.
I would think that the concepts of humility and compassion I've discussed above would be integral parts of Christianity, and I would think they would be a good place to start when, you, my good physician, attempts to heal himself.
For being religious is a cognitive switch, where your system of values simply changes. A religious person no longer values what the non-religious values.
I wonder if this works the same way for conservatism as well, only with the unfortunate side effect of humor getting turned off with the cognitive switch.
hahaha it actually was quite funny! :P Not that I agree with the interpretation, but it's funny. This is better kind of humor. I thought you were going to send me Amy Schumer type of humor >:O
See @Hanover, you are much like Osho's father in terms of what you call conservatism. I'm not, and I wouldn't call that conservatism, and I think the existence of such types of conservatism is a problem in society. You value society a lot more than I do. I place very little value on society. That is why I have no problem with Trump not paying taxes >:O
But I am conservative on cultural and moral matters - mostly because these have a very big effect on the individual's soul, and his (or her) potential for spiritual development in life.
Before I address Hanover's soliloquy against Agustino, did any of you expect Alan Watts to write:
"But a meaningless whole cannot evolve a meaningful part; a Godless universe cannot provide a sufficient cause for a rational man. Ex nihilo nihil fit - you cannot get something out of nothing. To defend itself against the modern disintegration philosophy must return to the point from which it began to decay, to scholasticism, and the robust common sense of St. Thomas.For philosophy in the Humanist age has likewise been isolated from reality; it has been philosophy about philosophy, about its own method, mere epistemology - not philosophy about life. It has taken seriously the proposition that man has no certain knowledge of anything; it has questioned the very validity of sense perception and reason, and thus is in no position to laugh when the world view of modern man reaches total absurdity"
Reply to Agustino And now begins the strawman attacks on my brand of conservatism, as if there is any way you could possibly infer my thoughts on issues I've never discussed. It begins with your conclusion that I'm purely a libertarian, that I am atheistic, and that I have no concern for spirituality or the human soul. In short, it will be like all conversations with you. You'll attribute a position antithetical to your unnuanced, unwashed ideologically driven position to someone, and then you'll self righteously attack it as short sighted and heretical.
How about this: respond only to what I said, which is there is nothing Christian about your sanctimonious condemnation of those who vary in belief and behavior from your childlike views of the world.
all Christians struggle throughout their lives to maintain an acceptable standard of behavior, and it is why they continue to try to better understand what is required of them throughout their lives through study, prayer, and discussion.
Yes, by all means, you are correct here. Though I'm skeptical about the "all" part, let's say most Christians, myself included. I wouldn't include the Saints in this category though.
It would seem, therefore, that a true Christian (which I am most certainly not) would not walk around declaring others unworthy of the Christian name, but would instead offer positive encouragement to move them in the right direction and would open a discussion of what proper Christianity demands with an open mind to their views and their concerns(which is the polar opposite of what you do when you pontificate about righteousness).
So a true Christian would allow those who aren't true Christians to think they really are true Christians, and therefore give them a hand in self-deception since that's the path to Heaven?
That it is to say, if someone tells you that they are Christian, but you see them doing what you consider to be unchristian things, it would seem the compassionate position would be to engage them in a discussion of why you are concerned for them since they have professed an honest desire to adhere to Christianity.
The two underlined statements are contradictory. If they tell me they are Christian it's one thing. If they say they'd like to be Christians that's a different thing.
Such a discussion would require not you just telling them why they are wrong, but it would require that you listen to what they say, with fully consideration of their views,
Yes, and if I was a member of that forum, I would have posted a quote of Spinoza and asked the member in question if he considers what his friends get - lots of casual sex - to be a good thing. Then we would have had a discussion about it. Jewish religion takes lust to be a somewhat valuable and natural thing when properly directed. They'd say without lust people wouldn't get married, form families, etc. So they are your type of conservative ;) - NOT my type. Many Christians (unfortunately) also take that position. But I think Christian religion actually takes a much more serious view of lust, because even to look upon a woman with lust becomes a sin. Christianity seems to seek to uproot evil from the ground up, whereas Judaism, at least in the form it is understood in today, seeks to make good of the evil, without eliminating the evil. Indeed, they take the evil tendency in man to be absolutely necessary, and ultimately also good if properly directed.
and a full acceptance that you might be terribly incorrect in your understanding of what Christianity specifically dictates.
No, on this issue I cannot be "terribly incorrect". That is much like saying that I'd be "terribly incorrect" in whether or not the internal angles of a triangle in Euclidean space add up to 180 degrees. This type of Cartesian doubt is fallacious - one must have grounds for doubt, one cannot doubt in the absence of grounds for such doubt - it would be irrational. And it's very important not to confuse humility for being equivalent to this kind of self-doubt.
Your tactless condemnation is an unfortunate element that pervades organized religion, not just Christianity. It is generally inhumane, and certainly not something I would ever seek out if I found myself downtrodden.
You know, if we lived during Medieval times, I would agree with you. I'd be the first to protest the inhumanity of religious condemnation. But now the situation is much different. The pendulum has swung too much to the other side. I'm just rebalancing it at the moment.
I would think that the concepts of humility and compassion I've discussed above would be integral parts of Christianity, and I would think they would be a good place to start when, you, my good physician, attempts to heal himself.
Humility and compassion are indeed important, never said they're not. But humility and compassion are two swords. They are used aggressively - on the offense - not on the defense. A lot of morality in our modern age has been corrupted. Remember Socrates. He claimed to know nothing - but it wasn't a defensive "I know nothing". It wasn't the "I know nothing" of an ignorant man. It was the ironic (and strategic) "I know nothing" of one who knows.
As for healing yourself, in my opinion, Christianity takes the view that you cannot heal yourself, it is by grace that you are healed. You can open yourself up for grace through asceticism, spiritual practice, prayer, study and the like. But you cannot perform the movement yourself - all you can do is surrender to Christ.
And now begins the strawman attacks on my brand of conservatism, as if there is any way you could possibly infer my thoughts on issues I've never discussed. It begins with your conclusion that I'm purely a libertarian, that I am atheistic, and that I have no concern for spirituality or the human soul. In short, it will be like all conversations with you. You'll attribute a position antithetical to your unnuanced, unwashed ideologically driven position to someone, and then you'll self righteously attack it as short sighted and heretical.
Wow, relax. I am pointing out that us two have a very different understanding of conservatism, and people should not put us in the same category (as Mongrel more than once did for example). I am definitely NOT the type of conservative you are. And I'm saying this based on what I've read through the forums of your posts, including your positions in an old politics thread we had.
I have not claimed you're purely a libertarian, that you're atheistic, that you have no concern for spirituality, etc. etc.
How about this: respond only to what I said, which is there is nothing Christian about your sanctimonious condemnation of those who vary in belief and behavior from your childlike views of the world.
I have, but that response has zero to do with what I was saying about your type of conservatism. Those are two separate issues, I hope you're not confusing the two discussions and treating it as one thing.
Matthew 18:2-3:Jesus called a little child to stand among them. “Truly I tell you", He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
For being religious is a cognitive switch, where your system of values simply changes. A religious person no longer values what the non-religious values.
Reply to praxis Okay watched it (at 2x the speed, so no stress that it's 8mins and I answer faster). I've read Harris before so I'm aware of all this and the one thing he puts his finger on is that the is/ought gap is artificial. And he's absolutely right. Aristotle has said this thousands of years ago. So he's absolutely correct that morality is objective.
Now despite his work in "Waking Up" and other books he still has a very truncated idea of what real spirituality means, and how religions are helpful. This prevents him from judging objective morality accurately. But he's definitely one of the smarter atheists out there - the same cannot be said about the philistine Richard Dawkins.
For being religious is a cognitive switch, where your system of values simply changes. A religious person no longer values what the non-religious values.
This isn't to be taken to mean that morality isn't objective. But rather that it is possible that what you perceive to be morality on a feeling level does not match with what you perceive to be morality on a rational level. For example, it's very possible to think casual sex is wrong, and yet still desire it. By a cognitive switch, I mean that switch by which this passionate side of the soul is brought in alignment with the rational side. In this case, you'd no longer desire casual sex, and your passions will be brought in alignment with your reason.
Reply to Agustino I interpreted your claim to essentially be that a non-religious person lacks the means to change their values from being materialistic to being less so, or not all all. Harris suggests there are other means, and even that science can be such a means. You agree that Hume's law is artificial. So if this switch isn't exclusive to the religious person then it can't define a religious person.
Harris suggests there are other means, and even that science can be such a means.
I disagree that science can be such a means for a cognitive shift of the kind I'm talking about. I also disagree that spiritual practices taken out of their religious context (meditation taken out of the religious framework of Buddhism for example) can be effective.
I disagree that science can be such a means for a cognitive shift of the kind I'm talking about.
Are we talking about a shift as I've briefly described, essentially shifting from materialistic values to values that are more cooperative in nature or that are focused on the improvement of life for all, or at least a wider group, of sentient beings? If not, please describe the nature of the value shift as you see it.
I also disagree that spiritual practices taken out of their religious context (meditation taken out of the religious framework of Buddhism for example) can be effective.
essentially shifting from materialistic values to values that are more cooperative in nature or that are focused on the improvement of life for all, or at least a wider group, of sentient beings?
No. That is still materialistic. More enlightened materialism doesn't cease to be materialism. Materialism means utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is not spiritual.
Largely because most of the evidence we have suggests that the best results from such practices are achieved within religious settings and contexts. There's a reason why you don't have secular ascetics - for the most part. In addition, the whole purpose of religion and spirituality is to be wholistic, you cannot snatch a practice from there and apply it howsoever you want, because it's no longer the same practice.
No. That is still materialistic. More enlightened materialism doesn't cease to be materialism. Materialism means utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is not spiritual.
It's not materialistic in the sense that it's concerned with matters of the spirit, such as meaning, happiness or the reduction of suffering in the world, etc., and not with acquiring wealth, power, or other self-centered goals.
I've already done so: [described the nature of the value shift as you see it]
By a cognitive switch, I mean that switch by which this passionate side of the soul is brought in alignment with the rational side.
You've described an instance, not the nature of the shift. This is a problem because it allows an individual to rationalize the expression of their passions, rather than aligning their passions to their reasoned values. Indeed this is a problem that we frequently see in religious circles.
most of the evidence we have suggests that the best results from such practices are achieved within religious settings and contexts
Alright let's use your example, meditation taken out of the religious framework of Buddhism. I'm not aware of any studies that indicate Buddhist meditation techniques performed in a secular environment show poorer results than those performed within a traditional Buddhist environment.
There's a reason why you don't have secular ascetics - for the most part.
I imagine it's the same reason you don't see religious ascetics, for the most part. In any case, asceticism can be a form of spiritual materialism. This is a well-known concept within Buddhism.
In addition, the whole purpose of religion and spirituality is to be wholistic, you cannot snatch a practice from there and apply it howsoever you want, because it's no longer the same practice.
What could be more holistic than being concerned with the well-being of all sentient beings? This is what Harris talks about in the video.
"Science rushes headlong, without selectivity, without “taste,” at whatever is knowable, in the blind desire to know all at any cost. Philosophical thinking, on the other hand, is ever on the scent of those things which are most worth knowing, the great and the important insights. Now the concept of greatness is changeable in the realm of morality as well as in that of aesthetics. And so philosophy starts by legislating greatness." - Nietzsche
(Y)
You realize that the movie is satirical about masking fragility with excessive masculinity and homoromaticism? Buddy is a projected response to the feeling of powerlessness, that externalizes the feelings of weakness, and vulnerability. You're the snowflake, surely not me.
That's from Pumping Iron, isn't it? I remember Arnie saying weight lifting is like cumming all the time. Gotta take it from Arnie, self-improvement IS masturbation.
You can of course take fight club at face value, and agree with everything Tyler says, but you should also understand that it is actually mocking those ideas.
Look at what it does to you. Get's you elected to be Governor of California, the sixth or now seventh largest economy in the world. Hell, it can almost get you to the presidency of the United States. If Arnie was born in the US, he'd probably make it to the Presidency, but Trump made that redundant.
Because it's wish fulfillment. It's fantasy. We want that shit to be true -- but if you actually believed fantasies, then you'd be insane, like the protagonist.
So, is it society that sublimates said ego ideal insane or the character who realizes it? Nietzsche would call him the most rational and sane of all human beings, being the one who can realize it, no? I mean he get's thrown a lot here and there on this forum.
[quote=tiffie]Fortunately none of the above accusations come as a surprise to me as I have seen evidence, personally witnessed, Joe's abuse of power in 'getting back' at anyone who stands up to show resistance to his unlawful attacks. It bothers me greatly when I see people intimidated, people like ME, who are unwilling to stand up for the person in his crosshairs, for fear of retaliation by the Sheriff.
No one who witnessed a neighbor's civil rights being violated was able (made the choice) to speak out about what had happened, the way in which it happened and how it could have been any one of us he wanted revenge on. What was really intimidating, in fact mind blowing, was that the person who's civil rights were violated, was one of his own. He brought down the force of the law on a woman who had served as an officer, on his force for 30 yrs and had retired on a ranch up the way.
No trust in the man or the department he runs. Period. He runs the most corrupt department in the country. No, really. What he has done to the Latino population in Arizona is embarrassing as well as dysfunctional as they come. His M*A*S*H* unit for animals takes in millions in donations for the care of confiscated animals, yet there is no account for how much money has been donated and where that money has been spent. No accountability for the money gained in the sale of those animals if they are not returned to the citizens. He is the definition of hustle.
I would say that he lines his pockets with the lives of those he exploits but I will let Federal Justice Murray Snow make the final decision on Joe's lawbreaking ways finally being exposed and there is a chance that a great many Phoenicians will feel validated and if not? Go figure, we ARE talking about Joe, ya know?[/quote]
Well, whaddaya know. He got pardoned even though he practically got a slap on the wrist with a 6 month prison term.@ArguingWAristotleTiff
Just doing my own 2 min. google fact checking on a phone, Mexico isn't on the top ten list of countries for a high crime rate. Don't know where it falls globally, but #2 or 3? No, he's lying as usual.
The wall will stop drugs from entering the country? Most come in through official checkpoints on commercial and passenger vehicles. A wall won't stop that. There's also ultralights, drones, cannons, catapults, tunnels, etc.
The wall is just an expensive (to the American tax payer) symbol and political tool.
Deleted UserAugust 29, 2017 at 18:21#1009370 likes
The wall will stop drugs from entering the country? Most come in through official checkpoints on commercial and passenger vehicles. A wall won't stop that. There's also ultralights, drones, cannons, catapults, tunnels, etc.
Interesting points, there is reason for concern here, as those do pose somewhat of a threat. I think the wall would make it more difficult, perhaps if only a mental blockade. But to be honest, drones and ultralights have to go through many legalities also during international movement, and could be deterred also. I think more of an issue is aliens proceeding illegally. As for Mexico not being high on crime rate, I think it would be wise to reconsider that statement; to not judge entirely from statistics, but rather from other factors playing into it. Due to the extreme poverty rate, how many crimes do you think are properly reported? Do you actually think that those living under the terrifying reign of the cartels would risk more of their family and friend's lives to report?
As for Mexico not being high on crime rate, I think it would be wise to reconsider that statement; to not judge entirely from statistics, but rather from other factors playing into it. Due to the extreme poverty rate, how many crimes do you think are properly reported? Do you actually think that those living under the terrifying reign of the cartels would risk more of their family and friend's lives to report?
Checking again on a desktop, it appears that Mexico is #2 in murder. The USA appears to be on par with or surpassing Mexico in many other types of crime. But we shouldn't trust statistics. Perhaps victims in other countries or the U.S. under report as well, right?
*Notice* - A banned member has been rejoining under different names. If discussions are disappearing, it's likely because they are his postings or repostings.
*Notice* - A banned member has been rejoining under different names. If discussions are disappearing, it's likely because they are his postings or repostings.
Is it this one? And is he by any chance the same as John Harris / Thanatos Sand? >:O
I understand the point of using drones and ultralights, rather than regular aircraft, is the ease in which these legalities can be bypassed.
As a pilot, I see that drones and ultralights do have many regulations once a certain size, altitude, ect, is reached. If the craft is small enough to get around such, then it becomes useless to move significant amounts, as the laws of physics and aerodynamics must apply. Aircraft of that sort are more of toys than practical working machines, very inefficient.
Checking again on a desktop, it appears that Mexico is #2 in murder. The USA appears to be on par with or surpassing Mexico in many other types of crime. But we shouldn't trust statistics. Perhaps victims in other countries or the U.S. under report as well, right?
Yes. I can speak from experience here. I see massive amounts of crime go unreported in the US. Statistics only say so much.
The fear tactic Trump was using in the speech centered around violence associated with drug traffickers, if you recall. Not that the average alien can't be a "bad hombre."
As a pilot, I see that drones and ultralights do have many regulations once a certain size, altitude, ect, is reached. If the craft is small enough to get around such, then it becomes useless to move significant amounts, as the laws of physics and aerodynamics must apply. Aircraft of that sort are more of toys than practical working machines, very inefficient.
This baby will carry 40 pounds, and will "easily fit it into a backpack and place it back together with no hassle." A border wall drug smugglers dream machine. X-)
40 lbs of cocaine, for instance, is worth over 1 million dollars.
This baby will carry 40 pounds, and will "easily fit it into a backpack and place it back together with no hassle." A border wall drug smugglers dream machine. X-)
And do you think that will really be invisible on radar and avionics?
Many people I know have seen drug dealing without reporting it, among other things.
Lol yeah I agree, if all drugs cases would be reported today, and everyone involved punished according to the law, I don't think we'd have sufficient space in our prisons lol :P
Deleted UserAugust 30, 2017 at 17:35#1011180 likes
Reply to Agustino Yeah, but there is a lot of fear also with reporting it, as some members of the group may find out who it was that reported them. So it is a very difficult situation. :(
And do you think that will really be invisible on radar and avionics?
Avionics?
You realize that the border is well over a thousand miles long. Perhaps there will be a fleet of anti-drone drones on the new wall with fancy avionics? That'll cost Mexico a pretty penny.
Reply to Agustino This is really not a laughing matter. The only thing the 'war on drugs' accomplished is putting more people, mostly black and brown, in prison.
Deleted UserAugust 30, 2017 at 17:42#1011230 likes
You realize that the border is well over a thousand miles long. Perhaps there will be a fleet of anti-drone drones on the new wall with fancy avionics? That'll cost Mexico a pretty penny.
Sigh...all aircraft by 2020 in the US with the ability to operate in Class C airspace are required to have radar capability. We don't need anything fancier than regular pilots flying regular planes to locate them...
This is really not a laughing matter. The only thing the 'war on drugs' accomplished is putting more people, mostly black and brown, in prison.
So what's the problem with that? And why is their skin color relevant? Maybe if a prison sentence was more certain when dealing with drugs, less people would be involved with them.
Deleted UserAugust 30, 2017 at 17:48#1011250 likes
The only thing the 'war on drugs' accomplished is putting more people, mostly black and brown, in prison.
>:O >:O >:O Seriously, that is hilarious! None of the people that I know that do dope are "black" or "brown". It is very, very rare for a person of either "color" where I live to go to prison.
Sigh...all aircraft by 2020 in the US with the ability to operate in Class C airspace are required to have radar capability. We don't need anything fancier than regular pilots flying regular planes to locate them...
Okay, a regular pilot detects something not much bigger than a large bird flying over the wall. What then? I imagine that it only takes a few minutes to fly a drone over a 30 foot wall.
Okay, a regular pilot detects something not much bigger than a large bird flying over the wall. What then? I imagine that it only takes a few minutes to fly a drone over a 30 foot wall.
Pilots are not blind and stupid... personally I have never flown internationally, but there is a LOT more regulations than what you are seeing with crossing borders. I'm not going to explain it, because it will take a long time.
Indeed, you see "massive" amounts of drug trafficking, and none of it by Blacks or Hispanics, yet those incarcerated on drug charges are disproportionately black and brown.
Deleted UserAugust 30, 2017 at 18:10#1011330 likes
Reply to praxis Drug dealing is not racist. They don't seem to care what "color" you are if you have dope; you could be a Purple People Eater and it wouldn't matter. If the point is to keep aliens out, then I don't care what you look like. Don't encroach on other people or their property, and others won't hate you for that. It's not about racism.
I'm not going to explain it, because it will take a long time.
I have a pretty good imagination so I'll try to picture it myself. Random pilot flying near the border detects a small object flying over the border wall. Her avionics inform her that this object is a drone. Why would a drone be flying over the border wall, she asks herself. It must be drug smuggling! She calls the border patrol and reports the drug drone, supplying coordinates. The border agent calls the closest heli-outpost to the coordinates and they immediately launch a DDIH (drug drone interceptor helicopter). The outpost is 50 miles from the coordinates so it takes the helicopter pilot about 30 minutes to get there. The pilot arrives at the coordinates and sees some tire tracks leading to a highway. Aha!, the pilot exclaims. The pilot alerts the highway patrol that there's a vehicle on the highway carrying drugs. The highway patrol creates roadblocks in a 20 mile radius and searches every car for drugs. After 43 searches a drug detection dog finds 30 pounds of cocaine. Wow!
Deleted UserAugust 30, 2017 at 18:40#1011390 likes
Why would a drone be flying over the border wall, she asks herself. It must be drug smuggling!
I think it would be illegal to fly drones over the border of a sovereign country without its permissions anyway...
The idea of the wall is that it will make the transportation network a lot more difficult. People not only need to get over the wall, but they also need someone at the right place, at the right time to be on the other side waiting for the shipment. In addition, there can very well be cameras in/on the wall, making it easier to identify criminals.
Deleted UserAugust 30, 2017 at 18:52#1011430 likes
Most drugs come into the country via commercial and passenger vehicles. A wall won't make that any more difficult.
Do those vehicles have to pass through the border? Is it easier to regulate and watch over commercial vehicles if they have to pass through fixed points, where law enforcement agents can stop and verify them? They would no longer be able to pass through illegally.
Well, just to start with, because border agents will know there's no risk of criminals bypassing the border through unofficial points, so their energy will be just on the official checkpoints. In addition, constructing the wall will enable additional monitoring facilities to be placed on the wall (cameras) which can be monitored and managed from the checkpoints.
Deleted UserAugust 30, 2017 at 20:05#1011650 likes
Well, just to start with, because border agents will know there's no risk of criminals bypassing the border through unofficial points, so their energy will be just on the official checkpoints.
So you're claiming that border agents are currently low energy (lazy?) because official checkpoints can be bypassed, even though most of the drugs are passing right under their noses?
But again, there would still be a significant risk with ultralights, drones, tunnels, catapults, cannons, etc. Probably enough to keep the agents lazy, yes?
So you're claiming that border agents are currently low energy (lazy?) because official checkpoints can be bypassed, even though most of the drugs are passing right under their noses?
No. I'm claiming their energy isn't focused just on checkpoints at the moment.
But again, there would still be a significant risk with ultralights, drones, tunnels, catapults, cannons, etc. Probably enough to keep the agents lazy, yes?
Those are very very difficult to implement successfully.
VagabondSpectreAugust 30, 2017 at 20:25#1011690 likes
So like. The wall, eh?
We Canadians don't know much about walls, but we do know about big wide open spaces!
The US-Mexico border happens to be a big wide open space, over 3000 Kilometers worth (that's 2000 miles for you stubborn/luddite Americans). Do you know how hard it would be to actually build a wall that long? Do you know how much it would cost to police it with agents along every mile, drones, monitored cameras, and helicopters flying up and down the thing for effect?
A wall doesn't work if there aren't guards to keep watch, or else ladder technology comes and foils everything. Even with walls, dogs, cameras, the whole kit and kaboodle, infamous tunnel technology can also fairly directly foil even the tallest of walls. Immigrants don't bother with walls but if it's drugs you're after then the outlook is grim.
Bush Jr actually tried to build a wall too. The secure fence act of 2006 resulted in about 700 miles of chain link fencing being constructed. It ended up costing well over two billion for just 700 miles of a not-so-tough fence. Could you imagine how much more it would cost to build a thirty foot high new wall of China such as Trump has described?
According to the congressional research service, illegal migrants simply found new routes, and so the wall didn't even accomplish what it was supposed to...
But let's pretend that a wall could be built, Mexico would pay for it, and it would keep all the Mexicans out. What then? How does America profit from this?
Is Mexico the only place drugs enter the U.S from? Must Mexican drugs cross the border? Are hard [s]working[/s] Americans going to get their jobs back from the bad hombres?
I'd go the drone route myself. Virtually impossible to get caught.
High speed. Long range. Large payload. And this technology will improve rapidly. Could probably 3D print a stealth version by the time the wall is built.
Thank fuck that's over. Had to remove whole aisles worth of stock, counting and scanning everything as we go, then build them into pallets to be sent away. We've had to do this until the entire massive warehouse-size store is done. The tiling section in particular was very hard work because of all the heavy lifting involved.
But now it's all over and done with. Three consecutive days, 12 hour nightshifts, 6pm to 6am, working our arses off. Now I have a week off, then a ton of training to do.
Those are very very difficult to implement successfully.
Err... you do realise this is a multi-billion industry? A little R&D towards this sort of thing is really not much of an issue, which is why these things actually already happen:
Reply to Benkei I will do, I've been very busy, that's why I still haven't replied to your older Post-Truth topic reply. I will probably get that done today, my apologies!
I will do, I've been very busy, that's why I still haven't replied to your older Post-Truth topic reply. I will probably get that done today, my apologies!
Don't worry. Ignore those; we'll probably get around those points in the other thread as well and I have limited time too. As rude as it is in real life, internet conversations can break down in the middle of a sentence. 8-)
40 lbs of cocaine, for instance, is worth over 1 million dollars.
Cocaine is not what is coming up from Mexico, liquid Meth is only secondary to Heroin and you can make truckloads more off of Heroin than you can Cocaine. Heroin goes for about $4 a smack here in Arizona and is easier to get ahold of than Cigarettes for kids under 18. Despite the acknowledged and printed numbers, one of my sons attended a solid upper class public high school and at least 70% of the kids are doing at least one drug, usually Marijuana or Heroin which is why my younger son attended a Charter School instead.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 31, 2017 at 13:30#1013570 likes
The idea of the wall is that it will make the transportation network a lot more difficult. People not only need to get over the wall, but they also need someone at the right place, at the right time to be on the other side waiting for the shipment. In addition, there can very well be cameras in/on the wall, making it easier to identify criminals.
My dear Agustino, there really is no need for that level of logistics at the border or up through Arizona or California because the pay offs for clear passage are ten times what that sworn protectorate earns in a year. Many of those caught at the border are actually a diversion from what is going on ---->> over there.
Don't worry. Ignore those; we'll probably get around those points in the other thread as well and I have limited time too. As rude as it is in real life, internet conversations can break down in the middle of a sentence. 8-)
Haha, I haven't ignored them! ;) But that new thread will require a bigger post sometime, a post which doesn't simply criticise what Wayfarer says lol.
He wanted to be a special cookie, but all cookies are equal here in this Marxist wonderland. So, he didn't fit in. Unlike you, who I know loves it here. Or, maybe he wanted to be banned.
TGW was banned because he refused to stop writing in text speak.
Wow, what an utterly trivial reason to ban someone. I was planning on giving him an update on our last PM discussion sometime soon, but now I can't, all because he had the audacity to write a few posts without capital letters in a highly specialized thread topic he and three other people were contributing to. He was clearly writing from his phone, perhaps because he had no regular computer access for some reason, and only contributed to that thread. I don't see why that warrants banning him.
I might just quit this forum, as this royally pisses me off. The moderating here is atrocious, hasn't gotten better, and has now begun to end online friendships I have cultivated.
Equality isn't very fair, but Marxism isn't about equality, but fairness, I will point out. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need, and all that.
I just had a look at his posts, and I was one of the last people to speak with him on the forums, and I didn't find his answers to be anything that inappropriate at all... The very last post of his does look bad, but the previous ones are decent.
Nobody's going to get banned for writing a few badly written messages from their phone. What will get you banned is if you're politely asked to follow a rule (any rule) and you flat out refuse and continue to do what you were asked not to.
The point is not simply that he was doing that, but that he was asked to stop, and refused, not respecting authority, which is usually a far bigger deal than any particular infraction...
As I said, we are not going to make a separate set of guidelines for every poster. No special cookies. If we did that, we would be attacked with even more vitriol.
Or, less colourfully, TGW was banned because he refused to stop writing in text speak.
I had to research to find out what this text speak was... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Textspeak
Now that I know, I would have to say that these last posts:
i demonstrate by example; you think no more clearly about 'the whole' for having studied philosophy, nor has anyone i'm aware of.
yes, we recognize that 'it's raining' is true iff it's raining. this has nothing to do with verification.
no it can't.
what are the truth conditions for "it's raining?" surely this is true iff it's raining. but as we just agreed, it's raining iff water is falling from the sky, and as we just showed, this has nothing to do with verification.
no, you don't stop thinking, you go study whatever it is you want to know about. philosophy has nothing to contribute to the special sciences.
philosophy doesn't help with that.
Now many of these were in reply to me, and I found nothing wrong with them... I was actually quite enjoying our conversation.
There is now something wrong with this post:
may of the things ppl car emost deeply about are things they don't have any way of figuring out. so in answer to your question, everyone
i mean just a beyond obvious example, we have no way of figuring out if the abrahamic god exists (let's say), but the matter is of extreme importance for one's fate after death
But that seems to be an exception. I would agree with the ban if most of his posts were like this, but I don't see that they were...
Reply to Baden So? The rule is silly. I've seen plenty of grammatically illiterate posts on this forum that didn't result in bans. Do you honestly look at individual posts with a fine tooth comb for grammatical and/or syntactical abnormalities and then PM people about them? I think not.
I'm not suggesting any course of action, just inquiring, and highlighting characterizations. Equality also implies no authority hierarchies that arbitrarily decide on rules, and whether or not to change or modify them. There are in fact very special snowflakes, just not on this level, though that's why I'd much much prefer being on this level. I get to speak without much contradiction.
No, you're being silly. So, I think this is about the third time: If any poster is asked to follow any guideline and flat out refuses and continues to do the thing they were asked not to do (whatever that is) they will be banned no matter who they are. And don't pretend that if we didn't do that we wouldn't be attacked by people like you who would accuse us of favoritism and so on etc.
I thought TGW was one of the best posters here in terms of philosophical knowledge. So, in a sense he was a special snowflake. But not in a way that would get him special treatment. And I presume he knew that. Hence, I suspect he wanted to be banned. But who knows.
Reply to Baden You're being silly, having now failed to respond to what I said. Lots of people post grammatically illiterate messages here. Do you contact all of the people who do and ask them to stop?
The point is that it had nothing to do with rules, but in not willing to yield to being ruled. In not accepting the power structure. Again, not suggesting this should be any way, or any course of action was mistaken. Just pointing out the actual reason.
This is an English language forum on an academic topic. Posts should display an acceptable level of English with regard to grammar, punctuation and layout. This goes for both native and non-native speakers (although we're likely to be more sympathetic when judging the writing of the latter).
Where does it say that "text speak" is against the site guidelines? Is there someplace here on the forum where text speak is explicitly defined and mandated as worthy of a ban?
Nobody's going to get banned for writing a few badly written messages from their phone.What will get you banned is if you're politely asked to follow a rule (any rule) and you flat out refuse and continue to do what you were asked not to.
My man was too cool for school. This is why the best are never at the top.
I remember reading some ancient greek dude talking about how people complain about all of the shaft you gots to work to make it anywhere in society. Can't go to fancy balls unless you're willing to work the shaft. His answer was "don't go then".
Reply to Baden I've noticed posts of that nature on this forum for years. It's not something I keep a running list of. However, I'm suggesting that, for you to be consistent here, you would have to keep such a list, and thus be able to document whether you have asked other people to improve their punctuation and if that resulted in reform on the part of the poster or their being banned - otherwise your targeting of TGW is arbitrary. I suspect that you've never called anyone else out in a PM and threatened them with a ban for bad grammar or punctuation.
Reply to Baden This doesn't include "text speak" as you've not even defined what "text speak" is. Furthermore, having just now gone through recent TGW posts, why is anything that he has written worthy of a ban? I'm understanding everything that he's writing. The only thing he hasn't done is capitalize I, end every sentence with a period.
Nobody's going to get banned for writing a few badly written messages from their phone. What will get you banned is if you're politely asked to follow a rule (any rule) and you flat out refuse and continue to do what you were asked not to.
And I objectively wouldn't care if you continued to post like this indefinitely. "But muh rules." Fine, have your rules, and selectively apply them. But don't think you're not going to be called out for doing so.
Why on earth would we target TGW above anyone else? I think if he is reading this now, even he would be laughing.
He could be laughing, and I strongly suspect he lost interest in the forum. Before the Davidson thread, he had been on a multi-month long hiatus. That being said, his being banned cuts off my and anyone else's ability to get in touch with him if we wanted to. You could have simply deleted the posts that offended you and left it at that. I doubt he would care if you did that.
Reply to Baden And I guess it's the third time I've stated that there isn't a rule against text speak. You've banned TGW for not doing what you want even though what you want isn't explicitly a guideline or rule.
Here's another thing I think. You're not actually as paranoid as you make yourself out to be. And at some point you'll realize the idea that we would selectively try to ban one of our best posters by deliberately singling him out on an issue like this is ridiculous from just about every angle.
Here's another thing I think. You're not actually as paranoid as you make yourself out to be. And at some point you'll realize the idea that we would selectively try to ban one of our best posters by deliberately singling him out on an issue like this is ridiculous from just about every angle.
What's more ridiculous is banning someone because he wasn't writing like you wanted him to.
Your English is great and if you had a problem with it and we asked you politely to deal with that, I suspect you wouldn't give us the finger.
Getting told to fuck off is usually what happens when someone brings up a nonissue. I'm honestly not surprised that TGW blew you off seeing as he's someone who earnestly and respectfully engages in philosophical discussion. Oh well, I didn't know that every I had to be capitalized in order to discuss philosophy with my peers.
Trump gets re-elected because he did what he said he would do.
Well, assuming that he could build the wall without going tens of billions over budget, I don't think this is enough to get him re-elected...
Trump could start every conference with "we built the wall" and it still wouldn't create enough hype to offset his actual personality.
I predicted impeachment/resignation since before he even got elected because I didn't think he or the nation could take 4 years of cirque d'orange. Now that it's abundantly clear the circus is still warming up - that Trump will not stop being Trump - I'm more confident than ever that he won't make the full term.
Right now I estimate he will resign in lieu of more scandal and possible impeachment in about a years time (or less). Once the national catharsis subsides, the American public is going to yearn for intellectualism to re-enter politics...
Yes, he told me that in future rather than making posters follow the same rules, just let some posters do whatever they want and then all the other posters will be happy and not attack the mod team. I'm considering his advice carefully.
Everyone is all like his buds, but don't really know him at all. I remember when he was in the unmod section, and people were like you should totes sock-puppet it, and he was all like "but everyone would recognize me!", so he did it, and just basically reworded his exact positions, and no one but me even recognized him. He must have been so disappointed... :(
We're dispositionally quite different, so I don't think that he thought much of me until after that, but then took me more seriously. I pm'd him and told him I was tellin' too, and then was all like jk.
Everyone is all like his buds, but don't really know him at all.
Exactly. And neither did I really but he was one of the most knowledgeable posters here and one of the best writers when he wanted to be. His behavior was deliberate. Unlike some others I can mention, he knew exactly what he was doing. Good luck to him anyway wherever he is.
That's clear. Attempting to dispute the rules, or say they are not easy to understand or find some loophole I imagine totally would have worked if he did it, but I imagine he took a more "fuck your rules" attitude instead.
Yes, but for him I doubt it would be that simple. He's not a brainless rebel. I imagine more a calculated exit. Moving on to something else maybe. Who knows?
Being intelligent doesn't mean that you aren't rebellious, or passionate. In my experience it usually means that you're more rebellious or passionate. I doubt that it was suicide by mod, that suggests a lack of fortitude and resolve to me, which I don't think characterize intelligence that well.
Don't blame the rules, or say he wanted it, take the responsibility. Take it all.
Alright, I'll try again because maybe you really don't understand. You won't be banned for making mistakes in grammar or punctuation. You will be banned for deliberately writing posts in text speak onlyif you also refuse to stop doing that when asked. OK?
And that, conspiracy theories notwithstanding, is because we are more interested in maintaining the integrity of the site as a whole than the interests of any one member.
Nobody's going to get banned for writing a few badly written messages from their phone. What will get you banned is if you're politely asked to follow a rule (any rule) and you flat out refuse and continue to do what you were asked not to.
That is true if you only take into account what happens at the very top, amongst what - 7 people who have been mods here, and many of them also at old PF :D
Reply to Baden If text speak is not explicitly against the rules then you don't have much foot to stand on when asking someone to stop if what you want to stop isn't a rule.
I think the matter is rather that you think he was trolling you because he refused to comply.
If text speak is not explicitly against the rules then you don't have much foot to stand on when asking someone to stop if what you want to stop isn't a rule.
I think the matter is rather that you think he was trolling you because he refused to comply.
But you see, things have been clear for quite some time. Why are the ruling powers mostly the same people who were in charge at old PF? Why don't they put you a moderator, or BC, or a new face for a change?
Well, I hope one day you get to run a forum, so you can discover the pleasures of trying to maintain a high standard of conversation, a good quality of membership, and integrity and fairness concerning rules.
Well, I hope one day you get to run a forum, so you can discover the pleasures of trying to maintain a high standard of conversation, a good quality of membership, and integrity and fairness concerning rules.
I was moderator on a forum back very long ago actually. It was pretty much enforcing the rules for me. There were no bans there, unless you did something like post porn, or post advertisements / spam / viruses. Either way, it had to be something quite bad. For minor stuff, such as text speak - just delete the posts over and over again, until the person gets tired of writing crap and getting their view deleted. In some cases, if they're obviously insistent and don't stop even with private messages, post a public warning for the person, especially if it's a prominent member of the community.
Text speak is obviously covered under the rule mentioned.
It's not obvious at all. You want us to read between the lines, but there's nothing to be read, so it's only obvious to you because you helped come up with the current rules.
But you see, things have been clear for quite some time. Why are the ruling powers mostly the same people who were in charge at old PF? Why don't they put you a moderator, or BC, or a new face for a change?
We have enough pointless moderators as it is, most of whom don't even talk philosophy, they just log in and police or don't do anything at all.
Reply to Buxtebuddha So tell me, is it possible for the one who makes the law to break the law? :D A moderator getting banned is almost unheard of! Can you even imagine it? :P
It's not obvious at all. You want us to read between the lines, but there's nothing to be read, so it's only obvious to you because you helped come up with the current rules.
TGW didn't need to read between any lines. He was told what the issue was and was asked to stop. He refused and continued. If you're interested, here was our exchange:
Us: I've noticed in your postings you have not been using proper capitalization at the beginning of sentences and the word "i" is not capitalized. There has also been some text talk, as in "u" for you. Please use correct capitalization and standard spellings in your posts.
TGW: no
Us: Please understand that this is an academic forum and we require a certain level of formality among our posters. For that reason, we cannot accept posts that fall below a basic level of format, regardless of content. As I've noted, failure to follow capitalization conventions and use of text speak isn't acceptable. It is far too time consuming as a moderator to clean up such posts, especially when the poster is capable of correcting the problems himself.
The specific rule in the guidelines states:
"1) Language matters:
This is an English language forum on an academic topic. Posts should display an acceptable level of English with regard to grammar, punctuation and layout. This goes for both native and non-native speakers (although we're likely to be more sympathetic when judging the writing of the latter)."
Please let me know that you will be able to comply with this request.
We made it clear. He chose to be difficult. As Baden said, we don't play favourites and let some people flout the rules.
Hey! Lots of academics cause catastrophic brain trauma!
Noble DustSeptember 01, 2017 at 08:38#1015440 likes
Reply to Wayfarer is back to his OG photo. Does this signify some sort of tectonic shift in the philosophical undercurrent on the forum? (Asking for a friend/really actually asking...)
Reply to Noble Dust The other ones were, how shall we say, portentous. This is the character from Avatar, which, apart from being the best sci-fi, is also a symbol of resistance.
It's not obvious at all. You want us to read between the lines, but there's nothing to be read, so it's only obvious to you because you helped come up with the current rules.
It should be now, considering these repetitive posts between you and Baden unless you're being deliberately obtuse. It was to TGW as well, because he had been specifically asked not to do it.
The other ones were, how shall we say, portentous. This is the character from Avatar, which, apart from being the best sci-fi, is also a symbol of resistance.
Reply to Agustino when Avatar was released, one of Sydney's right-wing columnists penned an outraged OP saying the movie was blatant Green Left propaganda. That kind of 'resistance' (although I will add, I only agree with the Green Left respect of environmental policy, in most other regards I am much more conservative.)
ArguingWAristotleTiffSeptember 01, 2017 at 12:58#1015880 likes
I think that part of the problem with the moderation is that for justice to be done, some people DO need special favours and treatment. You cannot treat someone who never gave something useful to the community at the same level as someone who gave back and was an important member. There's nothing wrong with taking special precautions when banning an important member, such as issuing a public warning for them in advance, outlining the consequences clearly (and clearly does mean stating things like "failure to comply will lead to a permanent ban"). One of the moderators could have started a thread warning TGW about his behaviour which is not in line with the forum requirements. Other people would then probably have joined in trying to reform him.
It's normal for there to be a backlash as there was now when banning someone like TGW - that's because you're treating everyone equally, but not everyone is equal. You cannot just ban someone like TGW for such a small offence because he's provided a lot of value to this forum! Compared to how much value he gave, his offence is tiny!
That's precisely why there is a public backlash. And the point of the moderators is "oh but everyone gets the same treatment" - more political correctness. It's not fair that everyone gets the same treatment. Yes, TGW was being a dick for ignoring your warning, disrespecting the moderator team and outright refusing to obey. No doubt about it. If a new member had done that, they would clearly be banned straight away. But granted that he is TGW and not some random member, different measures need to be taken. Maybe he would actually need to be banned in the end, but this can clearly be approached in a better and more sensible way.
I think that the moderators are just being very legalistic about it all. Wouldn't it have been better, for example, to issue out an injunction to all moderators to delete any TGW post that is in text speak, and also post a public warning for him? Then if that didn't work, obviously banning would be in order, and I don't think many would disagree. But jumping the button on a permanent ban seems silly... Why don't you at least consider a temporary ban? People do change afterall, and they can reform their behaviour, but they need to be shown some lenience for that...
So, I asked TGW to follow the rules, he said no, I asked nicely again, he ignored me, and so he got banned. This decision resulted in no backlash, but only resulted in a few predictable posters offering their opinions about how they'd have responded differently, none of which has caused any reconsideration on the part of anyone who matters. This leaves you with having spoken, us having heard you, and no change being thought necessary. Now there's just the shouting, which makes sense. This is the shoutbox.
This being an "Academic forum" is made a laughing stock when we have threads about boxing, movies, music, etc.
If the Museum of Modern Art in New York can add Texas Chainsaw Massacre to it's collection, then we should be able to occasionally chat about the trivia that occupies are minds when we are not doing the heavy egg laying.
I'm actually currently a mod on a forum I barely visit!
Ditto. For a long time there were only 3 people participating, and two of them more than the third. Don't know whether they are still in business, or if so, why.
I might just quit this forum, as this royally pisses me off. The moderating here is atrocious, hasn't gotten better, and has now begun to end online friendships I have cultivated.
You know, TGW was banned at the last forum too, and someone - I can't recall who, although it's right on the tip of my tongue - volunteered to chaperone him so as to enable him to continue. At which point I found and pasted in the excellent video clip of Paul Simon and Chevy Chase performing You can be my Bodyguard. (Don't know if anyone got it, though.)
Reply to Bitter Crank Although, I am getting a bit sick of the 'drive by shooters' who register and create one-sentence posts - What is the meaning of life after all? What is philosophy about? - and never return. You have to learn what to ignore, I guess.
BuxtebuddhaSeptember 02, 2017 at 03:20#1017260 likes
When I read "academic forum" I just take that as the moderators being college rejects attempting to feel snooty and sophisticated by slapping the "academic" label on something not inherently academic in really any way. I chuckle at the label because it's trumped up and a joke. If this forum really was an academic environment, we all would be writing in Chicago style and putting in footnotes and writing bibs and...yeah, no, we're not doing that. We allow threads about inane crap, yet will boot a valuable, productive poster because he wouldn't suck the moderators' collective cock. I find that petty and laughable.
If the Museum of Modern Art in New York can add Texas Chainsaw Massacre to it's collection, then we should be able to occasionally chat about the trivia that occupies are minds when we are not doing the heavy egg laying.
Yes, I think we should too. We should also contribute to topics as TGW did.
This decision resulted in no backlash, but only resulted in a few predictable posters offering their opinions about how they'd have responded differently, none of which has caused any reconsideration on the part of anyone who matters.
And it is sentiment like this which leads people to not trust the mods here.
Anyhoo, I won't be posting anymore. I'll log in if I'm wanted in PM's, otherwise, bye.
I chuckle at the label because it's trumped up and a joke. If this forum really was an academic environment, we all would be writing in Chicago style and putting in footnotes and writing bibs and...yeah, no, we're not doing that.
I am glad that you use the pronoun WE, it just goes to show that your participation here puts on the same level as the rest of us. If you think this place is so bad, why not just go to somewhere better?
Reply to Wayfarer Free admission; come in look around; try the text box out; "Oh, it works." Leave, never return.
I used to be a member of a socialist group that ran a weekly discussion group--it ran about 25 years. It was the same thing there--people would come once, listen; speak; confirm that a group was thinking about the state of the world; then leave, never to return. It was our joy to give them the Good News that they were exploited (and duped) wage slaves. Apparently discovering the truth filled them, and they didn't need to come back.
Note to Reply to Hanover What was the name of the bot on the old PF? We should either have a bot that responds to first-time-user questions like "How can I know that I exist?" with "What do you care?" or "Why do you want to know?" Hanover could perform that function too. He's been getting kind of botty lately. Per
people would come once, listen; speak; confirm that a group was thinking about the state of the world; then leave, never to return.
Years ago I volunteered to give talks on Introduction to Buddhism at a Community College. Same thing happened there. One bloke, I remember, end of the first session, put up his hand and said, 'so it's really all about your state of mind?' Never saw him again. But then, I suppose that could have been a significant thing to learn.
Reply to Bitter Crank 'You can be my bodyguard, I can be your long-lost friend'. That was what sprang to mind when someone volunteered to chaperone TGW so he could keep posting. Hey it's a great video clip. ;-)
In the case of refusal to be moderated, a poster essentially gives us a binary choice between them and the rules. And we are always going to choose the rules for obvious reasons. And I think the vast majority of posters here understand that. In other cases, context, including what we know about the poster, matters, and we know more about posters who have been here longer. But creating some kind of official hierarchy with regard to rules enforcement depending on length of membership is not going to happen. Apart from being unfair, it would be impossibly complicated.
As I've said before, we'd rather be in the background and just let everyone get on with posting. We didn't create the problem with TGW, he did, by deliberately breaking a sensible rule that is in place for everyone's benefit and then for reasons only known to him refusing our polite requests to adhere to it. So, I think some of the objections and complaints are unreasonable (though yours have been fairly measured) and would not be supported by the majority of members, which is why we won't be modifying policy.
Nowhere in the guidelines does it say this is an "academic forum". That's quite deliberate. I remember because I drafted them.
The relevant line is:
"This is an English language forum on an academic topic."
Which it is. We didn't put an academic label on the forum, we put it on the philosophy we expect discussed (as opposed to the bar-stool type), which makes much of your post senseless.
You are not the worst poster here but your reading comprehension abilities are frustratingly low. Good luck anyway.
There was a person behind the posting of ModBot. I think there were pre-made quotes, but someone was posting behind ModBot. Paul said so here some time ago. Can't find the quote, a lil tipsy.
EDIT: I find it hard to believe that MdBot was able to scour all posts and respond to them when the search function could bring the whole website down.
Reply to Posty McPostface Well sure... A robot poster capable of acerbic comments that were related to the surrounding posts (Modbot sometimes was, sometimes wasn't) would require substantial computational resources.
For instance, the SIRI function from Apple will sometimes respond "humanly" -- one time I said to it "go away". It said, "you could be more polite." Siri and voice to speech are not located in the IPad or phone -- they live on a mainframe. I would find it slightly interesting to know how they programmed that response. "Go away" by itself isn't rude. Can it interpret 'dismissive tone'? Probably not. However it was done (and done in a flash) takes a lot of computer power.
In honor of Modbot, I suggest a different name. RoboMod? Robomodor? Modover? MordorMod? Modorootor? ModPot? Or "Hal" as in "I'm sorry, TGW, I can't do that."
Reply to Posty McPostface I haven't been banned yet. Is the HAL 9000's unplugging experience similar to being banned? Do one's thoughts slow down, and drop in pitch (an artifact of 1960s audio technology)?
And we are always going to choose the rules for obvious reasons. And I think the vast majority of posters here understand that.
Being an upstanding American, I just naturally understand rules, and the whole hierarchical nature of rule making. "It's" is a contraction and "its" is a possessive. I don't like it, but that is the rule. I abide by the rule. I do disobey rules from time to time. Being an upstanding American, I also just naturally understand rule breaking. The trick is to select one's rule-breaking with some care.
Whether one should always choose the rules over a person (a poster) when it comes to moderating is a problem I don't wish to engage. But that's my problem, not yours. Your problem is rule enforcement.
In the case of refusal to be moderated, a poster essentially gives us a binary choice between them and the rules.
Traditional and treasured narratives prefer 3 choices, rather than two. There were 3 little pigs, not two. You get 3 wishes, not 2 or 4. God is a Trinity, not a foursome.
The old forum had a third choice: banishment to the Shout Box area. Does the current software allow for shout box banishment?
Reply to Baden He was responding to the message that was sent to TGW:
Please understand that this is an academic forum and we require a certain level of formality among our posters. For that reason, we cannot accept posts that fall below a basic level of format, regardless of content.
...
I provided it here to better explain the situation, as they didn't seem to understand your explanation. I guess you missed it.
Ah, ok. Fair enough. Apologies @Buxtebuddha on that one. At most, this is an academic-leaning forum (according to my interpretation anyway): it's more aimed at the general public with a serious interest in philosophy than academics per se. But I guess we're into semantics now. The point is we don't expect academic conventions just basic standards of English.
I think that part of the problem with the moderation is that for justice to be done, some people DO need special favours and treatment. You cannot treat someone who never gave something useful to the community at the same level as someone who gave back and was an important member.
I couldn't agree more. As a long term member in good standing with both an education in the tradition and some original contributions, not to mention all the hard work I have put in over the years, I expect the moderators to cut me some slack, when I say that this is the most fucked-up incoherent, idiotic recipe for disaster I have ever come across.
Oh, wait, I seem to have contradicted myself somehow. No wonder I decided to resign.
I couldn't agree more. As a long term member in good standing with both an education in the tradition and some original contributions, not to mention all the hard work I have put in over the years, I expect the moderators to cut me some slack, when I say that this is the most fucked-up incoherent, idiotic recipe for disaster I have ever come across.
I don't think it's a recipe for disaster. In a court of law, very often the damages done through the actions end up more important than the actions themselves. If I committed some sort of fraud, but there actually were no damages for anyone, but rather everyone profited, you'd be hard pressed to give me a harsh sentence just because I broke the law.
Same with taxes. If the paperwork is all screwed up, but I didn't cause a prejudice to the state, not really a big deal. One only risks being accused of tax evasion when there exists a prejudice that is brought to the state.
So in light of the fact that this is how actual justice systems operate, I only see it as reasonable to take into account the effects of the actions. If the member in question has brought a long-standing benefit to the community it's only natural that that has to be taken into account when judging them for whatever they've done.
Say you have a war criminal. He has done many terrible things, but he has also brought great benefit to the nation by serving in the army and bringing home victory. While he does deserve punishment, his punishment needs to be diminished in order to take into account his meritorious service to the country. So who the person is, and their context DOES matter to justice.
This touches on what I said earlier that context is taken into consideration. So a newbie who comes here and does nothing but flame for their first few days might be banned immediately. A regular poster with a good history who gets in a flaming war is likely to be cut more slack because we know them and that they're likely to stop. Also, even in the case of TGW, he wasn't banned after his first refusal to be moderated (his amusingly uncapitalized "no"). He got another polite message explaining the reasons why we'd like him to follow the same guidelines as everyone else. His response was to ignore the second message and post another text-talk type comment. At that point we gave up. We simply don't have the time or the motivation to coddle posters as if they were naughty children. To give an analogy, imagine you run a club at your house and you have a rule that no-one is supposed to wear shoes when they enter. Someone then comes in with shoes on and you politely explain that that's against the rules, and ask them to please take them off. They say "No" (or "no" :) ). You then politely explain that you don't want your carpet to get dirty as it takes time to clean it and you'd rather get on with running the club. Their response is to tramp around in front of you still wearing their shoes. At this point, it's reasonable to give up and simply direct that person to leave and not come back whether they are a regular or not.
OK, but there's no evidence of support for the idea of formalizing inequality in the way you seem to be suggesting. If you are now just talking about applying a little bit of context regarding history or lack thereof, I've explained how this can already take place in a limited way.
Their response is to tramp around in front of you still wearing their shoes. At this point, it's reasonable to give up and simply direct that person to leave and not come back whether they are a regular or not.
Well :D - if they actually did that when I politely ask them not to, then I doubt that "simply direct that person to leave" will work >:) . I might have to use some means of forceful eviction...
OK, but there's no evidence of support for the idea of formalizing inequality in the way you seem to be suggesting. If you are now just talking about applying a little bit of context regarding history or lack thereof, I've explained how this can already take place in a limited way.
I didn't suggest to formalize anything, I'm against formalizing stuff.
What are we talking about... etiquette, what the owner say goes, in a limited sense he is the benevolent monarch some seek. We saw what happened when ownership changed, it is quite beyond us.
Hmm, a surreptious implementation of a policy change without any formal announcement. *Strokes beard* Better PM me and we can discuss this in private. >:)
... a long term member in good standing with both an education in the tradition and some original contributions, not to mention all the hard work I have put in over the years, I ...
As long as you're not arguing with this, we're good. ;)
ThorongilSeptember 02, 2017 at 13:54#1018710 likes
none of which has caused any reconsideration on the part of anyone who matters
I dare say that if this was uttered by a worthless peon such as myself, I would be reprimanded. But seeing as one of the masters cracking the whip has uttered it, no one has bothered to pay it any mind.
ArguingWAristotleTiffSeptember 02, 2017 at 13:56#1018720 likes
none of which has caused any reconsideration on the part of anyone who matters
>:O This is pure gold. There were like 3-4 people, to say the least who expressed concern over it, but they don't matter. That's good, I didn't know you have to be a moderator to matter ;)
I interpret that in the obvious way as matters (in terms of having the power to do anything about it i.e. is on the moderating team) not matters (is of value in general as a poster/person). But feel free to have fun with it.
Reply to Thorongil You know, it is kind of amazing that a guy who multiple times publicly and unashamedly says that if it was after him he would ban certain members without reason apart from the fact that he (and others) don't like them - and in fact a guy who has suggested that we introduce a feature to rank which members should be banned:
I'd like a feature that allows the rank and file to ban other members from this site. My feeling is that if the general public can be trusted not to pull the emergency brake in the subway, not to pull the fire alarm in public places, and not to play with publically available defibrillators, then we can be trusted not to misuse our power here.
It's entirely amazing that nobody has any issue with this guy being a moderator.
I doubt this is going anywhere but do as you will. Just one point, I think you've misinterpreted the term "rank and file". It's a phrase that simply means "members".
I doubt this is going anywhere but do as you will. Just one point, I think you've misinterpreted the term "rank and file". It's a phrase that simply means "members".
Well yes, so he wants a feature that allows the common folk to ban others from the site, presumably if they get some form of majority over it. And that isn't problematic? :s
, and not to play with publically available defibrillators
Thank you for the suggestion!!! It hadn't occurred to me to try out a publicly available defibrillator on some quite ambulatory citizen. Interesting possibilities...
By the way, you misspelled "publically". Please use standard spellings or the Société Anglaiçe may have to relocate you to less salubrious arrondissement of Atlanta.
Reply to Agustino Work on your reading comprehension. I said that there was a ban, a few folks complained, and those that mattered (as in those who could lift the ban) didn't lift the ban. I then said everyone was just shouting, and they are. What I didn't say was that you didn't matter as a person. If you wonder whether you do matter as a person, please stop trying to read my subtext and just ask.
Well yes, so he wants a feature that allows the common folk to ban others from the site, presumably if they get some form of majority over it. And that isn't problematic? :s
Ah well, if you're not the trouble-making common folk supporter we thought you were, you can join @Agustino and I in making sure they're kept in their place.
EDIT: I find it hard to believe that MdBot was able to scour all posts and respond to them when the search function could bring the whole website down.
It's not like there were a couple of thousand post a minute. A real time scan of uploaded post would not take that much in the way of resources and it probably did not even scan them all. But yes there were programmed responses to key words, I found that the same reply came up to several different posts.
Well, I guess it's a mystery then. Paul gave some info a while ago about losing a wager/bet and the outcome was supposedly someone behind ModBot's postings.
Well, it's difficult to feel too academic and serious with all these text-like emojis: X-) 8-) (L) :-$ :-d ;)
Can we get some more philosophical smilies? Like a bust of Plato, portraits of Nietzsche, Marx, and Kant. Sartré puffing on his pipe. And that Thinker sculpture by Rodin would be a classy emoji.
Seriously though, occasionally I'll use texting abbreviations like FWIW, BTW, IMHO, YMMV, etc. Don't think I've ever used OMG or LMFAO, but it is possible. Maybe a silly question, but any problem with doing so? I don't want to be SOL and FUBAR. Thanks!
I find it hard to believe that MdBot was able to scour all posts and respond to them when the search function could bring the whole website down.
That's not how it works. When a post is posted there would have been a random chance that ModBot would be activated, check the contents of that post for certain key words, and then respond appropriately.
Occasional anything is generally fine here. And abbreviations like btw etc. are not a problem. But writing whole posts without capitalization in old-fashioned text speak (which developed in the pre smartphone age) makes the site look messy and is hard to correct - we need to essentially rewrite the post. But even then the worst that would happen is that we would ask you not to do that and you, presumably, would then go back to regular writing. We're not here to harass people. We do a mostly boring job with a fairly basic aim - keep the place tidy and try to encourage quality.
Don't think this is prevalent, but it sure can be found, including among people that others look up to.
And often enough, those harboring a more moderate sentiment just goes along for the ride. :-x
Reply to jorndoe I'm generally unsympathetic toward the anti-religious crowd. They present an unnuanced account of something much more complex than they're willing to admit, and there is an elitist and condescending nature to it as well. Here they try to medically diagnose the religious as criminally insane.
Evangelicals are not sociopathic because they are opposed to abortion. They truly believe it's murder. They are not sociopathic because they oppose gay marriage anymore than 90%+ of the population was 50 years ago when they opposed it.
The liberal concept of tolerance I think demands a more open acceptance of other's views, even those you believe might be less tolerant.
Reply to Baden
Excellent, thank you. That is what I was guessing, but just wanted to be sure. Though I am not so extremely busy that it's impossible to type out "by the way" or something. :)
Evangelicals are not sociopathic because they are opposed to abortion. They truly believe it's murder. They are not sociopathic because they oppose gay marriage anymore than 90%+ of the population was 50 years ago when they opposed it.
The example in the article was of a pastor, on the attack on the gay nightclub in Florida, saying "the tragedy is that more of them didn’t die. The tragedy is — I’m kind of upset that he didn’t finish the job!". That's far from simply being opposed to gay marriage, and certainly does seem sociopathic.
But no doubt his view is just a vocal minority, and the majority of Christians aren't such dicks. The author is likely stereotyping in the same way that a lot of anti-Islam folks are when calling Muslims terrorists.
The author is likely stereotyping in the same way that a lot of anti-Islam folks are when calling Muslims terrorists.
Calling all Muslims terrorists is bigoted and stereotyping. Giving an honest description of Islamist violence and not copping to the false equivalency that "all religions have their violent extremists" is not bigoted or stereotyping. I'm not saying you were necessarily attaching the above description to the latter position, but it wasn't exactly clear from your post.
Religion is significantly less important to Europeans than to Americans. Just over half in the U.S. (53%) say religion is very important in their life, nearly double the share who hold this view in Poland, which registered the highest percentage among EU nations polled in 2015. In France, only 14% consider religion very important. Globally, there is a strong relationship between a country’s wealth and its level of religiosity. Nations with higher levels of gross domestic product per capita tend to have lower percentages saying religion is very important in their lives. However, the U.S. is a clear outlier to this pattern – a wealthy nation that is also relatively religious.
I'm generally unsympathetic toward the anti-religious crowd. They present an unnuanced account of something much more complex than they're willing to admit, and there is an elitist and condescending nature to it as well. Here they try to medically diagnose the religious as criminally insane.
Your description of the "anti-religious" crowd is similarly unnnuanced (and I see that the conservative/Republican obsession with "elitists" continued unabated, even as the party caters to the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and non-powerful).
I'd find that boring. I like face-to-face customer service. The kind of work I was describing was just a temporary phase, and my job role once the store is up and running won't be anywhere near as physically demanding, nor the shifts as long or overnight.
Seriously though, occasionally I'll use texting abbreviations like FWIW, BTW, IMHO, YMMV, etc. Don't think I've ever used OMG or LMFAO, but it is possible. Maybe a silly question, but any problem with doing so? I don't want to be SOL and FUBAR. Thanks!
It's probably time to put burning man on ice. Not because of the actual burning man (sadly inevitable) but because it appears to have gotten too far from any subversive or deviant qualities it might have once had. Hard core has gone soft, once again. It has become as outré as the 50th Anniversary Celebration of the Summer of Love, sponsored by Subaru and Pepsi; presented by NBC.
I saw Solaris a long time ago; didn't do much for me. I must not be a fan, just going by that.
Anti-mimesis is a philosophical position that holds the direct opposite of Aristotelian mimesis. Its most notable proponent is Oscar Wilde, who opined in his 1889 essay The Decay of Lying that, "Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life".
Reply to Bitter Crank The photos in the link that Cavacava posted are beautiful, with beautiful people and attractive artworks, has all the depth of a Hollywood movie set.
Reply to praxis Right. If I lived out there and had the money I'd enjoy it for a day or two -- looks totally groovy. However, 70,000 groovy humans is too much grooviness in one place. I like decadence every now and then but not on on the scale of Roman epic movies. Maybe a couple hundred guys in a swinging bar, but big enough to move around relatively easily. Good beer, good music, a little pot, friendly people...
Anti-mimesis is a philosophical position that holds the direct opposite of Aristotelian mimesis. Its most notable proponent is Oscar Wilde, who opined in his 1889 essay The Decay of Lying that, "Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life".
Great title, The Decay of Lying.
Not quite. In Aristotelian terms art is false only to the extent that it is taken to be true, and true to the extent that it is understood to be false. In arguing for the beautiful lie, the ideal, Vivian is not attempting to argue that there is no distinction at all between the facts, and art. Otherwise there would be no problem with modern literature, other than being boring, or itself being claimed to be false, and the lie.
You know, Wilde while he was in court for being gay, they brought in some dude saying that they had had relations, and Wilde denied it on the grounds that he wasn't attractive enough, incriminating himself in the process.
So there's an annual post apocalyptic swimsuit model convention in the desert. Who'd have thunk?
I take issue with your statement because we have plenty of Bunker Buster Briefs that the men model underground. If this convention is to take place as an "annual post apocalyptic", that suggests that the survivors would bring back civilization, only to have it destroyed annually? I know who is going to be tossed into the burning man, the creator of the event.
It is already happening around us but not out in the West :P This time it is in my home state of Illinois and a place you may know, Hanover Park. They have "Zombie Dogs" so maybe a swimsuit convention should be your second or third priority?
Reply to Hanover Yea, I guess...sheltered up there among those peaches Hanover? :D
Burning Man been going on since 1986. Started in San Francisco (of course) got adopted by a DADA like society who moved it to Black Rock Desert of Nevada. I read about it each year but I've never really looked into it. Apparently quite interesting group of goof offs. There are spin off, like minded organizations in many locations including Atlanta.
9 days, at 4000 feet above sea level, in middle of the desert with a bunch of goof-offs and others.
The photos are great, wild flights of the imagination.
Reply to Cavacava The party does look off the chart, but calling those folks goof offs doesn't do them justice. This looks like a big money event, from the props, to the costumes, to the models. It smells more corporate than than just a grass roots explosion of creativity, but what do I know? In any event, it looks like a hell of a party.
Keep me posted when next year's event is. I'll buy you a beer.
When you get tired of Burning Man, visit the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco (Alas, I've never attended). For one day Folsom Street abounds in S&M, BD, nudity, and...
Over at the Great Chain of Being thread, it has come to light that all angels are male--seraphim through guardian angels. I'm surprised feminist haven't attacked the Hierarchy of Angels for oppressing them, along with many other organizations.
No women angels. In fact, the Greek word for Angel has no feminine form. Obviously God didn't want female angels.
I don't think the US will take any unilateral military action unless Japan, South Korea or US are actually at the receiving end of North Korean aggression. Kim Jong-Un is aware of this, I think he relies on this. At the same time NK is rapidly developing a nuclear arsenal and delivery systems. The nuclear explosion the other day had a 100 kiloton yield.
Putin is right, further sanctions will not impact NK's course of action.
If North Korea's gambit is to drive permanent wedges between China, South Korea, and the US, it looks like they are ahead in points.
Ha ha - I think that's China's gambit. They want a fool in the region who they can manipulate and maybe start a conflict to expand their sphere of influence, without receiving any of the blame. It's so foolish to think that puny North Korea is anything - they're just a mask for China. Kim is China's puppet.
I think they think that they need to do this to dissuade the U.S. from trying to attack them.
That's also naive. One of the reasons why Kim is doing this is because he needs an external enemy in order to keep power and justify his oppressive regime. Loads of people have been moved out of Pyongyang recently out of fear of a rebellion. The NK regime is shaking very badly, and Kim desperately needs an enemy to rally the country behind.
At the same time, China is pulling the strings and encouraging a conflict. China is the sleeping dragon and it has lain dormant for a very long time, building a tremendous military force and economy. It will soon want to move out and expand its regional sphere of influence - but to do that, it needs legitimacy - a reason. China will never let the US take over, nor will it allow the Korean peninsula to be united except under a North Korean puppet regime that they can control.
I think all demons are men too. Women don't get to be super evil or super good. They just get to serve as temptresses, but ultimately it seems like it's all the man's fault for falling to the temptation. A woman can be a vampiress, but she still is a temptress, trying to kiss you and you like get all lost in the moment, close your eyes and stuff, and then she bites your neck and at first you sort of go with it because it's all freaky, but then later, you're like "Dude, I'm a vampire," which isn't so bad except when you're a bat and you don't want to wake up in the day, but my son wouldn't even care about that because he'll sleep all day if you let him.
Came across this odd physics, that apparently rewrites (some) quantum mechanics, with a more classical slant. I have no idea if it's just the usual crackpottery or a bit more substantial; maybe someone well-versed do?
Reply to Wosret Angels are pure spirit in 'reality', with no bodies. Only their appearance in narratives gives them gender roles., and that role is primarily masculine.
Angels are pure spirit in 'reality', with no bodies. Only their appearance in narratives gives them gender roles., and that role is primarily masculine.
You don't get to define the composition of angels. I think angles are made of sugar and spice and everything nice.
I once made love to an angel. I know that because it was heavenly for her. She was definitely a she.
If Gaia theory is true, is it possible for our planet to have feedback mechanisms that will cool down the planet in response to our pumping of CO2 in the atmosphere and the associated greenhouse gas warming it's predicted to cause?
Reply to Hanover Of course, that's why I put reality in quotes. I made an angel as well, and she became a lawyer, oh well, not quite sugar & spice, but she is very nice.
VagabondSpectreSeptember 05, 2017 at 20:04#1027300 likes
Reply to Agustino Gaia theory is speculative nuttery (as least when and where I have been exposed to variations claiming that moniker).
There are plenty of feedback loops though. More heat and CO2 means plants can grow farther north and will be nourished more from the air...
The amount of variables involved in predicting how even that specific feedback effect will actually play out make it too difficult to do so though.
Maybe the kid who called the emperor out was wearing specs and a lab coat. Whatever works.
ArguingWAristotleTiffSeptember 08, 2017 at 14:27#1033350 likes
You know what is nice about two women traveling together? I can say I don't need anything and wait in the AC of the truck and she comes back with Chocolate bars, just because. Awwwwwwwww (L)
You know what is nice about two women traveling together? I can say I don't need anything and wait in the AC of the truck and she comes back with Chocolate bars, just because. Awwwwwwwww (L)
Clearly a feeder who wants you to be fat so she'll be considered the prettier of you two. >:)
I guess book sales will tell that tale. Personally I found the strategy makes him appear less credible, though it is clever to try redefining the concept of happiness as he does.
This is such a ridiculous news item. In what universe is a woman seduced by a space ship? Alien monster's tentacles ripping her clothes off and exploring her various moist orifices makes sense but a flying saucer? That's totally absurd. Clearly the reporter was too lazy to get the facts straight and the editor was asleep on the job. No wonder the press has fallen on hard times!
Reply to Baden I accept the distinction between pleasure and happiness, but also realize the ascetic isn't necessarily more happy than the moderate who isn't necessarily more happy than the one possessing excess. As the doctor indicates, happiness emanates from relationships, but the truth is that some are simply better at establishing satisfying relationships than others. I'd assume the personable billionaire would be happier than the brooding philosopher.
I do find a pervasive pessimism among philosophers, usually rationalized by an insistence that they possess true knowledge and aren't naive and blissfully ignorant like the masses. The book itself is critical obviously, and not terribly joyful, which is the accepted tone of the academic.
I also note (at least in the portion I listened to) the failure to discuss the link between happiness and spiritual beliefs. The path out of addiction is often paved with religious faith. I seriously doubt one will find happiness by reading that book.
Yeah, happiness is just linked to extroversion, but it isn't the most important thing. As if the meaning of life is to just feel good all the time. I don't see much of a difference with respect to pleasure and happiness. Particularly if both are states of excessive unhinging, inhibition.
I think that being able to deal with pain, and unhappiness is way better. As more often than not, things are far less than ideal, life is suffering, tragedy, and the most enduring religious and philosophical traditions teach dealing with how much life sucks, not at all pursuing happiness.
Even the most fantastic high ends, even the most perfect relationship is impermanent. Stalin went insane, and hated the world after his love died. The happiness of someone with everything in the world is surely unquestionable, but their ability to deal with hiccups, loss, tragedy very much isn't.
I seriously doubt one will find happiness by reading that book.
And that statement is probably consistent with the arguments in the book itself. The usefulness of this kind of stuff in my opinion has to do with helping to reinforce something already known at some level. Nobody can just feed you the will-power to develop good habits. Certainly not through a book.
Well, my anecdotal evidence is that the discussion did indeed remind me of things I already believe, and kind of make me think about the things I ought not be doing, and the things I ought to be doing. I did more exercise, and yielded to less bad habitual impulses on account of it yesterday.
Sometimes I think, "what for?" "why bother", but in my experience doing the things I believe that I should do, and not doing the things I think I shouldn't is a lot less torturous, so for that reason alone, and because they are forced to light by the context, demands a small transformation, while my attention is brought there.
The path out of addiction has little or nothing to do with religion where I come from. That's an American thing (vs Europe at least). Same with other mental health issues.
This is also doubtful. Yes, relationships - depending on the relationship - can be a source of great ecstasy or great misery as well. I think that good relationships are formed by people who have already found happiness inside of themselves. Beggers can never be happy, whether alone or in a group.
The idea of finding happiness in the external world is pernicious, and I would say the main cause of misery. It causes one to pursue empty things that can never be enjoyed anyway, because one has nothing on the inside to enjoy them with. In addition, it often causes one to pursue things that aren't within their control - and whatsoever isn't within your control cannot be happiness, for it always has an element of uncertainty and pain in it.
I generally feel quite happy. When I'm alone - which is most of the time - I can't say I'm miserable. I'm quite content. When I'm around other people, I'm happy in being able to share my happiness with them and make them feel better too.
But I doubt I'd be happy around others if I wasn't happy alone.
I'd assume the personable billionaire would be happier than the brooding philosopher.
That personable billionaire is also, statistically, more likely to be depressed and suicidal :P Most of these "personable" people tend to be quite sad and depressed when they're alone with themselves. The façade isn't who they really are.
The issue is also that the "brooding philosopher" is often confused with the angsty teenager. The two aren't the same - even though they share some family resemblance.
I also note (at least in the portion I listened to) the failure to discuss the link between happiness and spiritual beliefs. The path out of addiction is often paved with religious faith.
It was his first wife Kato, and when she died he reportedly remarked "with her died my last warm feelings for humanity." Then seemed to live the rest of his life attempting to prove that sentiment.
It was his first wife Kato, and when she died he reportedly remarked "with her died my last warm feelings for humanity." Then seemed to live the rest of his life attempting to prove that sentiment.
Interesting - was this early in his career then before he was a politician? I remember one of his wives to have committed suicide or similar when he was party boss.
Sounds conspiratorial but it's not. Some basic neuroscience x some common sense observations = change your life.
The Good Doctor abjures any conspiracy in the wicked, high-fructose corn-porn-saturated food industry. However, a relatively small number of very large companies like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill dominate the raw material and basic processing level of the food industry. Extracting corn starch then converting it into oceans of corn syrup with enzymes just isn't a cottage industry. One wouldn't have to round up scores of companies to have an effective conspiracy--a dozen would probably be enough.
I think he's right about sugar, cell phones, and addictions, but I'm not persuaded that he has plumbed the pursuit of happiness more deeply than anybody else. He's flogging his book with a snappy concept on the cover -- the collective American mind is hackable and has been hacked. How would hacked minds overcome their hacking? Even giant credit bureaus aren't able to avoid hacking, apparently (see Equifax).
There was a Second Generation Star Trek episode in which a game was brought on board the Enterprise and turned out to be so addicting that every crew member from Picard to Wesley Crusher (except Data, of course) was rendered dysfunctional. We're in about the same shape, according to Dr. Lustig (who confessed to being addicted to caffeine--so who is he to lecture us?)
The path out of addiction has little or nothing to do with religion where I come from.
That depends upon how strictly you define religion. AA and many other 12 step type programs place reliance upon a higher power. These programs exist throughout Europe.
Religion is like ketchup in America. There's a lot of it around and it goes on just about everything.
This analogy is incomplete because ketchup provides a benefit in certain situations, like on fries. What you mean to say, just to be consistent with your prior posts, is that religion is like idiot ketchup that only stupid people eat. Actually, the US is like idiot Europe. It's like it, just stupider.
That depends upon how strictly you define religion. AA and many other 12 step type programs place reliance upon a higher power. These programs exist throughout Europe.
The "higher power" that a lot of AA people talk about seems to be a rather generic, powdered-add-water sort of religion. Higher power is to God what Tang is to oranges. What works in AA (if it works at all) is confession and acceptance of their sad, wretched state of addiction. One has to let Houston know that we have a problem (See Apollo 13). Higher powers just don't cut it.
Better than ketchup running all over everything, Religion is much more like the penis. It's really great to have one and use it regularly, but it's just not polite to whip it out in public and wave it around, especially if you are beating me over the head with it.
Reply to Baden Your information is out of date. Salsa surpassed ketchup as the preferred American condiment a couple of decades ago. These days, even land-locked midwesterners are happy to eat fish sauce, tamarind chutney, or sushi, let alone tacos and salsa. I never use ketchup anymore except on meat loaf.
Seinfeld was right. People just like to say "salsa".
The placebo effect or even self-deception if one is even aware of the difference mentioned by the doctor in the clip. We tend to do things that we think will bring us happiness, and then the placebo effect takes hold and provides a sense of happiness.
There's also a small mistake, or perhaps definitions need to be changed, being made in drawing a distinction between what gives pleasure and happiness. I would think that sex gives one a sense of pleasure, but not happiness, yet people do it all the time. Why is that?
I would think that sex gives one a sense of pleasure, but not happiness, yet people do it all the time. Why is that?
For most people, I'd say they do that because society expects them to. There really isn't much more going through the minds of most. If they don't do it, then they feel there's something wrong with them, and they start having second thoughts about their self-worth, which isn't very pleasurable, so they avoid that by having it. Then they get to feel "normal".
For most people, I'd say they do that because society expects them to. There really isn't much more going through the minds of most. If they don't do it, then they feel there's something wrong with them, and they start having second thoughts about their self-worth, which isn't very pleasurable, so they avoid that by having it. Then they get to feel "normal".
Yeah, but for the sake of the argument, we are strictly talking about what is the intrinsic motivating factor for people wanting to have sex, be it either happiness (doubt even the most ardent sex addict achieves) or pleasure.
Yeah, but for the sake of the argument, we are strictly talking about what is the intrinsic motivating factor for people wanting to have sex, be it either happiness (doubt even the most ardent sex addict achieves) or pleasure.
I largely think sexual desire - at least as most people experience it today, is a social construct, largely the result of social expectations people have of one another. There is a biological element in there, but more minor. There's also a spiritual one.
I think sex can lead to happiness provided it is done in the right circumstance (in a married relationship) with the person you love - it's a spiritual happiness, unitive in nature. That unity requires a high degree of trust and security to be possible though. It's impossible in a one night stand and the like for example. Nor is it possible with the wrong person.
I largely think sexual desire - at least as most people experience it today, is a social construct, largely the result of social expectations people have of one another. There is a biological element in there, but more minor. There's also a spiritual one.
Definitely not minor. However, to some large extent how the desire is expressed is totally or largely shaped by social factors.
I just think we have it hardwired to think that pleasure equates with happiness, with the doctor being right and corporate America has capitalized on this facet of human nature for their own well being.
That's not to say that it can't be learned that pleasure does not equate with happiness, which as mentioned requires the right habits and learned behaviors. As many spiritual leaders have preached and spent their lives about practicing.
AA and many other 12 step type programs place reliance upon a higher power. These programs exist throughout Europe.
AA comes across as a bit cultish to me. But I don't know much about it apart from what Charlie Sheen told me. Whatever works. Addiction can be hellish.
What you mean to say, just to be consistent with your prior posts, is that religion is like idiot ketchup that only stupid people eat. Actually, the US is like idiot Europe. It's like it, just stupider.
Lol. No, I like the vagina analogy better now. Although my view is actually a bit more nuanced than either ketchup or vaginas or any combination thereof.
Better than ketchup running all over everything, Religion is much more like the penis. It's really great to have one and use it regularly, but it's just not polite to whip it out in public and wave it around, especially if you are beating me over the head with it.
The liberal press is saying that Harvey and Irma are laying climate change at Trumps door.
Well, as much as I love both the liberal press and global warming, it seems unlikely that this hurricane season suddenly proves something that last year's season didn't. Hurricanes are still weather, not climate. It could be that Harvey and Irma owe something to global warming, but then so does every other storm in recent memory.
Global warming is going to get us, perhaps whether we do anything about it or not. We'll have to do a lot about it to make much difference.
Are you a wet bulb?
Some recent experiments with wet bulbs (a test of a body's ability to cool itself) suggests that life is going to get less tolerable as humidity and temperature rise together. After a certain point, sweating doesn't help anymore, and neither does having a breeze.
Reply to Posty McPostface Yeah, I love Thomas and all, but his facial expression is the same that I give when I go to the local grocery store in a giant jumper with no bra on.
I just think we have it hardwired to think that pleasure equates with happiness, with the doctor being right and corporate America has capitalized on this facet of human nature for their own well being.
I disagree. I think we're rather trained by our societies to be that way. For one reason, we're more easily controllable if we are that way.
You are offering to pay my legal defense costs after I get rid of the people who aren't worth my time, right...
Well you've equivocated on "getting rid of" :P
"Getting rid of" is the other side of "finishing last". If you finish last, these people get rid of you, and hence you of them, without any action on your part. That, as the Stoics would say, is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I also note (at least in the portion I listened to) the failure to discuss the link between happiness and spiritual beliefs. The path out of addiction is often paved with religious faith. I seriously doubt one will find happiness by reading that book.
I don't recall his exact words but when touching on the subject of religion he seemed to claim that the benefit was only in relationships. I guess it would be off-brand to include mind over body science.
Reply to Wayfarer One of my favorite cities. You can take a subway from the O'Hare United Terminal into DT Chicago. Then you can switch trains DT and take another one to Midway Airport, where you can catch a cheap flight to Minneapolis. I'll meet you at the airport and buy you a cup of coffee, then send you back to Chicago where you really want to be. Otherwise you would have come here first. I'm quite annoyed you didn't. Peeved. Very hurt. A most painful slight. I'm devastated. Forget the cup of coffee--I think i'll just kill myself instead.
Lots of great architecture in Chicago. Oak Park is where Frank Lloyd Wright established the Prairie School of design. Several nice tours. The Carleton Hotel in Oak Park is quite decent, and is close to the last stop on the elevated train from DT Chicago -- about 25 minutes DT to OP. Take the Chicago Architecture Foundation River Cruise. Definitely the best. do the Monadnock Bldg tour; tickets from the Chicago Architecture FNDN on Michigan Avenue, and the Museum of Science and Industry, which was part of the 1893 World's Fair.
Google the zip codes with the most shootings and try to avoid walking around in them at 2:00 a.m or 2:00 p.m. Oak Park is a safe neighborhood, but it is surrounded.
If you want to stay at an architecturally significant hotel try important Chicago Team of Burhham and Root try the Burnham Hotel. It was built over a century ago as an innovative office building. It's across the street from a Macy's Dept. Store. There's also a Virgin Hotel (don't know why anybody would want to stay there) and Trump Towers.
Here's the Aqua Tower, apartments. Gives you an idea of the vitality of Chicago architecture.
This last weekend, 24 hours between Saturday morning and Sunday morning 4 people were killed and 22 were injured in separate incidents in Chicago. Oh hum, same old same old.
According to the tastefully named "Hey, Jackass - Illustrating Chicago's Values" web site, there have been 2664 shootings, of which 494 were fatal. That's not since the city was founded, that's just this year, so far. These were not police shootings. Just business as usual in da'hood. White guys are missing from the stats. They're just not doing their part.
That's appalling statistics - less than 20%; they should mandate a few hours target practice every week to improve them. I hope the police do better at least.
Reply to Agustino Well, yeah -- Chicago is a dangerous town. BUT, it isn't dangerous if you stick to safe areas and safe activities. What are safe areas? Generally, the better, up-market areas. Safe Activities? Museums, galleries, restaurants, taxis, public transit to safe areas, and the like.
Not safe? Looking for sex, drugs, and rock & roll in the slums and black ghettos, for instance. Or taking a bus back to your hotel from the safe bars and getting off in the WRONG part of town. I did that once. I thought a bridge would conveniently cross the freeways and take me back to the hotel. Not so. 3:00 am, and I'm wandering down a street in one of the worst parts of town (later to be informed it was Cabrini Green). A black cab driver stopped and told me to get in, and set me straight about how stupid it was for a white guy to be wandering around in the neighborhood. I can't remember how much I tipped him -- I hope it was a lot.
That said, there are nice safe areas in Chicago, and a lot of very very not nice/not safe areas.
There is a history to how this came about. The blacks in Chicago were ghettoized from the get go, back in the 1930s and 40s. They were not allowed to live in or work in a lot of areas, and they gradually got poorer and poorer. (A lot of blacks moved out of the south into the midwest to escape poverty, jim crow, KKK, etc. during the 1920s - 1940s. Factories were glad to get cheap workers, but where they were supposed to live was their problem, not the factory owners, who certainly didn't want a bunch of blacks living anywhere close to them.)
Segregation of housing was also FORMALLY AND EXPLICITLY Federal policy until the 1970s-80s, despite court rulings against the policy. Blacks didn't move into and make ghettos because they liked it, they were shoved into the ghettos and forced to stay there, pretty much.
Over time, the ghettos deteriorated economically, psychologically, behaviorally, and so on. Guns, drugs, gangs, that sort of dung.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff imminent birth first grandchild, a girl, due any day. We're over in (I'm told it's called) Ukrainian Village where son owns condo. And we're doing the list of BC's activities starting with the marvellous Art Institute. Then we're spending some time out at the little town of Belgium WI. And I'm planning a visit to https://www.korinji.org/.
Forget the cup of coffee--I think i'll just kill myself instead.
Hey don't do that BC! I wasn't responsible for picking the locale of my in-laws, they just happen to live between Wisconsin and Chicago. But it's all a great part of the world I have a feeling I will be around here a bit, so it's not outside the realm of possibility that we'll meet on a future visit.
Reply to Wayfarer At least in Belgium, Wisconsin you will be perfectly safe. The worst thing that could happen to you is either eating too much cheese (Wisconsin State Motto: Eat Cheese Or Die) or wading in Lake Michigan and stepping on a zebra mussel and cutting your footsie.
Enjoy. If you like Wisconsin, Minnesota is much the same.
After seeing Hillary release and promote her fantastical book of BS "What happened" (subtitle: if you were on acid at the time) I'm actually glad Trump won. Really.
After seeing Hillary release and promote her fantastical book of BS "What happened?" (subtitle: if you were on acid at the time) I'm actually glad Trump won. Really.
Pharma Bro ain't smirking now, off to jail, until sentencing
Really the reason he got sent to jail - the Hillary thing - is insane. Tell me that that's not evidence that the state has become authoritarian and if you get in the wrong books with them, you will be punished.
Really the reason he got sent to jail - the Hillary thing - is insane. Tell me that that's not evidence that the state has become authoritarian and if you get in the wrong books with them, you will be punished.
He wasn't sent to jail for the Hillary thing. He had his bail revoked for the Hillary thing. He was sent to jail for the fraud conviction.
but Hillary is a bitter axe-grinding liar and she needs to go away now.
Don't worry, she won't. In 2020 she will be running again - and probably because of her power and influence in the DNC, she'll be the primary candidate of the Democratic Party once again.
No, she is too hated. I guarantee you. Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow and her other surrogates in the media can't save her now. The left can't stand this woman, and the Dems need the left in 2020.
No, she is too hated. I guarantee you. Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow and her other surrogates in the media can't save her now. The left can't stand this woman, and the Dems need the left in 2020.
Maybe, but she and her family is still extremely powerful and influential. Even if people don't like her, she will still probably manage to clinch the nomination with super delegates.
She won't run because she knows she'll lose again and she won't be able to stand that. She's poison and everyone knows it. That's why she feels free to start throwing literary grenades around now.
No, I am. I would never have voted for either candidate but Hillary disgusts me more than Trump. She's trying to destroy someone on her own side out of bitterness and spite. +Kissinger. You could hold a gun to my head and I wouldn't vote for someone who's pally with a mass murderer.
She won't run because she knows she'll lose again and she won't be able to stand that.
Yes, but you forget that she's narcissistic and extremely selfish. She thinks she deserves the Presidency, and will probably reinterpret her current loss as the stepping stone to her future victory.
That's why she feels free to start throwing literary grenades around now.
I think she wants to make dough, and set herself up to run in 2020. She needs to discredit Bernie until then, otherwise he'll become a danger. She's smart, she's not dumb, the witch.
No, I am. I would never have voted for either candidate but Hillary disgusts me more than Trump.
But it isn't just about Hillary and Trump. It's about the whole country. Do you think that the U.S is better off under Trump than it would have been under Hillary?
Actually, no, but 4 years of Trump + 4 years of a Dem who is not Hillary is probably better for America than 8 years of Hillary (considering, among other things, she's hawkish on foreign policy and against single payer health care.)
I'd hope that would fall to the next administration who, if Hillary was elected this time, may have been heading Republican and now is more likely Dem. But, obviously I agree it's a major downside of Trump
Walk into bookstore. Don't buy books dont buy books dont buy books you have too many books dont buy books.
Buys three books.
When me and my ex split up and I moved to this smaller place 11 years ago, the hardest thing to decide was what to do with all the books. How do you decide which 70% of your books have to go? Eventually I decided All Fiction had to head for Oxfam.
Now my smaller house is overflowing. All this damn philosophy :)
Are there are cartesian substance dualists on this forum? :P
ArguingWAristotleTiffSeptember 14, 2017 at 17:59#1047330 likes
Reply to Wayfarer Congratulations and enjoy the change in weather as summer gives way to beautiful lacey shadows, stretching long on the street as it cools off just a few degrees more every evening. (L)
Tell me that that's not evidence that the state has become authoritarian and if you get in the wrong books with them, you will be punished.
No, if you are found guilty of a crime, you are subject to whatever the judge deems appropriate, which is true in most countries. He was out on bail pending sentencing but Pharma Bro decided to put a $5,000 bounty for a lock of Hilary's hair, and the judge said "This is a solicitation of assault in exchange for money," get your ass to jail.
He was out on bail pending sentencing but Pharma Bro decided to put a $5,000 bounty for a lock of Hilary's hair, and the judge said "This is a solicitation of assault in exchange for money," get your ass to jail.
And if he had put a $5,000 bounty on the lock of a random woman's hair from the street, people would have laughed and taken it as a joke right? But because it's Crooked, he goes to jail no?
Not, in his case, he is subject to the courts wishes...he could have targeted anybody and ended up in jail.
Sure, but likely nothing would have happened. In this case, the court was alerted by the secret services. A regular person would have had no secret service behind them. The Clinton family is certainly one of the most corrupt families in US, and this is just further proof that the state apparatus protects them.
Not that I think Shkreli shouldn't be arrested, I think he should have, however this is, in my eyes, absolutely not a valid reason for revoking his bail.
unenlightenedSeptember 14, 2017 at 18:33#1047450 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank Are you guys literally from another planet? When you want to literally fathom something, you need a plumb line marked in fathoms that you can literally buy from a purveyor of things nautical, literally known as a chandler. Or if you are wanting to do a full survey, these days you can get sonar devices that will literally fathom things for you.
Which explanation has literally spoiled a joke that was already metaphorically plumbing the depths. :(
Fox news beating the drums to war. What they won't tell you is that this could all have been prevented and still could be if the U.S. and South Korea de-escalate on their side by, for example, stopping their joint military drills. But they won't and never have been willing to give an inch. Deja vu.
Helps me understand why some people hate lefties. The post-modern lecturer is a dangerous nut and the supposed transphobic fascist is talking perfect sense.
Fox news beating the drums to war. What they won't tell you is that this could all have been prevented and still could be if the U.S. and South Korea de-escalate on their side by, for example, stopping their joint military drills. But they won't and never have been willing to give an inch. Deja vu.
I don't think it's possible to de-escalate actually. Kim has no way to maintain his power. Making peace with the US and the world is his worst nightmare - it's the step that will actually result in him losing power, and quite likely getting killed (and his whole family too) in the process.
He needs external conflict in order to justify his totalitarian regime there. He needs an outside enemy to be able to justify why the country is so poor, and why such oppressive measures are needed.
Kim is in the kind of situation where he really doesn't have options. And it's a situation that has built itself over several generations.
I think Kim is actually benefited by the so called escalations, and not harmed at the moment.
Hmm interesting. I never much understood how the doctrine can be appealing. Personally I'm much closer to neutral monism than substance dualism, and I'm not a materialist. I don't think we need another substance - which is a metaphysical category - to account for the mind and mental occurences / representations.
For example, look at Spinoza. Spinoza's substance monism adequately takes into account both thought and extension as two sides of the same coin as it were. This explains why they are correlated (they are two sides of one coin, so of course they will be correlated), and doesn't need to populate the world with more than one substance.
Helps me understand why some people hate lefties. The post-modern lecturer is a dangerous nut and the supposed transphobic fascist is talking perfect sense.
Yes, Peterson makes a lot of sense in his anti-POMO fight. However his personal philosophy with the Jungian archetypes and purely psychological interpretation of religious traditions is very weak I believe.
Helps me understand why some people hate lefties. The post-modern lecturer is a dangerous nut and the supposed transphobic fascist is talking perfect sense.
Because he doesn't want his speech legislated? That he doesn't want to be legally forced? Despite that he doesn't deny that transsexuality, could be biological, but is still like 1% of the population. That he claims that this is something latched on by social constructivists in order to claim that gender isn't even a real thing, but is entirely made up and not biological, which is what the legislation suggests as well, thus completely denying what the overwhelming vast majority of trans people are actually claiming, which does in fact rely on essentialism, and biology?
Wtf are you talking about? This is the opposite of the truth.
Curious that Peterson is willing to consider a change of position if there's a community consensus for new pronoun usage, but won't accept the decision of a human rights tribunal. Thankfully, the tyranny of the masses won't ever make Peterson say anything discriminatory. The majority is always non-discriminatory. :s
I don't think we need another substance - which is a metaphysical category - to account for the mind and mental occurences / representations.
This just seems like an irrelevant quibble. There are mental states and non-mental states, one is made from X, the other Y. Why do I care if X and Y are both made from Z or if X and Y are elemental?
The lecturer says there is no such thing as biological sex (not just "gender") and that scientists agree on that. He also claims that not referring to a trans person by their preferred pronoun is abusive and hate speech.
The first is nuts and the second is dangerous.
Such use of new language should be a matter of courtesy not of law.
I probably was reactionary, and misinterpreted you as meaning JP was the badie you were talking about. I agree with you there, sorry if I misunderstood.
I don't agree with him on everything, obviously - he's a religious conservative more or less - and if I was a lecturer I would have no problem calling someone by their preferred pronoun but he's right on the free speech issue in my view.
The guy who started the discussing is mistaken. He does in fact refer to trans people as him and her respectively, in accordance with their identities, he doesn't want to use a bunch of made up ones like "ze" and "zer" or whatever, or use third person pronouns though. When speaking to or about trans people, he always uses the appropriate ones. That isn't his issue.
And that's where some get confused on this if they don't look into it. It's not like insisting on calling Caitlyn Jenner "he" as someone like Ben Shapiro would.
Reply to Baden Yeah, exactly. You can see JP talking about Jenner on Joe Rogan, and he always refers to her as "her".
It's really people that aren't at all on the side of trans people, and use them as a means of support for things that actually delegitimize them, by claiming that it's all made up, but it's totally okay, because everyone else is making it up too.
*Notice* If anyone wants to complain about the mods, the moderating, the guidelines etc, the right place do that is in Feedback, don't mix it in to your OPs elsewhere or you guarantee they'll be deleted (they may be deleted anyway depending on tone, content etc. but you always have the right of an explanation/appeal in Feedback).
Care to explain why you think so? His interpretation of the Fall, the Resurrection, etc. is purely psychological. He doesn't view these events as having spiritual meaning beyond the psychological - in other words he doesn't view the spiritual realm as being literarily there. It's all a way to explain our behaviour / feelings.
I disagree. I think both Catholic and Orthodox Christianity would find him leaning very heavily towards the heretical side because of his emphasis on psychological interpretation of religious texts.
Well, that's fine, I aim to be on the side of the most rational argument not the most left or right argument. Maybe someone should tell Thorongil and Bustedbuddha that so that they may again grace us with their presence. :P
Do you mean like in his university lectures on psychology, he talks too much about psychology, the thing he is a professor of and teaching? Where do you get that he only has psychological interpretations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKG4_psaC9k
Because, even though he's very careful not to come off as a cook, and very cognizant of what kinds of ideas and metaphysical suppositions are considered plausible, and get you taken seriously, and less seriously, such that he couches his words carefully. He clearly thinks there is more than metaphor, or story telling with nice morals going on, but the ultimate metaphysical truth is physical, reductionist or something.
Where do you get that he only has psychological interpretations?
Just by listening to his lectures, and also interviews and conversations. For example I remember both of his debates with Sam Harris giving me that idea.
he clearly thinks there is more than metaphor, or story telling with nice morals going on, but the ultimate metaphysical truth is physical, reductionist or something.
What do you mean "the ultimate metaphysical truth is physical, reductionist or something"?
Also, this makes it clear for example that he is committed to God being like a psychological reality which influences our actions, but he's not certain if there is more to that. For example, he's not sure about Jesus' bodily Resurrection.
What do you mean "the ultimate metaphysical truth is physical, reductionist or something"?
He clearly doesn't think that it's all just stories, and that is the ultimate truth (you're just ready to misinterpret everything to be slanted that way, eh?). You're still going to keep thinking, and saying those false interpretations despite seeing him unequivocally say there is to it than that aren't you?
There are mental states and non-mental states, one is made from X, the other Y.
States of what? Affairs? Yes, I don't think anyone will doubt that there are mental states of affairs and physical ones. However! This does not necessitate that mental states are made from X and physical ones are made from Y. In other words, it does not necessitate substance dualism.
Why do I care if X and Y are both made from Z or if X and Y are elemental?
Because if X and Y are both made from Z, then they are not substances themselves. In this case, we can explain why there exists correlation going both ways between the mind as phenomenologically experienced, and the brain. Why serotonin in the brain is correlated to a feeling of happiness, and a feeling of happiness is correlated to serotonin being released in the brain.
And this is only possible if we conceive of thought and extension as two attributes of essentially the same substance, as Spinoza did. Like two sides of the same coin. Otherwise how do you explain the correlations? You end up with the interaction problem - how one substance can interact with another.
He clearly doesn't think that it's all just stories, and that is the ultimate true. You're still going to keep thinking, and saying those false interpretations despite seeing him unequivocally say there is to it than that aren't you?
I don't mean to claim he says it's just stories. Absolutely not. I think he says that there are "transcendent" psychological realities that underlie those stories, but these realities are still psychological, and quite possibly nothing more.
Such use of new language should be a matter of courtesy not of law.
By way of showing my support for Ms Peterson and her principled stand for freedom of speech, and with grateful thanks to Ms Baden and all you lovely ladies who so eloquently argue the righteousness of the case, I shall, henceforth, refer to all posters and all philosophers as feminine. Your support for the universalisation of the feminine is encouraged, as an innovative courtesy, but not mandated. But what starts here may well sweep the internet, and in short order dissolve this linguistic problem with a global feminine pronoun becoming the default for all genders. Anyone who has any objection to such a measure can only be displaying their own sexism.
You end up with the interaction problem - how one substance can interact with another.
"Substance" is a pretty nebulous concept, though. What does is mean to say that a photon and an electron are "made from" the same substance? What would it mean for them to be "made from" a different substance?
You might say "there's just physical stuff". Someone else might say "there's just mental stuff". @Hanover might say "there's both physical and mental stuff". And then I respond with "there's just real stuff".
I think the whole notion of substances is hopelessly confused, and pretty much meaningless.
Anyway, shall we start an actual discussion rather than spoil the shoutbox with philosophy?
unenlightenedSeptember 15, 2017 at 11:02#1049000 likes
sub = below, under.
stance = standing.
Substance is understanding. If there is another substance than understanding it can only be understood to be misunderstanding. 8-)
What does is mean to say that a photon and an electron are "made from" the same substance?
I think Spinoza addresses this problem in the first part of the Ethics. What this means is basically that a photon and an electron can be either converted into each other or can affect each other - they are modes of the same substance. Spinoza's point is that precisely because this is the case, we cannot conceive of more than one substance. If things aren't "made from" the same thing, then there is no means through which they can interact.
Strictly speaking, thought never interacts with extension, but is rather parallel to it. This is Spinoza's parallelism of the attributes. This follows because of the underlying identity of the one substance which has two attributes.
What this means is basically that a photon and an electron can be either converted into each other or can affect each other - they are modes of the same substance.
Isn't this cheating? You're defining two things as being of the same substance if they can interact.
Or it could be that with this definition you're just talking past the dualist. It could be that there's a bunch of stuff with quality A, a bunch of stuff with quality B, and that the two bunches can interact. You claim that they are of the same substance because they can interact, whereas Hanover claims that they are of different substances because they have different qualities.
Isn't this cheating? You're defining two things as being of the same substance if they can interact.
Maybe it is, but how else would we conceive of substance? Spinoza's point is that there's no other coherent way to understand substance.
For example, it becomes incoherent how different substances will interact if they share nothing in common. Things can only interact by virtue of what they have in common, not by what they don't. For example, a billiard ball can interact with another billiard ball by virtue of both being material objects and having solidity in common.
So, aside from being able to interact, what do two different things of the same substance have in common?
Depends on the particular things that you're referring to. But very generally, they have at least one attribute in common at minimum. Two extended things can interact with each other.
I don't think those are point particles. They do have extension to begin with. They can also according to some theories be conceived of as excitations in the same field.
I don't think those are point particles. They do have extension to begin with. They can also according to some theories be conceived of as excitations in the same field.
I believe the standard scientific view is that they are. One study by one guy with only two citations (both himself) isn't good evidence against this view.
Also, gluons and photons can't interact with each other. So even if I were to accept that they have extension in common, having extension in common isn't sufficient to explain how interaction is possible. And unless you want to redefine your definition of substance, you'll have to grant that they are of two different substances.
BlueBananaSeptember 15, 2017 at 12:37#1049310 likes
Reply to Michael But is the answer to the question yes or no? Just curious. I'm not against the deletion either way.
Reply to BlueBanana Damn elitist libruls, wanting answers to simple questions.
What was the question anyway? I didn't read your post beyond that first sentence.
BlueBananaSeptember 15, 2017 at 12:43#1049350 likes
Reply to Michael It was implied that the tone of the post was the reason for deletion, ie the post's message was pretty much "this study confirms the inferiority of niggers". If the post was phrased more like "hey, I found this disturbing study, any thoughts?" would it have been deleted?
Reply to BlueBanana 'Fraid I don't know what the original post (or study) was, so I don't know.
Although I'd probably err on the side of caution and not allow anything that could incite racial abuse. But then I'm pretty strict here. @jamalrob and @Baden are the best people to ask about official policy.
I believe the standard scientific view is that they are. One study by one guy with only two citations (both himself) isn't good evidence against this view.
They would still have commonalities - they have spin for example.
Also, gluons and photons can't interact with each other. So even if I were to accept that they have extension in common, having extension in common isn't sufficient to explain how interaction is possible. And unless you want to redefine your definition of substance, you'll have to grant that they are of two different substances.
Hmmm okay, I don't know the physics that well anymore (it's been awhile). I would probably say that having an attribute in common is essential, but not sufficient for interaction to occur in a particular situation (other conditions would need to be met, such as for example the two objects being present at the same point in space, etc. etc.)
TheWillowOfDarknessSeptember 15, 2017 at 14:01#1049500 likes
Spinoza's point is about the logic of having things that interact or in relation in the first place. If I have two states that are connected, whether it be causally (e.g. my experiences and body) or relation (e.g. two chemicals sit inert some distance apart), then they can only belong to the same substance, that is, express the same whole.
They cannot be split into separate substances as that would make them mutually exclusive with each other-- an experience wouldn't be able to be caused by a body interacting within its environment, the inert chemical could not be sitting a certain distance from the other, etc.
Substance does not "explain" any causal relationship in the sense of telling us what it is or how to bring it about, but rather accounts for the context in which we can even have relational states that may or may not interact.
Spinoza's point is about the logic of having things that interact or in relation in the first place. If I have two states that are connected, whether it be causally (e.g. my experiences and body) or relation (e.g. two chemicals sit inert some distance apart), then they can only belong to the same substance, that is, express the same whole.
They cannot be split into separate substances as that would make them mutually exclusive with each other-- an experience wouldn't be able to be caused by a body interacting within its environment, the inert chemical could not be sitting a certain distance from the other, etc.
Substance does not "explain" any causal relationship in the sense of telling us what it is or how to bring it about, but rather accounts for the context in which we can even have relational states that may or may not interact.
So you're just defining "same substance" as "can interact"?
[quote=http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/14/inside-trumps-democratic-deals-daca-schumer-pelosi-242745]After months of hammering Republicans over their failure to repeal Obamacare, President Donald Trump huddled this week with moderate House Democrats and Republicans who were trying to sell him on a fix to the health care law.
Upon hearing it had bipartisan support, the president had one question: “Can I call it ‘repeal and replace’?”
“You can call it whatever you want, Mr. President,” a Democratic lawmaker told Trump, eliciting laughter throughout the room.
The president loved that response.[/quote]
As if there was any doubt that all he wants is a PR win. He doesn't seem to care about policy at all.
Reply to Baden Yeah, seems like Schumer and Pelosi have been taking advantage of that. All they need to do his convince him that it'll be popular and he'll go along with it, e.g. with the Dreamers.
My understanding is that this is all a hypothetical construct. A massless particle refers to its invariant mass, meaning its mass independent of motion. While in motion, the particle has mass because motion indicates energy and therefore a certain amount of mass. So, a photon in motion would have mass based upon the energy it has. A photon at rest, though, would have no mass. The problem is that photons don't rest in real life. So, yes, a hypothetical resting photon is a massless particle, but a massless particle also is measureless and non-existent.
While in motion, the particle has mass because motion indicates energy and therefore a certain amount of mass.
With massless particles the relevant equation is e = pc. p is mv, but with massless particles this is just v. So with massless particles it's e = vc. The energy is velocity times the speed of light. Mass doesn't come into it (except with the confusing term "relativistic mass", which I think is seen as a really bad term).
In other words, photons just have a speed (c) and a direction.
Edit: looking into a little more detail, I may have gotten my interpretation of p wrong. It's confusing as all the terms seem to be defined in terms of each other.
Which is interesting as just about anything is possible with him (as long as he thinks it will be popular).
When I was saying Trump is a good deal maker you were laughing at his incompetence. Now that he's actually making the deals, you're complaining that he's successful! >:O Impossible to please!
The funnier thing though, is that Wayfarer who was absolutely hating Trump until now has started to turn around... soon he will be praising the Great Leader as he used to ironically call him >:O
When I was saying Trump is a good deal maker you were laughing at his incompetence. Now that he's actually making the deals, you're complaining that he's successful! >:O Impossible to please!
If I give you my car for £10 then I've made a deal. Trump's deals are helping the Democrats (and his own mainstream public image), not helping him fulfil his campaign promises.
And I'm not complaining that he's successful. I'm pointing out that he cares more about PR than policy. Make of that what you will.
Moderate pragmatist today. Maybe partisan nutter again tomorrow. I don't know how anyone could keep up with that. But like Michael I'm not complaining about any swings in a sensible direction. It's the Breitbart crowd who are burning their MAGA hats. :D
Reply to Michael The point remains that you can't have a photon at rest. It must travel at the speed of light. For that reason, you're not making an empirical claim when you say that a photon at rest has no mass. If you were able to find an at rest photon, and it gave a weight of zero, then you've proved your point, but I'd argue that the definition of nothing is a massless mass.
It stands to reason, though, that if an at rest photon had mass, then when it starting flying at the speed of light, it would gain mass from the increased energy, which cannot be.
I can't remember why we're talking about this.
TheWillowOfDarknessSeptember 15, 2017 at 20:50#1050080 likes
In a way, but it's more than that. I'm saying Substance means the being or existence of anything that might exist or be in relation. It doesn't just have consequences for saying what might be, the fact there is anything all means there is Substance-- it's not just things which "could interact" which must belong to it, but everything in any sort of relation. In this respect, it not just states of existence which are of Substance, but also anything else as well, including concepts, meaning and any other realm which we might pose, such as, for example, different realms of things which are not existence.
Dualism is not just being cut down for the point of view states are of existence which interact or are in relation in existence. The very logic of dualism is shown to be incoherent. *Even if there we some other sort of thing, above, behind or beyond the minute states of the world we encounter, it would merely be another type of attribute within Substance. Whatever realm we talk about would still be in logic/meaning relation and so express the same whole.
Substance is defined in itself instead being something which is obtained by some state of other doing "something." In this respect, your line of questioning doesn't make sense because Substance isn't obtained in some particular sort of thing and it's interactions, but rather given itself at all times, regardless of which things exist-- the same whole always expressed no matter what is present, in relation or interacting.
The lecturer is right about biological sex (at least in terms of the body; it is correct to say biological sex exists as a socially formed understanding of someone with a body). Scientists who focus on describing the body understand that sex is an identity category we place upon the top of bodies, rather than the body itself or any state it causes. It's not in the existence of a body that someone's sex category is defined. We have to take an action to sort a body within a certain box.
For trans tissues, this is rather important point because the "absurdity" and prejudice towards trans people is really defined in our understanding of sex, that is, the presence of a certain body means someone must take on board a particular social identity. So long a sex is understood to an essential identity defined by a particular body, the trans person will be marked as wrong or insane for identifying with a category they aren't supposed to have because of their body.
In this respect, the sex/gender split is quite suspect. Not in the sense that sex and gender aren't and cannot be distinct concepts which are expressed in certain ways, but rather that it is a poor understanding of what's at stake for many trans people worried about there body.
How does it make sense to say dysphoria has nothing to do with the body?
The sex and gender split treats it like it's some madness of the mind to place one's body in a different identity category, even though that would seem to be what's at stake, given it this issue in these instances is the body and its associated identification. In the way sex and gender split is usually talk about, it is really nothing more than our sex/gender roles defending themselves. By reducing trans identification to gender, by saying "it's just about the mind, nothing to do with the body," the significance of the body in relation to identity becomes hidden. We can write off any trans concern about bodies and identity as just being something of them mind, some pretend fantasy which has no real teeth in the context of their identity as embodied person. Even as we accept the trans person's gender, we still hold the underlying position their identity within a society, as an embodied person, they are really "male" or "female" rather than the category of their identification.
TheWillowOfDarknessSeptember 15, 2017 at 21:25#1050120 likes
In a sense you're probably using the world, not much... but it's important to remember this isn't talking about distinctions of "real" and "illusion." Any falsehood, dream or illusion is just as "real" in the sense of being a relation of Substance.
It's not trying to distinguish between a "real world" and a "world of illusion."
In a sense you;re probably using the world, not much... but it's important to remember this isn't talking about distinctions of "real" and "illusion." Any falsehood, dream or illusion is just as "real" in the sense of being a relation of Substance.
It's not trying to distinguish between a "real world" and a "world of illusion."
Then this shows that you'd just be talking past the dualist, because when the dualist says that the body is of one substance and the mind is of another, they're not saying that one is real and the other isn't. They're both real, but of a different substance.
So what you mean by "substance" is not what the dualist means.
TheWillowOfDarknessSeptember 15, 2017 at 22:06#1050170 likes
For sure... but this shows the dualist argument to be incoherent. In the dualist arguing that both "substances" are real, he poses them in relation, as part of the same whole, of the same "Substance" as I am using it.
The point is not the dualist is somehow claiming one is real and the other isn't, it is the claim of separate substances does not make any sense given that both mind and body are real.
For dualism, the problem isn rejecting the mind or body are real, it's that they don't understand the two are in relation and interaction. The issue is with the dualist account of the logical significance of mind and body, and how that relates to our ability to describe the presence of the mind and body in the world.
For dualism, the problem is't that they reject mind or body are real, it's that they don't understand the two are in relation and interaction.
They do understand that the two are in relation and interaction. They claim that they causally influence one another.
The point is not the dualist is somehow claiming one is real and the other isn't, it is the claim of separate substances does not make any sense given that both mind and body are real.
Why doesn't it make sense? Whatever they mean by "substance" it doesn't entail that they can't both be real. So there's nothing incoherent in claiming that there are two real substances.
You can tie yourself into a verbal pretzel trying to justify any kind of stupid comment you want. But the statement "Biological sex does not exist" is false. And the idea that scientists (the vast majority of them) would agree with the post-modern lecturer over Jordan Peterson on this issue is ludicrous.
Can I post a thread with just the title and no content for the OP?
The guidelines state:
Don't start a new discussion unless you are:
a) Genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you.
b) Able to write a thoughtful OP of reasonable length that illustrates this interest, and to provide arguments for any position you intend to advocate.
c) Capable of writing a decent title that accurately and concisely describes the content of your OP.
d) Starting an original topic, i.e. a similar discussion is not already active.
The only one I'm worried about is b. What if I don't want to 'advocate' any position with regards to the topic but would like to get a discussion started about it?
a thoughtful OP of reasonable length that illustrates this interest
This exemplifies the male bias of the site, with it's clear reference to the erect penis. I suggest you illustrate your interest instead with a moist, welcoming void - an opening and not a 'post'. Fight the power! That every opening has to have a post thrust willy-nilly into it is the rape culture dogma of the patriarchy.
This is about the politest we've ever been to each other. :P
I went to a philosophy meet up group last night. One guy showed up 30 minutes late and interrupted the speaker and asked for a quick summary of what he missed. Another guy got asked an innocuous question and demanded to know if it were an insult. Another guy insisted that "tautology" meant "trivial," and proceeded to explain why mathematics was not trivial as alleged. Another guy was told "well, that's your opinion," and that resulted in him becoming irate, telling us he wouldn't have his paranormal abilities questioned, and then storming out. I, on the other hand, was entirely diverted by the hot African American girl in the little black dress as the speaker tried to explain how Quine disproved the analytic/synthetic distinction. Finally, this guy with real long hair and a big nose argued mightily that a round planet had no boundry because you'd just keep walking in circles forever without reaching the end if you could.
It turns out that we are really normal and really polite here, all things considered.
This exemplifies the male bias of the site, with it's clear reference to the erect penis. I suggest you illustrate your interest instead with a moist, welcoming void - an opening and not a 'post'. Fight the power! That every opening has to have a post thrust willy-nilly into it is the rape culture dogma of the patriarchy.
LOL - it wasn't a joke, I was serious. Can we start such a topic? >:O
StreetlightSeptember 16, 2017 at 18:23#1051180 likes
Short answer: no. We deleted a thread just the other day for doing just that. Even a question can be elaborated upon: the stakes upon which it turns, the motivations for asking, potential candidates for answers, historical precedents, etc, etc.
I'm going to my regular old-gits philosophy group on Monday. The subject is Cornel West, a writer I've never seen mentioned on this forum. I don't expect similar shenanigans to yours, we're an awfully polite bunch. But then we're Brits: the knives come out in the small group coffee-sharing afterwards.
Actually, yes. Under the replacement terms, you are to report to Atlanta and the hot African American chick is being sent to your house. She will assume your role as admirer of everything Hanover and become a seasonal roofer. You will assume her role and wear her little black dress and smile uncomfortablely as I stare at you.
Even though, I would look spectacular, I don't think that she could handle my life, it's pretty demanding. Don't seasonal roof anymore, now I am doing far less prestigious things. I thought you were paying better attention... I guess that I should dress up more if I want your attention.
The Fugs - When the Mode Of Music Changes lyrics
Download When the Mode Of Music Changes 320kbps mp3
When the mode of music changes
When the mode of music is changed
When the mode of music changes
The walls of the city shake
He who does not dance neither shall he eat
He who does not prance neither shall he drink
He who won't romance neither can he think
He who does not dance neither shall he eat
You can have the men who make the laws
You can have the men who make the laws
You can have the men who make the laws
Give me the music makers
When beauty barks I heel
When beauty barks I heel
When beauty barks I heel
When beauty barks I heel
Beware a man who is not moved by sound
Beware a man who is not moved by sound
Beware a man who is not moved by sound
He'll drag you to the ground
drag you to the ground
Come dance with me come dance with me in Johnson's land
Come dance with me and we'll beat that hooary band
Music have alarums to wild the civil breast
Music have alarums to wild the civil breast
Music have alarums to wild the civil breast
It does not bring me rest
It does not bring me rest
But in the bitter end
This wildness brings me rest
I sleep in the eye of the storm
and in the startling end
bluewhiteness makes me calm
I dream in the eye of the wind
From this day forward, that song shall be the only song I shall hear on days that I break my tooth on a chicken wing. There is a demand for Sunday dentistry, but alas, no supply. Capitalism why have you failed me?
I had a strange dream where Hanover sent me a birthday present of 3k. Can you believe it, Hanover sending me a royal present of 3 quid? Who comes up with this shit in my head, gets me wonderin.
Can I post a thread with just the title and no content for the OP?
No, not unless it's suitable for the 'Questions' subcategory in the 'Learning Centre'. This is a 'place to ask your questions about philosophical issues and concepts', e.g. 'Can someone explain Kant's analytic/synthetic distinction?'. This is a place designed with people who are relatively new to philosophy in mind, and is not to be used as a loophole.
The only one I'm worried about is b. What if I don't want to 'advocate' any position with regards to the topic but would like to get a discussion started about it?
You don't have to advocate any position to get a discussion started about it, but the opening post still has to be thoughtful and of reasonable length. And if you do intend to advocate a position, then you must provide an argument (or arguments).
Reply to Hanover I first heard this song on a Boston rock station, one summer day in 1969. River of Shit by The Fugs. So like life itself, rivers of shit.
The Fugs displayed the kind of refreshing irreverence so lacking in many overly serious discussions today.
I had a strange dream where Hanover sent me a birthday present of 3k. Can you believe it, Hanover sending me a royal present of 3 quid? Who comes up with this shit in my head, gets me wonderin.
I sent you the $3k in your dreams to see what you would do with it. So far, you've done nothing with it, other than to get to wonderin.
Let's get a video of someone punching you in the face. That'd be even funnier.
Look, Agustino got punched in the face, haha...Are we all three years old now?
No, it's not funny; it's in bad taste especially because it's male on female violence and also because it encourages violence against Clinton individually and political opponents in general. The fact that it's coming from the Presidumb is SAD but sadly not surprising.
it's in bad taste especially because it's male on female violence and also because it encourages violence against Clinton individually and political opponents in general.
It's just a funny clip, has nothing to do with male on female violence or encouraging violence against Clinton for that matter. It wouldn't even have been this funny had Clinton not been supremely arrogant before the voting - and after too.
You're starting to sound much like a politically correct postmodernist now. Does watching that video make you feel more violent towards women, or towards Hillary for that matter? Probably not, I certainly didn't see such an effect on myself.
I broke my tooth on a chicken wing
Which is what I shall name my next child
So I went to the dentist to get a root canal
Not unlike the passage in Panama
But the man in the room just one over
Started to have a heart attack
Much like those who worry themselves
So an ambulance came and took him off
And that slowed down my relief
Relief like you get when you finally sleep
He gave me a discount for the delay
So I bought a new shirt
Comments (61561)
Meister Eggfart would know! Put off a ninja fart and then watch the awkwardness ensue. Oh, the lol's!
Butt'se-Fartlaugh. Happy farts and happy dayz.
Are you in Germany? How's the beer there? Octoberfest coming up soon, send some pics!
Sure thing, send some crop circle pic's also.
For any harm that comes to them as a result, they bring it on themselves by publicly endorsing such vile and disdainful views in the first place - views which understandably and knowingly provoke such angry reactions. It's practically inevitable. It's just a real shame that these counter-protesters who took things too far ended up getting themselves hurt or killed.
What on Earth am I going to do? I feel something needy building inside of me, is this what an impending empty nest feels like? :-O
Yes, he's a typical political opportunist with horribly backward views. Trump is a pig but at least he's upfront about it.
Trump's on a 36% approval rating at the mo'. Pence is probably higher but he wouldn't have the pull with some crucial demographics in swing states that Trump had. He definitely could win an election though.
34.
Nah, Obama should replace Trump.
Kill me now.
He has an irrational fear of homosexuals?
Yes, he hides under his bed from them >:O
>:O
Unfortunately, YOU will still see me posting "sexist" comments, because talking about Kierkegaard is sexist to you for example. Talking about the Church is sexist. Talking against abortion is sexist. Etc. Then I'm sure that Baden will, despite his ill feelings towards me, be unable to grant your wishes, and then you'll start over again >:O That's how crazy works ;)
Say it again. I want to try this flagging thing out. >:O
I don't like Obamarama.
It's OK, I said Obama.
Yes, it's an awful tragedy, by which of course I mean it's a goat song which inspires awe.
No, an irrational fear of homo sapiens.
No, I actually never said that women want to be assaulted. That would, to begin with, be a contradiction in terms.
E.g. if two people consent to a street fight then it's still assault.
Edit: actually, assault is just the attempt or threat. It's battery if it's successful.
Hmm in the very technical sense of the term I agree with you. But when we use assault with regards to women we generally refer to rape and sexual intercourse, not just attacking them in the street - although it is sometimes used that way.
I call Mom and apologize often for some of the things I have done, that I am now getting to experience first hand. I asked her if she was getting tired of hearing these calls because I don't want to annoy her but she assures me that THOSE kind of calls are never annoying. :D
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/96822
Why? It's very important for members of this community to know what counts as sexism, so that the guidelines are clear. So far the guidelines are very unclear. In addition, don't you reckon it's good that we have a rational discussion about what sexism is or is not so that we may better understand the underlying issues?
Sorry I didn't see this. So then you don't think this community is mature enough to have a rational discussion on sexism?
It's a loaded topic and people have very strong opinions. In the same vein I'd advise against discussing religion and politics at the dinner table with family.
Okay, I see. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this matter.
Clearly not given all the insults and the like in the previous and related discussions.
Okay!
They're clear enough. They're intended to guide you in the right direction, not pick you up and carry you there.
I think that what counts as sexism can itself be a complicated philosophical (or sociological) issue, so this question is like asking what counts as a game. And it's not like we can list all the possible sexist statements that can be made. We're just going to have to use our best judgement (as we do with what counts as a flame too far or as low quality - with different moderators having different lines), and if you disagree with a particular post being moderated then there's PMs or the feedback forum.
Okay, but you do understand that sexism is a very big word right? And people don't have the same understanding of it - in fact, as proven by the responses in that thread, even the moderators don't. That's a problem. Because one moderator may deem a comment sexist and remove it without asking the other moderators, even though it could be possible that all others would disagree with him/her.
Well true, there was some "I know you are, but what am I?!" and "nyah nyah nyah!" going on, but I think it it a valid (if not important) topic. Even without the accusation and Trial of Socrates drama. But all that made it almost necessary, imho. But admittedly, it the thread continued it would have to be under tight moderator editing of BS and insults.
Okay, I understand now. The guidelines state that :
So if a post is deemed sexist by one moderator, is the punishment for it that the author of it will be banned? Or how will this work?
We usually discuss it amongst ourselves and come to an agreement.
But would that happen for each and every comment deemed sexist by one moderator? Or would it just get deleted?
It only has six letters. Crackerjacks has twice as many.
Quoting Agustino
Any complaints about moderation can be dealt with at the time and on a case-by-case basis, if it's brought to our attention.
Will the user in question be warned before the ban is considered regarding his behaviour?
[quote=Site Guidelines]Admins have the right to ban members. We don't do that lightly, and you will probably be warned about your behaviour if you are under consideration for a ban. However, if you are a spammer, troll, racist or in some other way obviously unsuited to the forum, a summary ban will be applied. Bans are permanent and non-negotiable. Returning banned members will be rebanned.[/quote]
Either he's not aware that what he calls "myths" are actually very controversial issues, or he just wants to put an end to freedom to discuss those issues and enforce his own view that such things are myths.
Myths are frequently controversial issues. Personally, there are things I don't find worth discussing, and anything is controversial to someone or other. My testosterone levels might be controversial, but in this case, I think your freedom to discuss the issue comes second to my right to privacy.
"On the myth that testosterone largely accounts for differences in behaviour between men and women"
?
The scientific community doesn't at all seem settled about this:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201602/sex-gender-and-testosterone
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/02/11440/male-and-female-behavior-deconstructed
The fact that such a person is allowed to be a moderator who thinks these issues are settled and that it should be considered sexist for someone to be out of line with his thinking on it is a SERIOUS problem in my own humble opinion. And it's not the first time we've seen such dictatorial tendencies.
What is 'mythical' about using testosterone as an explanation for gendered behaviour is that testosterone levels are themselves explanandum and not merely explanans. So by all means, cite what studies you like, but let's not pretend that the results of those studies in any way enable the primitive inferences that you draw from them.
Thanks for your answer. I now see what you mean to say. Yes, it's true that the first study does show (apart from other things) that behaviour influences CHANGES in testosterone levels. Namely that "bossy" behaviour leads to larger percentage changes in testosterone levels in females (and smaller in males), but also larger numeric changes in males. Now this doesn't change the fact that testosterone levels remain MUCH larger in males than in females overall, regardless of behaviour. No study has shown that they have equal testosterone levels on average.
Quoting StreetlightX
Sure! It is like a two way street, but this isn't to deny that they aren't also explanans. As even the first article linked recognises, testosterone levels remain significantly higher in males, despite changes in behaviour. As the third article linked shows, hormone levels do modulate behaviour to a large degree, so granted this, it is only fair to assume that male behaviour will tend to be different than female behaviour on average due - amongst other things (which include social expectations and the things that postmodernists love to talk about) - also to significantly higher testosterone levels.
[quote=]On the myth that testosterone largely accounts for differences in behaviour between men and women[/quote]
Testosterone levels DO largely (it would obviously depend how you define this now) account for such differences.
And I think your dictatorial attitude here:
Is absolutely dangerous and should be shunned. And remember that you called my post "fucking disgusting" and worse, and when I questioned you about it, it ended up that there was actually only ONE phrase out of the entire essay that you found to be sexist (even though as I argued, I don't think it was). Now I have no problem that you have such feelings towards my writing, but I don't feel safe having someone like you being a moderator, when it's clear to me that your worldview just makes you biased & hostile to anything that's remotely different from what you believe in. Such a strong emotional reaction doesn't permit for clear judgement I believe.
To put it shortly, that such differences make a difference is itself not at all straightforward. And one can contexutalise this a 'level up' as well: granting such already precarious differences, are these themselves differences that matter for the concrete contexts in which they are expressed (workplace, home, etc)? And this is to say nothing still regarding points of policy regarding how we ought, as a society, to treat such differences, precarious as they already are. So yeah, any straightforward claims regarding testosterone and gendered behaviour ought to be treated with extreme and uncompromising skepticism.
Finally, the perpetuation of myths regarding the sexes is sexist. This is no less 'dictatorial' a policy than if one were to consider as racist perpetuating myths about race. If it is 'dangerous', then so much the worse for those so endangered.
I don't think this follows at all from what you say. You say that there's basically a lot of factors that can have an influence, and therefore it's unreasonable to draw a conclusion with regards to the influence of testosterone. That's not what most scientists think, quite clearly from the articles I've posted. In addition, we do notice that hormone changes can produce changes in behaviour while other factors such as environment are kept constant. So it's not all straightforward - but it is plausible, and likely.
Quoting StreetlightX
Yes - that's IF - and that's a big if - they are actually myths. Because if they're not actually myths, then it's an entirely different story. And the problem comes precisely because it seems that what you take to be a myth, isn't actually that much of a myth at all. It's actually something that is very plausible in the eyes of many people, including scientists themselves. So the fact that you consider such a thing to be a myth, combined with your ideology of not tolerating any myths regarding the sexes, leads to a very dangerous situation in my opinion. Your "perpetuation of myths regarding the sexes is sexist" means that whatsoever you consider to be a myth - regardless of whether it is or is not - will be taken to be sexist. That's a problem, because your judgement, quite frankly, seems to be not so good in deciding what is or is not a myth when it comes to this subject.
So don't take this the wrong way, I think you're a smart guy, but I certainly think you're biased with regards to this.
Because that's how a moderator should respond to honest inquiries and concerns. Anyway, I'm done here.
It's also interesting to consider that women become more attracted to higher testosterone men while ovulating, but not so much any other time. Then there is the fact that since birth control, women don't ovulate as much, or at all if they don't want to. With control over their hormones, more agreeable men may be preferable.
I can definitely attest to the increased health benefits of improved symmetry. Though I have difficulty maintaining balance under pressure, unfortunately mine isn't natural, it's supranatural.
Coming to a bookstore near you.
Did you do like a five second google search and conclude the first couple click bait headlines must be right? Articles rarely deliver on their titles (read them, and watch them qualify out of it).
Quoting Agustino
"You can openly shame white people or all men, and we do this in our company wide meetings"
The secret though, is the center line. See, you want to push the center line into the extremity of your joints, so that everything properly flows without getting cut off anywhere. Something going white? You're cutting that group of, move things around until it isn't. Visible tendons? You're lifting up too much, gotta press more. Skin crinkling around ankles, wrists or elbows? You're sunk in too much, gotta lift more.
Hands are the most annoying, I imagine because rotating the wrist is so new, but you gotta make sure that the wrist elbow, and shoulder don't all rotate as one, but can independently, and make sure the hand is flat but also gripping with every inch (like, around anything that you're toughing or holding, and nothing is rotating, or pulling away, or flatting too softly). With the feet, gotta make sure that you get complete knuckle connection, from the outside heel, to the pink knuckle, and then the ball, and up through the arch. No weight in toes, they're just for balancing when you roll over them. Missing the connection from the outside heel to the smaller toe knuckles and moving right to the ball means you're flat footed, and joints will compress, making you slow and shitty congrats. spending all of the time on your toes will only get your front muscles, without the heel missing your back. You'll get pretty thin though. That's all you really need to know.
I realize that I don't have the greatest body ever, but I think I look pretty damn good for not having to actually work hard, plus, because of how loose and soft I am, so I'm so so damn fast.
Kool-Aid here. Have some Kool-Aid.
I've been trolling you the whole time. Not really.
Predatory eyes in the darkness of a thumping bar
All of them waiting
For another
After he was gone they cleaned the room
And it was sunny in April
Nothing left but echoes.
Guinness book of world records for trolling?
[hide="Reveal"]
Lol, they do have power, the power of life and death is one that every human has, but it is a very powerful one nonetheless.The groups in question just don't know how to use it properly, much like most people in power.
And it's not the only time.
"Kim Jong Un of North Korea made a very wise and well reasoned decision. The alternative would have been both catastrophic and unacceptable!"
Not just catastrophic but also unacceptable!
Reminds me of when I respond to my girlfriend saying "I love you" with "I mostly appreciate your presence, too".
Oh my you do like to live dangerously don't you?
They were.
I agree.
We have developed the words "racist", "sexist", "misogynist", "neo-nazi", etc. and we throw them around on people we don't like, and who don't agree with our views. We noticed recently exactly this kind of witch hunt here as well.
I don't know if all the people who want to keep Robert Lee's statue up are "neo-nazi" or "white supremacists" or whatever. But notice that when the media speaks, it's always "the neo-nazis", etc. - they label everyone like that, and we're all supposed to go like "oooh they're neo-nazi, they're the devil! Let's grab our pitchforks and go take them out!!". And if anyone doesn't grab their pitchfork, then they too are the devil. I've been reading that in some US universities if you speak something against, say, feminism - you'd effectively get lynched by the leftists, or physically abused at any rate (by having objects thrown at you, etc.). That - in my view - is totally unacceptable. It seems to me that some people are intent on maintaining this culture of violence, otherwise they don't feel safe.
What the hell is this kind of antagonistic witch hunt?! If these neo-nazis really are the devil, we should outlaw their views and take them out with the force of the police. But the citizens should have no right to take their pitchforks and go witch hunting for those people. Witch hunts belong to the state - if they are to belong to anyone.
And look at what the crooked media asks Trump when he says that (I paraphrase) "in the group of protesters there were people other than KKK, Neo-nazis and white supremacists and the media has treated them unfairly" - just look at what the crooked reporters ask: "You are saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly?"........ *facepalm*
That's much like this exchange:
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
And I was the one accused about not seeing behind labels :-}
She explained what his tattoos meant.. dark outlines on dark brown skin. His lover only came to the hospital once. He stood with his arms crossed, looking down at Demonte as if he was looking at a piece of roadkill. He smiled sweetly as he walked out the door.
Fiction?
Wow! Impressive writing.
Quoting Mongrel
I know, I can be genuinely excited about her moving from here. (L)
Didn't watch the entire video, but just wanted to mention that most people don't know much truth about these men. Thomas Jefferson was 14 when he inherited his father's farm. It was against Virginia State law to release the slaves. He was actually against slavery. Many of the Fathers were.
The left has cried wolf too many times, but they're in so deep that they're oblivious of this fact and so simply double down on it.
Lol, you would frequent there.
It's difficult to post stuff with your twat, so that's impressive.
[hide="Reveal"]
I'm not sure "informed" is the right word for that sub. I mostly use the BBC now, which I balance out with conservative journals and magazines.
First of all, pricks like these white nationalists, KKKs, neo-nazi and whatever who promote the use of violence, and assert that they will resort to violence themselves if they are provoked should immediately be arrested. Guys like this one:
This brutish behaviour and acceptance of violence has no place in civilised society and this should be clear. If I was the President, I would use military force if necessary to arrest these people immediately. They don't understand anything except force, and they are a declared danger to society.
Secondly, we also have to speak of some of the leftist savages, which seek to provoke, insult without regard, beat, attack, behave like animals, have no respect for public decency, culture, or anything that is of value in society. For example savages like this one who go naked into the street, because apparently that's acceptable if someone is killed...
I think such people should be first of all fined, and second of all, if they repeat the offence sufficiently, should be jailed. We are a civilised society, we cannot accept disgusting and shameless behaviour. And protesting should not give one the right to shamelessness. Neither should the presence of neo-nazis, KKKs, or whatever. Nothing is an excuse for shamelessness. And before someone says "oooh this would be a victory to the Nazis, etc" - that's bullshit. First of all, it's unimportant what they take it to be. Whether they feel it's a victory or not, is irrelevant. The Nazis should be arrested for encouraging & promoting the use of violence, and that's that.
I wish today's BLM movements, etc. would be like this man, whom I much admire:
At least he and his people understood integrity and had some notion of decency and morality, however inadequate.
But no, they have to be shameless feminazis who go naked into the street, disrespect our society, scream, shout, swear and behave like savages. This cannot be a civilised country. These are not reasonable people. I was disgusted by looking at the images. I think Trump was absolutely right to say that both sides were guilty. Sure, the Neo-nazi, KKKs, etc. share a much greater degree of blame due to their outrageous statements/actions (and extreme violence just to be clear), but that's not to say the others were innocent.
Yes, just like the second world war. Those guys who fought the Nazis did bad things too. So, both sides were guilty.
Drawing an equivalence between fascists/racists and those who oppose them just because some of those opposing them did some things you don't like is disgusting.
Is the real problem that they scream, shout, swear, and behave like savages, or that they're naked? Or to put it another way, is it bad if they're naked and peaceful and bad if they're aggressive and clothed, or must it be the whole package?
Wait, so how did Trump draw an equivalence between them? He said the other side (the alt left) also has its degree of moral culpability. He didn't say they are equal, nobody said that. Promoting the use of violence, and encouraging the killing of people is significantly worse than simply being violent, attacking, hitting, swearing, ignoring standards of decency, etc. But if somebody uses violence, that doesn't mean you have a license to go naked on the street or anything of that sort, does it?
Being naked on the street is behaving like a savage as well. So all of those are problems.
Quoting Michael
Yes it is.
Quoting Michael
That's worse than just being naked peacefully, of course.
You must really disapprove of the World Naked Bike Ride.
Also, you know Adam and Eve were naked, right? It's only because they ate of the forbidden fruit and became shameful that they decided to cover themselves. God didn't seem to think that them being naked was savage, else he would have made them clothed.
Even Fox News, Redstate.com and several top Republican politicians know what it means to draw an equivalence and that Trump did it, and that it was wrong. You don't have to literally say the Nazis and those who fought them in WWII shared exactly equal blame to draw an equivalence. All you have to do to make you a moral idiot is to talk about the fine people in the SS and that some of those yanks fighting them were really nasty, so, both sides were at fault. Understand?
Quoting Baden
Hmmmm... I'm struggling to see what you mean by equivalence. To me, to draw an equivalence between two things means to say, in this case, that they're equally bad morally speaking. To put them on the same level of wrongness.
My point is, don't you think it's wrong, for example, if someone murders and tortures an entire village, and then someone rapes and kills them, wouldn't you say that despite the murders and the tortures of the village, it was still wrong for the person in question to rape them? That seems to me like letting one evil go, just because there's another greater evil around the corner :s How is that moral?
I believe some America soldiers got naked on D-day. Scared the heck out of the Krauts in the process of saving Europe, but of course, it was totally wrong of them and they should have been harshly punished.
So supposing that someone assassinated Hitler successfully and then proceeded to rape his wife/girlfriend Eva. Would that be okay, just because he saved Europe from the leader of the Nazis?! :s I don't think fighting one evil justifies committing another. Do you?
Degree matters. Bitching about two people killing bystanders as they fight each other is fine. Bitching about one person for shouting and not wearing clothes after bitching about another for driving a car into a bunch of people and killing one seems like you have strange priorities. The evil of the one overshadows the inappropriateness of the other.
It's like condemning an Islamist terrorist for shooting up an office and then condemning the cartoonist for mocking/insulting Islam in their cartoons. The latter might have been more reasonable if the former weren't a factor. But given the former, you really shouldn't do the latter.
The liberators did rape Germans actually unlike the anti-fascist protesters even though one of them was murdered. And you comparing actions like getting naked in the street to rape is bizarre, frankly.
Quoting Baden
And was it right for the liberators to rape Germans? :s I fail to see how a greater evil - like the Nazis - can act as an excuse for lesser evils so long as they're done in opposition to the greater evil.
Quoting Michael
Yes, I bitched about each to very different degrees. Against some of them (the neo-nazi bunch) I said they're a declared danger to society, and if I was President I'd go as far as using military force to arrest them immediately.
The others I've accused not just of being naked, but of provoking, being violent as well, etc. I suggested such behaviour should be fined in the first instances, and if repeated sufficiently it should receive a jail sentence. So the gravity of their offences is much smaller, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
No, none of that is the case. We're talking about drawing equivalences. I've tried to explain it several times, and it's hard to know why you don't get it yet. I'll give you one more example: A young girl tells me to "fuck off" so I punch her in the face until she's unconscious. For someone to emphasize that both sides did wrong would be moral idiocy. It would not be not "ignoring the evil" of the girl telling me to "fuck off" even though from a literal point of view that was wrong. Do you understand yet?
I've watched the footage though, and the alt-left was also violent. They didn't kill anyone, or run anyone over with a car, but they did hit and attack. I don't think violence should be acceptable from citizens. The state should stop dangerous groups like KKK, Neo-nazi, etc. but it's a fundamentally wrong thing for people to take matters into their own hands and resort to violence, or to be encouraged to resort to violence.
Do you think it's right, for example, if those people who were in the "alt left" side, consider that they've done a good thing by being violent and will desire to be violent again in the future? I don't - I think we should condemn all violence.
Quoting Baden
Well obviously with such an extreme case I will agree, because "fuck off" isn't even that big of a deal. But if she, say, kills your dog purposefully, and you punch her in the face, I don't think I'd be drawing an equivalence if I condemn both of you, although I'd probably condemn you more in that case for attacking another human being. It ultimately depends on the gravity of both offences.
If one offence isn't grave (like fuck off), and the other is, then yes there would be equivalence if I were to condemn you both. But if both offences are grave (even if one of them is significantly worse than the other) - like raping Germans - and putting your own people into gas chambers, then I don't think there's equivalence if we condemn both. Both offences are serious. One is much more serious than the other since it's genocidal. But rape is also a grave offence, and it shouldn't be excused in my view.
You don't think murder vs. getting naked in the street, or vs. some minor acts of violence is an extreme difference? you don't think being a fascist/racist vs. being anti-fascist racist is an extreme difference?
The question isn't if it's an extreme difference. The question is first of all if both are grave offences. I believe murder is terrible (and even more terrible when those who commit it don't feel they've done anything wrong). But violence is also bad and should be condemned. And they weren't "minor" acts of violence, they were full-blown attacking.
Quoting Baden
Well yes, I do think there's a huge difference there. But being anti-fascist and anti-racist shouldn't justify the use of grave moral offences such as resorting to violence. The state should be the only one allowed to employ violence to stop the fascist/racist groups if necessary, not common people in the street. That's why police, military, etc. exist.
Who are you arguing against here? Who claimed rape should be excused? However, if you are talking in broad brushstrokes directly after WWII and you say "Well, both sides were at fault", you would be drawing a false equivalence. Exactly the type of thing that the right complained the left were doing after 9/11 by the way. And many of them are smart enough to realize that.
Yes, I agree. Because the Nazi's were responsible for brutally attacking other countries in the first place. So we had all the right to go and attack them to put an end to their reign of terror.
Quoting Baden
I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, I didn't follow American politics that closely back then.
If you have a video, etc. about it please do link me. Or tell me about the situation.
Good. Hopefully then, you understand where those who objected to Trump's statement are coming from then even if you still don't agree with the objection.
If you're referring to condoning the violence against - say - Iraqi people at the hands of American soldiers, just because of 9/11, then I agree with you, that that was despicable. Since violence and abuse is a grave offence, even though it is less significant morally than flying planes into buildings.
I do understand that, but I really feel they're so extreme in their reactions. It's true that in my opinion Trump should be more clear about the fact that there's no moral comparison between the gravity of the offences, but other than that, I think he did well by condemning the violence from the other side as well.
I meant when some on the left immediately after the attacks said America bore some responsibility for 9/11, the right complained this was drawing an unfair equivalence. People lost their jobs over it.
Ah okay... I wasn't even aware of this. I will look it up. Anyway, I'm going to have to prepare dinner now.
Ok, well at least we got somewhere. Enjoy your dinner.
Thank you.
I suggest watching this video, especially at 8:03:
Yes I agree with this. And the fact that these leftist groups appeal to the existence of groups which are even worse than they are is no excuse for what they do. This is a serious tragedy.
I've never been on a US college campus, but I heard things can get quite abusive on some campuses towards anyone who doesn't share in the postmodernist extreme left culture. This is not a sign of education or culture, especially in learning institutions.
I keep having this feeling that we promote an "anything is permitted" attitude so long as people are opposed to groups like Nazis, etc.
I mean the media outrage is amazing... Literarily CEOs are calling Trump out, J.K. Rowling is saying it's an abomination, etc.
Like why so much outrage? He never said the two groups were equivalent... Why are people so vindictive towards him, and calling him a white nationalist, racist, etc? :s
I mean I could understand people being like: "I think what Trump said is wrong, it made it seem like there's some equivalence between the two groups, and while it's true that the 'alt-left' was violent and yada yada, there is still no comparison to the white supremacists, etc. who resorted to murder and were even proud of it" - but why the hate? Why the extreme moral condemnation? Some people's reactions are the reactions I'd imagine someone to have to someone like Hitler.
But I think the media is right now misinterpreting his comments on purpose - either that, or they're peddling the leftist ideology and want to see the ascendency of groups like BLM who also encourage violence. That can be my only conclusion.
EDIT: @Thorongil did nothing wrong. The link is some kind of troll/hack. Seems to appear differently to different users.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1848/descartess-i-think-therefore-i-am
in the last post.
Please let me know if you liked it or loved it.
Dastardly villains.
Okay, I will now have to be careful. Is a picture of Borat in a swimming suit considered pornographic? :s
And now watch this:
>:O >:O >:O
:-! You have developed quite an obsession with Kevin it seems
Beat me to it. (Y)
Seriously? This guy really does just want to be a dictator, and doesn't make a secret about it either.
Edit: And because there's a Trump vs Trump tweet for everything:
Well, actually he does have quite a good point. The US is a failed democracy because each party tries to use entirely legal means (such as the courts) to block the policies of the other party, not because they actually have anything against them, but merely because they belong to the other party. This conflictual system where conflict ceases to be based on reason, and becomes based on partisanship is broken and cannot work. So Trump is actually bringing up a very important point.
So what is the point? That we shouldn't use the courts and whoever's the President should be able to push his own partisan agenda with nothing to stop him?
Clearly not any president. Only white male ones perhaps?
Where in that quote did you surmise this? The bolded part? As far as I can tell, you just pulled this accusation from your rear end.
It's ironic, because he's right that the Democrats are obstructing his policies by means of the courts. The ridiculous challenge to his travel ban by that Hawaii judge was mostly struck down by the Supreme Court. That judge and others like him are not fooling anyone about what their intentions are.
:s What's this got to do with anything?
Quoting Michael
The point is that the other side shouldn't irrationally block legislation that would be good for the country MERELY because it belongs to the other party. Legislation should be blocked and amended only if they have rational grounds to disagree with it.
https://www.christiancentury.org/article/blaise-pascal-blessed-doubter
Let's see more legal proceeding, not less!
>:O More legal proceeding will be the end of the American experiment in democracy, since people will very soon start losing faith in it. And this isn't a matter of DEMs vs GOP. I know the Republicans did the same, that's exactly the point I'm making.
Like these nuts?
P.S. Hopefully this isn't a pornographic image for some people and a normal one for others... it's from nuts.com
Closer to these.
Excellent! X-)
You want to purchase them? :D
>:O
Apart from the laughter points, the very fascinating thing psychologically, is why the hell is he so afraid the cops will KILL him? I mean he's not afraid of the arrest, he's afraid he'll be killed! Why? Why does he even think they'll kill him? Is there something here about American society I don't know?
As I said, I am quite puzzled by all the outrage against Trump. I really haven't found Trump's speech to be as crazy and as bad as these people make it sound like. He never said there's good Nazis for that matter, so that's again a false representation of what he said.
I don't think Trump is a sinking ship, I think he's doing mighty fine in fact. When you have $4 billion dollars and you hold the chair of President of the United States, it's not difficult to replace these rats, with some hungrier rats if you need them.
I'm actually more upset at the hypocrisy and lack of loyalty these people show, and they seek to profit from every little thing so that they appear better in the eyes of the public. The CEOs, etc. - it's very clear, they'll do whatever it takes to make more money. At least Trump doesn't care what other people think and he's willing to stick for what he believes in even if he loses support, that's an admirable trait. These CEOs, etc. are slaves of money - they'd do ANYTHING for popularity and money. I can bet that if things were the other way around, and the press gave good publicity to Trump instead of bad, then MOST of these very same people would be licking up to him like there's no tomorrow.
What does he believe and stick to?
edited to remove question mark.
Whatever his views happen to be. That's been a general trend with Trump. For example when the whole media was up in arms about his desire to build a wall with Mexico, he didn't switch, like most other politicians would do, and start peddling something that would be more popular, he sticked to what he was initially proposing. That in my view is a good thing about Trump, granting how most other politicians are such big snakes and have no integrity & honesty.
But there are some problems with Trump as well, I've been very critical of him as of late as well, I'm only being more positive now because there's just too much unjustified hatred of him around I think.
Why do you think that? In his last speech, Trump actually said, for example, that "the driver of the car was a disgrace to himself, his family and the country", "the driver of the car is a murderer and what he did is a horrible, horrible thing", "I've condemned neo-nazis, white supremacists", "the neo-nazis, the white nationalists, [because] they should be condemned totally", "rough bad people: neo-nazis, white nationalists", and so forth. I find these to be condemning the white supremacists and their actions...
And I hate the council. Paid to have the old bed frame and mattress taken away today (the only day they could do it for weeks). They told us to leave it outside (so it's wet and dirty at the moment). But they haven't collected it. So it's making the outside of the house look like a tip, and the mattress that I could have slept on is taunting me.
Quoting Agustino
How about abortion.
Of course this would never fly with his campaign strategy, so he switched.
Namely, the difference to proving to one's self (as that seems to be the only thing of value to Trump, himself) that one is a good politician and the difference with actually being a good politician.
His initial reaction to the car murder was to say something on the lines of "I condemn violence on all sides" Weasel words gratefully received by the WSs.
I am not aware of the Nieto thing, do you have a link? As far as I know, he still claims that Mexico will ultimately pay for it.
Quoting praxis
Yes, I am aware of those, but those are very long ago. And even then, he said he hates abortion. So it's not that inconceivable at all that he would switch over this over time. And he was quite open to discuss this, and explained that he has changed his position over the years. At least he doesn't change from day to day like many other politicians do.
Quoting praxis
:s He switched it way before he ran.
Well, why does it matter what the white nationalists think? They are very deluded people if they think they can associate themselves with a man who has openly condemned them, even by name in 2 of the 3 speeches. As far as I'm concerned, what the white nationalists think is irrelevant. They should simply be arrested by the police whenever they encourage the use of violence - as many of them have done at their protest. This obsession "oooooh what are the white nationalists thinking?" etc.... what's the point of that? They're a fringe group whose ideology is very violent and repugnant, who should simply be dealt with by law enforcement. As simple as that. If they find a white nationalist threatening someone over the internet, in public, or anywhere else they should identify who it is and issue an arrest warrant. Very soon they'd be all gone.
Around the time he switched to being a republican?
I imagine pretty much everyone hates abortion, btw, and it's not inconceivable that anyone's view on the issue will change over time. Point is that it's not admirable to switch on a position like this for political gain.
Okay so he wasn't running for President when he became a republican right? He wasn't in fact running for any office, correct?
Quoting praxis
Amy Schumer? Pretty much the whole of Hollywood? :s
I know, I know, fake news... if you don't like this link I can find another.
Maybe. I think he wants to be seen as being loyal with the option (or ready intention) to dump later. I think he thinks if he can do something slowly no one will notice. Like Mr Twit who whittles down his wife's walking stick a slither a day.
Why do I think that? Because he promised very big things, like "the wall" which is getting the Mr Twit treatment already ("the wall will not necessarily go along the whole border...").
What about his position on NAFTA? In the election, it was called the worst trade deal in the history of the world. Then, after being elected, to the Canadians, he said it just needs to be "tweaked". Later he goes off saying NAFTA needs to be totally renegotiated. But then he was later back to it just needs to be tweaked. He clearly changes his statement of position depending on whom he's talking to.
Have been feeding it a lot. Just want it to get really fat.
On the other hand, a fat cat might make a better football.
That went dark pretty fast.
The cat is running around bored and feeling wild.
Quoting Posty McPostface
:-O :-O :-O
Oh dear Sappy, I think if you watch that video from where I linked you'll absolutely change your opinion about their cuteness >:O
The cat will be happier when I feed it in excess. She will be happy and fat.
No. >:O
(Sorry, i was waiting and waiting for someone else to hit that softball pitch)
Did you get the kind of mattress that will slide down the dorm stair case the fastest or the safest?
They call it Stormy Monday but Tuesday's just as bad...
You mean they still have faith? Wow, US citizens do grow up in a media bubble that's all about the US. If it was the Netherlands I had moved to Canada by now.
Yes we still have faith and Canada suddenly doesn't want any immigrants.
Welcome to how Syrians and Mexicans feel.
No, we actually got the kind of mattress that only dad can figure out how to carry up the stairs.
I actually am indebted to this mattress for having pulled me away from a certain someone, but that's just between us.
Si Senor! If made to choose, we would head south. Not as far as Sir but to deep Mexico along the coast.
Lmao!! OMG The Visual!!!
He has two dorm mates, three guys one bedroom, one bathroom and 300 sq ft total.
One of his room mates is from out of state and is an Air Force ROTC and his other room mate has not logged in yet as to where he is from and studying what but I am already suspicious as he has an 800 number for his contact number. Hmmmmmmm..... you never know....
I see. I'm not sure how trustworthy that is, since it is leaked material.
"The transcripts were prepared by the White House but have not been released. The Post is publishing reproductions rather than original documents in order to protect sources. The reproductions below also include minor spelling and grammatical mistakes that appeared in the documents."
The facts though are that Trump is still claiming, even today, that Mexico will pay for the wall. Whether this is true or not, remains to be seen.
Quoting praxis
The Mexico wall is something he sticks to. If I have to pick another thing, it's his view on China. He has been having the same complaints against China since the 1980s!
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Okay, but don't you think that his intention remains the same in that case, it's just the way he phrases it that changes? Yes, I might phrase something one way with one group, and another way with another group as well. What's wrong with that?
I believe the difference is that after the election the story switched to that of American taxpayers paying for the wall and then somehow recouping the money from Mexico in the future. Also the estimated price for the wall steadily increased from a ridiculously low number to something closer to reality, around 25 billion I think. This isn't admirable, it's a shallow political tactic.
Quoting Agustino
Are these complaints controversial?
He sticks to a lot of things, but sticktoitiveness is not itself a virtue. He stuck to the birther thing for years. Did he actually believe it or was it just another shallow political tactic?
That's not the number that I know... 8 billion is the number that I know. I think 25 billion is another "fake news" story to tell you the truth, similar to the leaks.
Quoting praxis
Yes, compared to other politicians who when the wind changes immediately take to running for their lives - who literarily have no integrity - he is better.
Have you done any research or are you just going along with the story you like?
I just know what the official numbers are like.
During his campaign, Trump initially said he could build a wall for $4 billion. In January 2017, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said the wall would be $12 billion to $15 billion.
Which "official" numbers do you know? :P
No, actually I don't think he knows what his intention is, or more precisely, does not have any particular intention. So he makes various somewhat random statements to elicit response. Then he might form an intention. But then again, he might just keep up with the back and forth.
The official number from the Department of Homeland Security is $21.6 billion.
Do the Mayan tour and you'll end up just over a couple of mountains from my place.
I've heard of the $8 billion number, but I'll look into it. Hopefully, this doesn't turn out to be another conspiratorial thing.
I think that is going to be the best part as a parent, that and the haircut they have to have. They have a haircutting place on campus so the ROTC's have no reason to not be in compliance and the non ROTC students get the bonus of never having to leave campus to get a clip. I also like that they have a Chiropractor and a Massage therapist at the wellness center in addition to a Doctor. It turns out that the Pilots in training can get stiff necks so the rest benefit.
I refuse to have my buttons pushed today. You and I both know the validity of Chiropractic care.
I want to be by the Ocean Sir, I am flipin tired of the desert. Especially in the late part of August in Arizona, there is no time more miserable than now.
I often find it difficult to keep my cool around my family.
The "alternative" is that they do not adhere to the scientific method. If these alternative treatments were scientifically shown to work, they would then be called "mainstream."
Right. Which is why a Chiropractor's Malpractice Insurance in AZ is $2,700.00 a year. (N)
Does that mean he believes that he's stupid now?
You'd be surprised what releasing endorphins from cracking some joints in a specific manner and place can do. Never doubt the placebo effect also.
Never doubt the nocebo effect also. >:)
I don't know, why don't you watch his speech? It was quite honest, he actually did say that he changed his mind and he explained why. It's a great speech I think.
Put it on 2x speed and listen to it.
Then what should we do with terrorists? Hug them? :s
What would Jesus do?
My brother, the Richard Dawkins style ultra-rationalist of the family (I am the woffly Green), nevertheless has insisted, gazing into his blind spot, that his chiropractor was the go-to man for aches and pains. Two weeks ago, alas, the chiropractor damaged a nerve in my brother's shoulder leaving him in bad pain. It has been a Herculean struggle to sympathise in proper fraternal fashion.
Throw them in hell.
But even more important than this is that fact that evil on that scale should not be trifled with nor tolerated because it can spread, and the damage it can cause is extreme. Therefore it has to be exterminated. It seems to me that you don't realise what kind of danger these beasts pose to the civilised world. You seem to think it's fine to let them fume around the Middle East, take over land, terrorise the people there, maintain their brutal and uncivilised regimes, destroy local culture (Syria is in ruins now) and so forth.
There is no question of "turning the other cheek" here. Remember that with the money changers in the temple Jesus didn't turn the other cheek. He grabbed the whip and chased them out.
Must be something new(ish), interesting, and accessible to talk about.
How will bombing and killing terrorists in Afghanistan reduce Afghan animosity towards the USA? If anything it seems like it would increase it.
Disrespectful communist who doesn't honour his nation's traditions in order to peddle to 25% non-religiously affiliated Americans :P
I'm not sure about that. A real leader is one who honours his traditions and ancestors, not one who bows down to what is in vogue and popular while abandoning integrity.
Nah. Tradition be damned. Get with the times. They be a-changing. For the better, too.
wing.
I don't know what Trump's military advisors told him; I don't know what his political advisors told him; I don't know what a little bird whispered in his ear. But... if anyone thinks we are going to win in Afghanistan, and win handily, they are deluded.
Afghanistan is far too fractured by competing tribal loyalties, too much corruption, too little history of effective, central government, too little development, too many islamic lunatics, too porous a border with Pakistan (which has all sorts of problems of its own), and other factors of this sort to expect that ANY number of troops performing whatever services might be asked of them, will make a significant difference. And even if we found a way to solve all these problems (which we won't) what is our stake there?
Sounds like Rome struggling with the Vandals back a while ago. Let them be, just introduce a lot of high-tech and see how long it takes them to realize that we've got things pretty well figured out instead of forcing it on them.
Sanctions didn't stop Iran from getting a nuke. It was the will of the people, manifest through modern day technology to spread the word and tell the Ayatollah to stop his crusade.
Does not this assume that all Afghans support terrorists? Clearly they don't, so they won't feel animosity toward the US by it bombing terrorists.
We're at war with the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS, all of which are present, and the latter newly present, in Afghanistan. We are also obliged to provide humanitarian assistance and security to the Afghan people.
Just a friendly reminder that there are different kinds of conservatism. ;)
So, the likes of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS are in lots of different places in Asia and Africa. Have we successfully rooted them out anywhere?
I don't like any of these groups. I would just as soon see them all drop dead. But... by what means do we seek, find, and kill amorphous enemies such as these?
Suppose the world ganged up on the United States and wanted to kill the dangerous terrorist conservative Republicans who live here. There are invasions, drone strikes, bombings, troop training -- boots on the ground, Euro/African/Asian/Latino army bases scattered around the country -- like in Kansas and Georgia. the whole ball of wax. But they have a major problem: How do they identify a bona fide conservative Republican? Especially when they can quickly look and sound like liberal Republicans, or conservative Democrats (at least to the world's invading forces). These dangerous terrorist conservative Republicans can fade back into the crowds at the shopping malls, and it upsets people when allegedly conservative cities (like Mobile) are nuked.
The world declares victory, (meaning they throw in the sponge) and pull their forces out. Everybody happy. But... before long the terrorist conservative Republicans are back, regrouped, stronger than ever, and doing their dirty work again.
What to do, what to do, what to do...
Americans don't actually like terrorist conservative Republicans. In fact, many people hate them about as much as they hate the occupying troops. While the invaders have managed to kill quite a few of the loathsome terrorist conservative Republicans, they haven't really made that much of a dent. Meanwhile, peace loving liberals deeply resent the presence of foreign troops on American soil and are as willing as Republican guerrillas to blow up their vehicles as they cruise down the freeway or sneak up behind the troops as they shop at Walmart and shoot them in the back.
No, I think Jesus would hug them. That's all they really need, just a little love. They're behaving badly because they're feeling cast out, living in the caves of Afghanistan. That's worse than the dog house.
They're not in countries in which we're already militarily engaged on the ground. Rest assured, we have special operations trying to take out these groups in other countries.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Right, and neither do I. But thankfully, they don't exist. You may be trying for sarcasm here, though, I'm not sure.
No, not trying for sarcasm. I was illustrating how difficult it is for outsiders to identify enemies who don't want to be identified. A Taliban fighter can disappear into the community. The people in his community will most likely have knowledge about who is who. Look at the ISIS criminals who have attacked European targets. They didn't have blinking lights on their heads making it easy to identify them.
People in the United States, like people everywhere, know more about the people who live around them than an outsider can know, at least under normal circumstances.
Quoting Thorongil
For God's sake, ISIS was practically invented in Iraq while we were there. It isn't our fault that some people decided to become Islamic extremists par excellence, but we couldn't have prevented this from happening either.
Quoting Thorongil
Hmmm... special operations. I hope we have spies, various kinds of observers and operatives everywhere (else, what are we paying the intelligence agencies for?). Take the Central African Republic or parts of the Philippines. We may have assayed the level of chaos, insurgency, dysfunction, and so on in those places, but a few skilled operatives aren't going to wipe out an insurgency movement which is highly committed and has local support, any more than the French could come over here and wipe out the KKK.
Oh yes we could have. Get the sequence of events right. We decided to pull completely out of Iraq and then ISIS emerged in the power vacuum that we left. If they were going to emerge regardless, then, by staying, we undoubtedly would have prevented them from seizing as much territory as they did for as long as they did. The genocide and murder of Christians, Yazidis, and other groups would never have happened either or would not have been as severe if we had a strong US military presence on the ground.
Really, we should just keep to ourselves and let the other cave dwellers envy us till they die from humping camels or donkeys and protracting some disease.
It's "contracting" not "protracting". I'm not sure what diseases men catch from actually humping camels--or donkeys, either. If you have a choice, opt for the donkey. Camels have a transmissible respiratory disease (a coronavirus). In humans it causes a disease abbreviated CHARM -- Camel Humping And Related Malfunctions. Guys inhale the virus (exhaled by camels) while spending way too much romancing the hideous, stinking beasts. Camels smell bad. Really bad, I've heard.
I don't think we had a lot at stake in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a bad man. So what? We've cultivated scum like him many times. Oil? How much oil were we/are we getting from Iraq?
That would depend on how they define "win". We will never win in making Afghanistan a democracy, American style. But that's not the only way to win.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well, if I was in charge, I'd demand obedience and military support from the Saudis who should actually be the police force of the Middle East, instead of the main state sponsor of terrorism. Furthermore, if countries like Iraq and Afghanistan cannot manage by themselves, I'd transform them into American colonies and install American governments with the full force of the military. I'd negotiate with the Ruskies to allow them to do similar in countries like Syria. Then the Middle East will slowly become colonized by larger and stronger forces who can control both their resources and ensure adequate government. Those resources (thinking about Iraqi oil and Afghan rare earth metals) should be sufficient to balance out the costs associated with policing them - and there should be no shame in taking them. American governments will certainly be better at preventing the terror and brutality that currently exists in those regions, as well as the radicalization that is currently going on.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well yeah, they'd be welcome to do that, if they reckon they have sufficient military might to try, without being blasted off the map.
Quoting Posty McPostface
This is the NUMBER ONE military mistake in all of history. All the time when the stronger guy is like "Eh! I don't give a fuck about that small ant, let it be!" he will get screwed by that ant who will grow into a big tiger over time - and then it will be too late to deal with it. Underestimating evil is a serious military mistake. Evil is not to be trifled with. If you let evil grow, it will come and destroy you.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Oh yeah, if you hug them, they'll stab you! You think these beasts are stupid? If they get an opportunity, they'll kill you without mercy. They're not pink cloud-dwelling liberals who're just sad that they live in an undeveloped region. These are merciless warriors, who are intent on destruction, as proven from what they've done in Iraq and especially Syria. Listen - these people are incapable of feeling love. After you engage in the kind of brutality they engage in on a day to day basis, you think that all you need is a little love?! You cannot even feel love by that point.
The so called times are nothing but a fashion, which is temporary. History is cyclical, and it will continue to be cyclical. We're at the end of Western Civilisation as we know it. We're not becoming better, we're becoming worse, much worse. And the abandonment of traditions is one of the reasons why we have reached this stage - a stage reached by other civilisations who abandoned the values that made them great, including the Romans and the Islamic world in its golden age. The thing is, even Trump cannot do much, because there's many many people like you who despise traditions, and there's no way to stop you, we have to admit that.
What the future holds is a period of great darkness that looms over the whole world. After we emerge from it - probably through some major conflict - the world will be reborn anew, with very different and transformed values compared to what we have today.
Nah, tradition sucks. We're in a better world now.
But the historical time that established a tradition wasn't just a fashion? I wonder, in what year or decade did we finally get things right? Make America Great Again? When exactly was America great? 1776? 1865?
The cycle of civilizations involves birth, maturity, decay, and senescence. We're now in that last stage.
Quoting Michael
Yes, I know you think that, and there's nothing that can convince you otherwise, but that doesn't make it right. You're merely the expression of the spirit of the times.
And you're the expression of the spirit of conservative rubbish. ;)
That's a cucktastrophy! >:) >:O >:O
Oh come on, afraid to hug a warrior?
Quoting Agustino
If they're not stupid, why would they be stabbing you while you're hugging them?
:-}
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Because their purpose is to harm you, so they're not stupid to let the opportunity to do it go away.
No, I really don't think that any of them even know that I exist, so it is impossible that this is their purpose.
Everything could have gone better in hindsight. If we hadn't gone in, however, then Saddam would have continued trying to build a nuclear weapon, which would have made a conflict with Iran that much more likely and deadly a prospect, for we know that Iran had been and is still trying to build one itself. Iraq would have continued to harbor some of the most wanted terrorists in the world. Saddam perpetrated the Anfal genocide and there's nothing in his character that would have prevented him from attempting another genocide. We don't know if Saddam would attempt to invade other countries, causing much the same destabilization as our invasion. When Saddam died, there's no telling whether there would be a transfer of power without horrendous violence, as his sons weren't exactly the nicest people in the world. In sum, it's not at all clear that not invading would have been better for Iraq and/or the surrounding region. What is certain is that Iraq now has a better future once ISIS can be defeated and terrorism in general clamped down, owing to the fact that it has representative government, respect for rights built into its constitution, and the US as its strongest ally, economically and militarily.
When women folk were in the kitchen and colored folk were back of the bus. :-}
(/rant)
A fairly accurate description of Iraq under Saddam.
But he was a relative amateur, as evil and corrupt as he was. He was taking his good old time and lacked focus. He wasted too much time cultivating his image as the Good and Fearless Father. The situation needed trained professionals to destroy the country in a matter of months.
That you would impute such a motive to the US and its coalition allies tells me that a reasonable discussion with you on this topic is impossible. I don't have time for people with pathological hatreds such as you possess. Good day.
Ok... a fine and blessed day to you as well.
It is completely fine not to discuss this. FWIW, I can only stand to think about it for short periods of time. You may take your ball and go home. But I expected a little more from a philosopher and thinker (based on your many other posts) than a huffy claim of unpatriotism.
Oh you were much more than simply "unpatriotic" (which wouldn't have bothered me), and you know it. I expect more from you than to play dumb.
This is at least a plan. I have some doubts. For one, how large an army would it take? How long would it take? How much would it cost? When we invaded Iraq, we didn't--at that point--know what to do with it. Whence will come the machiavellian shrewdness to delicately balance one batch of hateful bastards against its opposite batch of hateful bastards? It isn't that we can't apply machiavellian tactics, it's applying them effectively in a quite dissimilar culture.
this sort of approach requires an "all in" commitment and support of Americans, at least, and if the Russians are going to do it too, then Russians.
The respect for rights built into the Iraqi constitution and 50¢ won't get you a cup of turkish coffee. Workable representative government, respect for rights, and all those good things require conditions Iraq hasn't had, doesn't have, probably won't have in the intermediate future.
... but is working to have at present, such work being hampered by terrorism. Iraq isn't destined to be a failed, terror-filled state, though pulling out prematurely did greatly increase the chances of that.
Well this would be for the generals to have their say in, I'd be in no measure to estimate it. But it's definitely one of those things that we must include amongst the costs.
Quoting Bitter Crank
The idea would obviously be to have a larger army force to control the region at first, and as things improved it should be transitioned to locally trained troops. Local people need to be trained by the American government and become part of a local military force that can, over time, displace American soldiers. As for how long it would take - it would be forever. Afghanistan would become part of America effectively. Some of the future leaders would be groomed from the local population, American businessmen and the like would be given incentives to go there and rebuild it, and America would have access to the resources AND the geostrategic position.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I think we'd have to side with one bunch of hateful bastards against the other for the most part.
Quoting Bitter Crank
That is true. The population of America has shown though that it's quite unstable with regards to war, which is also why American politicians are careful these days what they do. I doubt the population would agree.
Yes, that does seem to be the grim scenario. I honestly don't know if the average Iraqi citizen is happier/ better off now than they were ten years ago or fifteen years ago. Either way, it is perilous for just about everyone, including government employees.
Probably not. The British had been there long enough to establish a reasonably high standard of civil government, railroads, and had not despoiled the country too badly (though that's a disputed estimation). Maybe another 50 years would have left them in better shape. Maybe partition could have been avoided, but... maybe not.
The British had, of course, gotten a good share of Africa and were definitely not there long enough. Plus, they had divided up ethnicities in such a way that once they did get independence there was a lot of internecine conflict. Had the British been in charge of their colonies longer, they might be doing better now.
ASIDE: Now before someone calls me a racist... The British were not beneficial for India or Kenya because they were white Europeans (even though being a white European is a fine thing too). They were good for India because they were more technically and civically sophisticated.
Shriek.
Well, why don't you get your ass over here and become an American Citizen. Then you could serve in this unilateral force and help bring the blessings of culture to the Afghan shit hole.
Because they would not confer me American citizenship that easily. Unless I marry an American woman quite fast LOL :P
Damned white of you to say so, sir. Wish were true.
Women are worthy of getting involved with because of the beauty they bring to your life.
We cannot stand at the same crossroads forever wringing our hands about what to do. It is our time to go bold or come home.
And the pain and the sorrow and the.....
Only good women are worthy of getting involved with, O:)
What is your idea of a "good woman"?
One that is good!
I wasn't being too serious, Tiff, don't hurt meh :-#
What's your idea of a "proper gentleman"?
I was just asking. ;)
I would never hurt you. You totally understand where my line is ________________________ and not to cross it. 8-)
I could be wrong!
This is such a woman's answer, hot damn >:O >:O >:O
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
You were planning on scalping me, don't lie!
Forum Mother Tiff will destroy us all if we get out of line, no question about it.
Excellent response. Are you seriously asking me? I have very high standards so I might not be the one to gauge what a "proper gentleman" is.
If you are asking what traits I find a "proper gentleman" to possess the list is long but simple. Honesty is my obligation in life and so I feel that Honesty is a high priority in what makes up the character of a "proper gentleman". Humor, wisdom and a quick wit are also very important facets of a "proper gentleman". I believe sharp communication skills as well as a daring cunning linguist are very important to me and my intellect level. I believe a "proper gentleman" should be capable of handling empathetic, sympathetic and sometimes unreasonable feelings of others. My respect of a "proper gentleman" is pretty quick to tag if someone has "it" or not. But then occasionally I run into not only a "proper gentleman" but one that likes to play hard to tag.
Isn't 'It is what it is', put together the three laws of thought into one propositional attitude entity? It has all three properties of thought put into one proposition true for any modality and state of affairs that are observer dependent.
The law of identity, check. (It is what it is, ontology affirmed via self-identification)
The law of non-contradiction, check. (Either it is what it is or it isn't -> It is what it is -> thus affirming its own ontological status)
The law of excluded middle, check. (It is what it is, affirming its own state of affairs.)
What's not to like about something being what it is?
After all, it is what it is! (shouting quietly)
Does it need a sling to walk around with? :-}
I see what you did there. ;)
Is conservatism inherently unfunny?
Can we move on to future tense now please.
Whatever will be, will be.
Thank you.
The future is a mystery, the past history, all we have now is a/the present.
What has been said cannot be unsaid. It is what it is. And where of one cannot speak then better leave unsaid.
No it's not inherently unfunny. One of my favorites is this guy:
And that audience! They're actually laughing. What a peculiar phenomenon, given that the guy on stage is not in the least bit funny.
Edit: actually, he lies. There's also Jim Davidson.
That washed up racist? He's rubbish.
Running through the wheat fields though, that comedy's all on her.
Comedy gold.
Schadenfreude is humour too you know.
That's because you're a conservative and so don't have a sense of humour, duh!
Yes, you are quite witty, but you're not very conservative (or traditionalist) on cultural issues, you're more of an economics conservative I'd say. More like libertarian.
Well, apparently many people find him funny, even secular progressives in NY :P
Then again some semi centrally planned economies work too.
Why? And what do you consider conservatism to be?
I just like playing with words; but, I'd be a conservative if the people representing it were actual conservatives.
>:O I agree. There are some people who say they're conservatives and even religious but they're really not. Some even go to Church and then they are like "God, I hope in Heaven you will reward me greatly because here I sit while my friends are fucking super models every day, and I'm here all alone. You must reward me for bearing all this for you!" >:O >:O
I've been trying to locate this from a Christian forum I frequently visit and read (but don't participate in), and I've been unable to find it again. But there was this guy - it was so hilarious >:O >:O >:O - he was crying about how his friends have so much sex (with supermodels too!), and he cannot have any, in fact, he is forced to watch and God must surely reward him in heaven and make sure those unbelievers burn in hell! He was very adamant about them burning in hell to make up for their enjoyment in this life, which is currently so torturing him >:O
That guy was a shame and a disgrace upon conservatives and Christians.
Sad thing is that suffering becomes a pretext for martyrdom and platitudes of righteousness.
I see nothing wrong with bearing one's own cross, as long as nobody has to clean up after you or hold hands with you together.
In Buddhism, the starting pretext is like something of the sort, *Look, you're gonna suffer, so just suck it up and stop suffering so much and help others bear the cross together*. Other religions will go out of their way to exact their suffering on others.
How is he forced to watch other people have sex?
Quoting Agustino
"The very word 'Christianity' is a misunderstanding--at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross." - Nietzsche
Well obviously I don't know he never mentioned. However, using my imagination, I'd think his friends etc. are talking about having sex, how awesome it is, etc. as many young guys do, which obviously makes him feel jealous because in his heart of hearts he values the same things that they value, and isn't actually a Christian with a different set of values. For example, his speech showed that he doesn't value chastity, he thinks it's a restraint, something that is difficult to bear, and that must be greatly rewarded (in heaven) in order to be worth undertaking. That's why he feels offended that others aren't chaste while he has to be. He effectively treats chastity as a burden instead of a value.
Quoting Michael
I think that's a hyperbole :P
Hmm okay, but don't forget that Buddhism is meant to lead to the cessation of suffering and that Noble Truth must also be taken seriously. In other words, there is hope that suffering can end, and even more, it's to a large extent in our power to end it. "Be a light unto yourself" - what did Buddha say?
If you just acknowledge the first Noble Truth, that can lead to very problematic attempts at living, as it does for many Western Buddhists. For example, they say "life is suffering" so it doesn't matter if we get drunk like pigs and can't get up from the floor, because life is suffering! Then it becomes a justification for whatever behavior they engage in.
The deeper problem is that some people think they are religious if they have the outward appearance of religiosity - namely if they don't engage in promiscuous sex, if they go to Church, etc. etc. - but while that may be good as a start, it's certainly not being religious. For being religious is a cognitive switch, where your system of values simply changes. A religious person no longer values what the non-religious values.
So someone like the person in question who bares chastity as a great burden to be cast off in Heaven, when God will greatly reward them (by giving them 70 virgins to enjoy all for themselves, or probably something of the sort they imagine), is fooling themselves. They don't actually value chastity at all. They value sex, that's why they are lusting after it.
It is what it is.
What? If we all knew what it is that it is about then it would be really nice and peaceful and quiet. Kinda Zen'ish.
Maybe we'd get bored :P
Your attack on all those who you claim aren't "real" Christians isn't terribly Christian. All (as in every single one) Christians fail to live up to the perfect Christian standard. All fail to align their personal behavior to their beliefs. All fail to fully understand the implications of their belief system. It is for that reason that all Christians struggle throughout their lives to maintain an acceptable standard of behavior, and it is why they continue to try to better understand what is required of them throughout their lives through study, prayer, and discussion. It would seem, therefore, that a true Christian (which I am most certainly not) would not walk around declaring others unworthy of the Christian name, but would instead offer positive encouragement to move them in the right direction and would open a discussion of what proper Christianity demands with an open mind to their views and their concerns(which is the polar opposite of what you do when you pontificate about righteousness).
That it is to say, if someone tells you that they are Christian, but you see them doing what you consider to be unchristian things, it would seem the compassionate position would be to engage them in a discussion of why you are concerned for them since they have professed an honest desire to adhere to Christianity. Such a discussion would require not you just telling them why they are wrong, but it would require that you listen to what they say, with fully consideration of their views, and a full acceptance that you might be terribly incorrect in your understanding of what Christianity specifically dictates.
Your tactless condemnation is an unfortunate element that pervades organized religion, not just Christianity. It is generally inhumane, and certainly not something I would ever seek out if I found myself downtrodden.
I would think that the concepts of humility and compassion I've discussed above would be integral parts of Christianity, and I would think they would be a good place to start when, you, my good physician, attempts to heal himself.
Some hand action there.
I wonder if this works the same way for conservatism as well, only with the unfortunate side effect of humor getting turned off with the cognitive switch.
Let's do a little test. Do you think is funny?
hahaha it actually was quite funny! :P Not that I agree with the interpretation, but it's funny. This is better kind of humor. I thought you were going to send me Amy Schumer type of humor >:O
See @Hanover, you are much like Osho's father in terms of what you call conservatism. I'm not, and I wouldn't call that conservatism, and I think the existence of such types of conservatism is a problem in society. You value society a lot more than I do. I place very little value on society. That is why I have no problem with Trump not paying taxes >:O
But I am conservative on cultural and moral matters - mostly because these have a very big effect on the individual's soul, and his (or her) potential for spiritual development in life.
"But a meaningless whole cannot evolve a meaningful part; a Godless universe cannot provide a sufficient cause for a rational man. Ex nihilo nihil fit - you cannot get something out of nothing. To defend itself against the modern disintegration philosophy must return to the point from which it began to decay, to scholasticism, and the robust common sense of St. Thomas. For philosophy in the Humanist age has likewise been isolated from reality; it has been philosophy about philosophy, about its own method, mere epistemology - not philosophy about life. It has taken seriously the proposition that man has no certain knowledge of anything; it has questioned the very validity of sense perception and reason, and thus is in no position to laugh when the world view of modern man reaches total absurdity"
:D
How about this: respond only to what I said, which is there is nothing Christian about your sanctimonious condemnation of those who vary in belief and behavior from your childlike views of the world.
Is this a license to sin? Just because we all fail, failing no longer becomes problematic?
Quoting Hanover
To a greater or lesser extent sure.
Quoting Hanover
This is false. There are Christians who fully understand the implications of their belief system, even if they're not capable to follow it themselves.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, by all means, you are correct here. Though I'm skeptical about the "all" part, let's say most Christians, myself included. I wouldn't include the Saints in this category though.
Quoting Hanover
So a true Christian would allow those who aren't true Christians to think they really are true Christians, and therefore give them a hand in self-deception since that's the path to Heaven?
Quoting Hanover
The two underlined statements are contradictory. If they tell me they are Christian it's one thing. If they say they'd like to be Christians that's a different thing.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, and if I was a member of that forum, I would have posted a quote of Spinoza and asked the member in question if he considers what his friends get - lots of casual sex - to be a good thing. Then we would have had a discussion about it. Jewish religion takes lust to be a somewhat valuable and natural thing when properly directed. They'd say without lust people wouldn't get married, form families, etc. So they are your type of conservative ;) - NOT my type. Many Christians (unfortunately) also take that position. But I think Christian religion actually takes a much more serious view of lust, because even to look upon a woman with lust becomes a sin. Christianity seems to seek to uproot evil from the ground up, whereas Judaism, at least in the form it is understood in today, seeks to make good of the evil, without eliminating the evil. Indeed, they take the evil tendency in man to be absolutely necessary, and ultimately also good if properly directed.
Quoting Hanover
No, on this issue I cannot be "terribly incorrect". That is much like saying that I'd be "terribly incorrect" in whether or not the internal angles of a triangle in Euclidean space add up to 180 degrees. This type of Cartesian doubt is fallacious - one must have grounds for doubt, one cannot doubt in the absence of grounds for such doubt - it would be irrational. And it's very important not to confuse humility for being equivalent to this kind of self-doubt.
Quoting Hanover
You know, if we lived during Medieval times, I would agree with you. I'd be the first to protest the inhumanity of religious condemnation. But now the situation is much different. The pendulum has swung too much to the other side. I'm just rebalancing it at the moment.
Quoting Hanover
Humility and compassion are indeed important, never said they're not. But humility and compassion are two swords. They are used aggressively - on the offense - not on the defense. A lot of morality in our modern age has been corrupted. Remember Socrates. He claimed to know nothing - but it wasn't a defensive "I know nothing". It wasn't the "I know nothing" of an ignorant man. It was the ironic (and strategic) "I know nothing" of one who knows.
As for healing yourself, in my opinion, Christianity takes the view that you cannot heal yourself, it is by grace that you are healed. You can open yourself up for grace through asceticism, spiritual practice, prayer, study and the like. But you cannot perform the movement yourself - all you can do is surrender to Christ.
Wow, relax. I am pointing out that us two have a very different understanding of conservatism, and people should not put us in the same category (as Mongrel more than once did for example). I am definitely NOT the type of conservative you are. And I'm saying this based on what I've read through the forums of your posts, including your positions in an old politics thread we had.
I have not claimed you're purely a libertarian, that you're atheistic, that you have no concern for spirituality, etc. etc.
Quoting Hanover
I have, but that response has zero to do with what I was saying about your type of conservatism. Those are two separate issues, I hope you're not confusing the two discussions and treating it as one thing.
Seems like I'm doing well! :D :D (Y)
Okay here's a serious vid for you.
Now despite his work in "Waking Up" and other books he still has a very truncated idea of what real spirituality means, and how religions are helpful. This prevents him from judging objective morality accurately. But he's definitely one of the smarter atheists out there - the same cannot be said about the philistine Richard Dawkins.
When I say:
Quoting Agustino
This isn't to be taken to mean that morality isn't objective. But rather that it is possible that what you perceive to be morality on a feeling level does not match with what you perceive to be morality on a rational level. For example, it's very possible to think casual sex is wrong, and yet still desire it. By a cognitive switch, I mean that switch by which this passionate side of the soul is brought in alignment with the rational side. In this case, you'd no longer desire casual sex, and your passions will be brought in alignment with your reason.
It is exclusive to the religious person though. That's what I've claimed.
Quoting praxis
I disagree that science can be such a means for a cognitive shift of the kind I'm talking about. I also disagree that spiritual practices taken out of their religious context (meditation taken out of the religious framework of Buddhism for example) can be effective.
Are we talking about a shift as I've briefly described, essentially shifting from materialistic values to values that are more cooperative in nature or that are focused on the improvement of life for all, or at least a wider group, of sentient beings? If not, please describe the nature of the value shift as you see it.
Quoting Agustino
Can you explain why you hold this belief?
No. That is still materialistic. More enlightened materialism doesn't cease to be materialism. Materialism means utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is not spiritual.
Quoting praxis
I've already done so:
Quoting Agustino
Quoting praxis
Largely because most of the evidence we have suggests that the best results from such practices are achieved within religious settings and contexts. There's a reason why you don't have secular ascetics - for the most part. In addition, the whole purpose of religion and spirituality is to be wholistic, you cannot snatch a practice from there and apply it howsoever you want, because it's no longer the same practice.
It's not materialistic in the sense that it's concerned with matters of the spirit, such as meaning, happiness or the reduction of suffering in the world, etc., and not with acquiring wealth, power, or other self-centered goals.
Quoting Agustino
You've described an instance, not the nature of the shift. This is a problem because it allows an individual to rationalize the expression of their passions, rather than aligning their passions to their reasoned values. Indeed this is a problem that we frequently see in religious circles.
So please explain further, if you can.
Quoting Agustino
Alright let's use your example, meditation taken out of the religious framework of Buddhism. I'm not aware of any studies that indicate Buddhist meditation techniques performed in a secular environment show poorer results than those performed within a traditional Buddhist environment.
Quoting Agustino
I imagine it's the same reason you don't see religious ascetics, for the most part. In any case, asceticism can be a form of spiritual materialism. This is a well-known concept within Buddhism.
Quoting Agustino
What could be more holistic than being concerned with the well-being of all sentient beings? This is what Harris talks about in the video.
Tut tut, it is precisely this kind of attitude that keeps us from prospering and getting ahead in life. :(
Hmm, well Wittgenstein said that where you cannot speak then better left alone or in quiet. And, what do you mean about getting ahead in life?
After all, it is what it is.
Getting ahead in life is what it is. And bollocks to Wittgenstein and the horse he rode in on.
And that isn't being first to the finish line, we hope.
Jared Parker Friedman, Anthony Ian Jack
via ScienceDaily
Jul 2017
Of course not, it is just simple self improvement.
Masturbation.
Me thinks I just got called "wanker".
Are you watching me somehow?
http://www.notsorryfeminism.com/2017/06/to-people-who-call-others-special-snowflakes.html
But, there's truth in being a snowflake, snowflake!
My propositional attitude formed by years of being brainwashed tells me so!
(Y)
You realize that the movie is satirical about masking fragility with excessive masculinity and homoromaticism? Buddy is a projected response to the feeling of powerlessness, that externalizes the feelings of weakness, and vulnerability. You're the snowflake, surely not me.
The fact that your taking offense means you treat the concept with more regard than I do, snowflake.
I'm not taking offense... I'm pointing out an irony in taking what buddy is saying at face value, and doing the thing the movie is mocking.
It is what it is. I guess self-improvement isn't masturbation in some form or another.
I'm the real Captain Kirk!1!
No, clearly self-destruction is way cooler, bro.
That's from Pumping Iron, isn't it? I remember Arnie saying weight lifting is like cumming all the time. Gotta take it from Arnie, self-improvement IS masturbation.
Yeah, he's always cumming... lol, but he's a drug addled sociopath. He looked like that since he was like 14.
I never made that leap, because everyone does what he practically says. On face value, it IS true to a large extent.
Yeah, and it's all true of him in particular. Tyler is fucking imaginary.
Look at what it does to you. Get's you elected to be Governor of California, the sixth or now seventh largest economy in the world. Hell, it can almost get you to the presidency of the United States. If Arnie was born in the US, he'd probably make it to the Presidency, but Trump made that redundant.
Nah, you gotta play the game. He isn't as hardcore as he pretends, he just is in movies.
If you repeat a lie enough it eventually becomes the truth. Then Mark Twain said something about lying that also is true.
Why is it hard to see what Tyler says as a satire? I know I struggle telling the chaff from the wheat.
Because it's wish fulfillment. It's fantasy. We want that shit to be true -- but if you actually believed fantasies, then you'd be insane, like the protagonist.
So, there's a classic part of the movie where Tyler is talking to the main character and point out that he's insane.
Who's insane in the said instance?
Probably the wish fulfillment projection of the ideal man the main character is imagining, idolizing, and not him.
So, is it society that sublimates said ego ideal insane or the character who realizes it? Nietzsche would call him the most rational and sane of all human beings, being the one who can realize it, no? I mean he get's thrown a lot here and there on this forum.
No one who witnessed a neighbor's civil rights being violated was able (made the choice) to speak out about what had happened, the way in which it happened and how it could have been any one of us he wanted revenge on. What was really intimidating, in fact mind blowing, was that the person who's civil rights were violated, was one of his own. He brought down the force of the law on a woman who had served as an officer, on his force for 30 yrs and had retired on a ranch up the way.
No trust in the man or the department he runs. Period. He runs the most corrupt department in the country. No, really. What he has done to the Latino population in Arizona is embarrassing as well as dysfunctional as they come. His M*A*S*H* unit for animals takes in millions in donations for the care of confiscated animals, yet there is no account for how much money has been donated and where that money has been spent. No accountability for the money gained in the sale of those animals if they are not returned to the citizens. He is the definition of hustle.
I would say that he lines his pockets with the lives of those he exploits but I will let Federal Justice Murray Snow make the final decision on Joe's lawbreaking ways finally being exposed and there is a chance that a great many Phoenicians will feel validated and if not? Go figure, we ARE talking about Joe, ya know?[/quote]
Well, whaddaya know. He got pardoned even though he practically got a slap on the wrist with a 6 month prison term.@ArguingWAristotleTiff
Quoting Posty McPostface
Quoting Wosret
Quoting Posty McPostface
This conversation made my day >:O >:O >:O >:O
Oh god, kill it with fire!
For those who were crying about Trump lying about the wall.
Just doing my own 2 min. google fact checking on a phone, Mexico isn't on the top ten list of countries for a high crime rate. Don't know where it falls globally, but #2 or 3? No, he's lying as usual.
The wall will stop drugs from entering the country? Most come in through official checkpoints on commercial and passenger vehicles. A wall won't stop that. There's also ultralights, drones, cannons, catapults, tunnels, etc.
The wall is just an expensive (to the American tax payer) symbol and political tool.
Interesting points, there is reason for concern here, as those do pose somewhat of a threat. I think the wall would make it more difficult, perhaps if only a mental blockade. But to be honest, drones and ultralights have to go through many legalities also during international movement, and could be deterred also. I think more of an issue is aliens proceeding illegally. As for Mexico not being high on crime rate, I think it would be wise to reconsider that statement; to not judge entirely from statistics, but rather from other factors playing into it. Due to the extreme poverty rate, how many crimes do you think are properly reported? Do you actually think that those living under the terrifying reign of the cartels would risk more of their family and friend's lives to report?
Drug traffickers demoralized by a wall? Uh, no.
Quoting Lone Wolf
I understand the point of using drones and ultralights, rather than regular aircraft, is the ease in which these legalities can be bypassed.
Quoting Lone Wolf
Checking again on a desktop, it appears that Mexico is #2 in murder. The USA appears to be on par with or surpassing Mexico in many other types of crime. But we shouldn't trust statistics. Perhaps victims in other countries or the U.S. under report as well, right?
Is it this one? And is he by any chance the same as John Harris / Thanatos Sand? >:O
Average aliens.
Quoting praxis
As a pilot, I see that drones and ultralights do have many regulations once a certain size, altitude, ect, is reached. If the craft is small enough to get around such, then it becomes useless to move significant amounts, as the laws of physics and aerodynamics must apply. Aircraft of that sort are more of toys than practical working machines, very inefficient.
Quoting praxis
Yes. I can speak from experience here. I see massive amounts of crime go unreported in the US. Statistics only say so much.
Yes, that's one of the over a dozen so far banned. I have no evidence concerning who it is. I can only surmise they have a lot of time on their hands.
The fear tactic Trump was using in the speech centered around violence associated with drug traffickers, if you recall. Not that the average alien can't be a "bad hombre."
Quoting Lone Wolf
This baby will carry 40 pounds, and will "easily fit it into a backpack and place it back together with no hassle." A border wall drug smugglers dream machine. X-)
40 lbs of cocaine, for instance, is worth over 1 million dollars.
Quoting Lone Wolf
Just out of curiosity, could you please explain this?
It's not that simple. Simply getting it over the wall is not all he has to do if he's a smuggler.
And do you think that will really be invisible on radar and avionics?
Quoting praxis
What is there to explain? Many people I know have seen drug dealing without reporting it, among other things.
Lol yeah I agree, if all drugs cases would be reported today, and everyone involved punished according to the law, I don't think we'd have sufficient space in our prisons lol :P
Avionics?
You realize that the border is well over a thousand miles long. Perhaps there will be a fleet of anti-drone drones on the new wall with fancy avionics? That'll cost Mexico a pretty penny.
Quoting Lone Wolf
You see "massive" amounts of people dealing drugs and other things? Curious.
Sigh...all aircraft by 2020 in the US with the ability to operate in Class C airspace are required to have radar capability. We don't need anything fancier than regular pilots flying regular planes to locate them...
Quoting praxis
Yes...what is so hard to understand about that?
So what's the problem with that? And why is their skin color relevant? Maybe if a prison sentence was more certain when dealing with drugs, less people would be involved with them.
>:O >:O >:O Seriously, that is hilarious! None of the people that I know that do dope are "black" or "brown". It is very, very rare for a person of either "color" where I live to go to prison.
Okay, a regular pilot detects something not much bigger than a large bird flying over the wall. What then? I imagine that it only takes a few minutes to fly a drone over a 30 foot wall.
Quoting Lone Wolf
The circumstances. Why do you hang out at places where you see massive amounts of drug dealing?
Pilots are not blind and stupid... personally I have never flown internationally, but there is a LOT more regulations than what you are seeing with crossing borders. I'm not going to explain it, because it will take a long time.
Quoting praxis
Because I live there? :-}
Indeed, you see "massive" amounts of drug trafficking, and none of it by Blacks or Hispanics, yet those incarcerated on drug charges are disproportionately black and brown.
I have a pretty good imagination so I'll try to picture it myself. Random pilot flying near the border detects a small object flying over the border wall. Her avionics inform her that this object is a drone. Why would a drone be flying over the border wall, she asks herself. It must be drug smuggling! She calls the border patrol and reports the drug drone, supplying coordinates. The border agent calls the closest heli-outpost to the coordinates and they immediately launch a DDIH (drug drone interceptor helicopter). The outpost is 50 miles from the coordinates so it takes the helicopter pilot about 30 minutes to get there. The pilot arrives at the coordinates and sees some tire tracks leading to a highway. Aha!, the pilot exclaims. The pilot alerts the highway patrol that there's a vehicle on the highway carrying drugs. The highway patrol creates roadblocks in a 20 mile radius and searches every car for drugs. After 43 searches a drug detection dog finds 30 pounds of cocaine. Wow!
Even less about border patrol proceedures and equipment.
But where did my imagination fail me exactly, in regard to aviation?
I think it would be illegal to fly drones over the border of a sovereign country without its permissions anyway...
The idea of the wall is that it will make the transportation network a lot more difficult. People not only need to get over the wall, but they also need someone at the right place, at the right time to be on the other side waiting for the shipment. In addition, there can very well be cameras in/on the wall, making it easier to identify criminals.
In nearly every aspect of legalities.
Well, maybe the drug smugglers can get a license to ship drugs over the border. :)
Quoting Agustino
Most drugs come into the country via commercial and passenger vehicles. A wall won't make that any more difficult.
Do those vehicles have to pass through the border? Is it easier to regulate and watch over commercial vehicles if they have to pass through fixed points, where law enforcement agents can stop and verify them? They would no longer be able to pass through illegally.
Quoting praxis
:-}
So you're saying it's illegal to smuggle drugs over the border with drones? Or you're saying it's illegal for pilots to contact the border patrol?
Try looking up clearances and approach towers.
Yes, through checkpoints. Look it up yourself.
Why are you being so vague?
You suggested that I look it up...
Checkpoints will be easier to police with a wall.
Well, just to start with, because border agents will know there's no risk of criminals bypassing the border through unofficial points, so their energy will be just on the official checkpoints. In addition, constructing the wall will enable additional monitoring facilities to be placed on the wall (cameras) which can be monitored and managed from the checkpoints.
So you're claiming that border agents are currently low energy (lazy?) because official checkpoints can be bypassed, even though most of the drugs are passing right under their noses?
But again, there would still be a significant risk with ultralights, drones, tunnels, catapults, cannons, etc. Probably enough to keep the agents lazy, yes?
No. I'm claiming their energy isn't focused just on checkpoints at the moment.
Quoting praxis
Those are very very difficult to implement successfully.
We Canadians don't know much about walls, but we do know about big wide open spaces!
The US-Mexico border happens to be a big wide open space, over 3000 Kilometers worth (that's 2000 miles for you stubborn/luddite Americans). Do you know how hard it would be to actually build a wall that long? Do you know how much it would cost to police it with agents along every mile, drones, monitored cameras, and helicopters flying up and down the thing for effect?
A wall doesn't work if there aren't guards to keep watch, or else ladder technology comes and foils everything. Even with walls, dogs, cameras, the whole kit and kaboodle, infamous tunnel technology can also fairly directly foil even the tallest of walls. Immigrants don't bother with walls but if it's drugs you're after then the outlook is grim.
Bush Jr actually tried to build a wall too. The secure fence act of 2006 resulted in about 700 miles of chain link fencing being constructed. It ended up costing well over two billion for just 700 miles of a not-so-tough fence. Could you imagine how much more it would cost to build a thirty foot high new wall of China such as Trump has described?
According to the congressional research service, illegal migrants simply found new routes, and so the wall didn't even accomplish what it was supposed to...
But let's pretend that a wall could be built, Mexico would pay for it, and it would keep all the Mexicans out. What then? How does America profit from this?
Is Mexico the only place drugs enter the U.S from? Must Mexican drugs cross the border? Are hard [s]working[/s] Americans going to get their jobs back from the bad hombres?
What's the return on the investment?
Digging a tunnel would be a lot of work. I guess the easiest and cheapest would be a catapult or a rope ladder.
Remind me to buy stock in rope ladders if the wall ever actually gets built.
Compared to the value of the drugs which can be smuggled through it, they're easily dug.
I'd go the drone route myself. Virtually impossible to get caught.
High speed. Long range. Large payload. And this technology will improve rapidly. Could probably 3D print a stealth version by the time the wall is built.
Besides, it looks likes the drone needs to practically stand still for it to work. The long range forward propulsion drones travel at over 100 mph.
But now it's all over and done with. Three consecutive days, 12 hour nightshifts, 6pm to 6am, working our arses off. Now I have a week off, then a ton of training to do.
Err... you do realise this is a multi-billion industry? A little R&D towards this sort of thing is really not much of an issue, which is why these things actually already happen:
http://www.businessinsider.com/drug-smugglers-methods-hiding-places-2017-4?international=true&r=US&IR=T/#catapults-13
Trump gets re-elected because he did what he said he would do.
I'm curious. When I have a bit more time, I'll add my view as well.
Don't worry. Ignore those; we'll probably get around those points in the other thread as well and I have limited time too. As rude as it is in real life, internet conversations can break down in the middle of a sentence. 8-)
Can I have one too?
Cocaine is not what is coming up from Mexico, liquid Meth is only secondary to Heroin and you can make truckloads more off of Heroin than you can Cocaine. Heroin goes for about $4 a smack here in Arizona and is easier to get ahold of than Cigarettes for kids under 18. Despite the acknowledged and printed numbers, one of my sons attended a solid upper class public high school and at least 70% of the kids are doing at least one drug, usually Marijuana or Heroin which is why my younger son attended a Charter School instead.
My dear Agustino, there really is no need for that level of logistics at the border or up through Arizona or California because the pay offs for clear passage are ten times what that sworn protectorate earns in a year. Many of those caught at the border are actually a diversion from what is going on ---->> over there.
Always welcome, Posty. :)
Get an office job?
That's not an improvement. It's flipping copies vs flipping burgers. Sappy should become an entrepreneur :P
Haha, I haven't ignored them! ;) But that new thread will require a bigger post sometime, a post which doesn't simply criticise what Wayfarer says lol.
He appears to be banned because he was banned.
He wanted to be a special cookie, but all cookies are equal here in this Marxist wonderland. So, he didn't fit in. Unlike you, who I know loves it here. Or, maybe he wanted to be banned.
I just gave you the exact reason.
What's text speak? :s
I find this ban to be very strange...
Wow, what an utterly trivial reason to ban someone. I was planning on giving him an update on our last PM discussion sometime soon, but now I can't, all because he had the audacity to write a few posts without capital letters in a highly specialized thread topic he and three other people were contributing to. He was clearly writing from his phone, perhaps because he had no regular computer access for some reason, and only contributed to that thread. I don't see why that warrants banning him.
I might just quit this forum, as this royally pisses me off. The moderating here is atrocious, hasn't gotten better, and has now begun to end online friendships I have cultivated.
Are you being deliberately idiotic?
Let me try again:
Quoting Baden
As I said, we are not going to make a separate set of guidelines for every poster. No special cookies. If we did that, we would be attacked with even more vitriol.
I had to research to find out what this text speak was... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Textspeak
Now that I know, I would have to say that these last posts:
Now many of these were in reply to me, and I found nothing wrong with them... I was actually quite enjoying our conversation.
There is now something wrong with this post:
But that seems to be an exception. I would agree with the ban if most of his posts were like this, but I don't see that they were...
Just read my posts.
No, you're being silly. So, I think this is about the third time: If any poster is asked to follow any guideline and flat out refuses and continues to do the thing they were asked not to do (whatever that is) they will be banned no matter who they are. And don't pretend that if we didn't do that we wouldn't be attacked by people like you who would accuse us of favoritism and so on etc.
I thought TGW was one of the best posters here in terms of philosophical knowledge. So, in a sense he was a special snowflake. But not in a way that would get him special treatment. And I presume he knew that. Hence, I suspect he wanted to be banned. But who knows.
The point is that it had nothing to do with rules, but in not willing to yield to being ruled. In not accepting the power structure. Again, not suggesting this should be any way, or any course of action was mistaken. Just pointing out the actual reason.
Who are those "lots of people" writing consistently in text speak? Name them.
Where does it say that "text speak" is against the site guidelines? Is there someplace here on the forum where text speak is explicitly defined and mandated as worthy of a ban?
Quoting Baden
Fourth time now.
I remember reading some ancient greek dude talking about how people complain about all of the shaft you gots to work to make it anywhere in society. Can't go to fancy balls unless you're willing to work the shaft. His answer was "don't go then".
Why on earth would we target TGW above anyone else? I think if he is reading this now, even he would be laughing.
Quoting Baden
Fifth time.
And I objectively wouldn't care if you continued to post like this indefinitely. "But muh rules." Fine, have your rules, and selectively apply them. But don't think you're not going to be called out for doing so.
Quoting Baden
He could be laughing, and I strongly suspect he lost interest in the forum. Before the Davidson thread, he had been on a multi-month long hiatus. That being said, his being banned cuts off my and anyone else's ability to get in touch with him if we wanted to. You could have simply deleted the posts that offended you and left it at that. I doubt he would care if you did that.
You are the one asking us to selectively apply them. We won't. They apply to everyone.
"Posts should display an acceptable level of English with regard to grammar, punctuation and layout."
That covers text speak under punctuation at least obviously.
Here's another thing I think. You're not actually as paranoid as you make yourself out to be. And at some point you'll realize the idea that we would selectively try to ban one of our best posters by deliberately singling him out on an issue like this is ridiculous from just about every angle.
Your English is great and if you had a problem with it and we asked you politely to deal with that, I suspect you wouldn't give us the finger.
:D
He's gone :(
Well, that just leaves me and Dr. Evil to plot our next banning.
Is that a new mod? A doctor, wow. That adds instant credibility.
What's more ridiculous is banning someone because he wasn't writing like you wanted him to.
Quoting Baden
Getting told to fuck off is usually what happens when someone brings up a nonissue. I'm honestly not surprised that TGW blew you off seeing as he's someone who earnestly and respectfully engages in philosophical discussion. Oh well, I didn't know that every I had to be capitalized in order to discuss philosophy with my peers.
Sorry, no sixth time for you.
Well, assuming that he could build the wall without going tens of billions over budget, I don't think this is enough to get him re-elected...
Trump could start every conference with "we built the wall" and it still wouldn't create enough hype to offset his actual personality.
I predicted impeachment/resignation since before he even got elected because I didn't think he or the nation could take 4 years of cirque d'orange. Now that it's abundantly clear the circus is still warming up - that Trump will not stop being Trump - I'm more confident than ever that he won't make the full term.
Right now I estimate he will resign in lieu of more scandal and possible impeachment in about a years time (or less). Once the national catharsis subsides, the American public is going to yearn for intellectualism to re-enter politics...
Yes, he told me that in future rather than making posters follow the same rules, just let some posters do whatever they want and then all the other posters will be happy and not attack the mod team. I'm considering his advice carefully.
We're dispositionally quite different, so I don't think that he thought much of me until after that, but then took me more seriously. I pm'd him and told him I was tellin' too, and then was all like jk.
Exactly. And neither did I really but he was one of the most knowledgeable posters here and one of the best writers when he wanted to be. His behavior was deliberate. Unlike some others I can mention, he knew exactly what he was doing. Good luck to him anyway wherever he is.
I think you should be banned for editing in that comma.
Can I have modship so I can do whatever I want?
That's clear. Attempting to dispute the rules, or say they are not easy to understand or find some loophole I imagine totally would have worked if he did it, but I imagine he took a more "fuck your rules" attitude instead.
Yes, but for him I doubt it would be that simple. He's not a brainless rebel. I imagine more a calculated exit. Moving on to something else maybe. Who knows?
Being intelligent doesn't mean that you aren't rebellious, or passionate. In my experience it usually means that you're more rebellious or passionate. I doubt that it was suicide by mod, that suggests a lack of fortitude and resolve to me, which I don't think characterize intelligence that well.
Don't blame the rules, or say he wanted it, take the responsibility. Take it all.
Alright, I'll try again because maybe you really don't understand. You won't be banned for making mistakes in grammar or punctuation. You will be banned for deliberately writing posts in text speak only if you also refuse to stop doing that when asked. OK?
Of course, we're responsible for the rules. And that's a matter of credit as far as I'm concerned. And not one of us disagreed with the ban.
Goodnight.
Quoting Baden
Quoting Baden
I did actually read through these.
Quoting Baden
That is true if you only take into account what happens at the very top, amongst what - 7 people who have been mods here, and many of them also at old PF :D
I think the matter is rather that you think he was trolling you because he refused to comply.
But you see, things have been clear for quite some time. Why are the ruling powers mostly the same people who were in charge at old PF? Why don't they put you a moderator, or BC, or a new face for a change?
Well, I hope one day you get to run a forum, so you can discover the pleasures of trying to maintain a high standard of conversation, a good quality of membership, and integrity and fairness concerning rules.
Text speak is obviously covered under the rule mentioned. I'm sorry you don't understand that. But I can't help you any further on that one.
That's it folks. Good night.
I was moderator on a forum back very long ago actually. It was pretty much enforcing the rules for me. There were no bans there, unless you did something like post porn, or post advertisements / spam / viruses. Either way, it had to be something quite bad. For minor stuff, such as text speak - just delete the posts over and over again, until the person gets tired of writing crap and getting their view deleted. In some cases, if they're obviously insistent and don't stop even with private messages, post a public warning for the person, especially if it's a prominent member of the community.
Good night! :)
It's not obvious at all. You want us to read between the lines, but there's nothing to be read, so it's only obvious to you because you helped come up with the current rules.
Quoting Agustino
We have enough pointless moderators as it is, most of whom don't even talk philosophy, they just log in and police or don't do anything at all.
>:O but policing has a certain pleasure about it, it's what you do when you graduate from being just a meagre philosopher >:)
TGW didn't need to read between any lines. He was told what the issue was and was asked to stop. He refused and continued. If you're interested, here was our exchange:
We made it clear. He chose to be difficult. As Baden said, we don't play favourites and let some people flout the rules.
What is OG?
It should be now, considering these repetitive posts between you and Baden unless you're being deliberately obtuse. It was to TGW as well, because he had been specifically asked not to do it.
Resistance to Agustinianism? >:)
Hmmm... it can also stand for Ocean Grown 8-)
It's normal for there to be a backlash as there was now when banning someone like TGW - that's because you're treating everyone equally, but not everyone is equal. You cannot just ban someone like TGW for such a small offence because he's provided a lot of value to this forum! Compared to how much value he gave, his offence is tiny!
That's precisely why there is a public backlash. And the point of the moderators is "oh but everyone gets the same treatment" - more political correctness. It's not fair that everyone gets the same treatment. Yes, TGW was being a dick for ignoring your warning, disrespecting the moderator team and outright refusing to obey. No doubt about it. If a new member had done that, they would clearly be banned straight away. But granted that he is TGW and not some random member, different measures need to be taken. Maybe he would actually need to be banned in the end, but this can clearly be approached in a better and more sensible way.
I think that the moderators are just being very legalistic about it all. Wouldn't it have been better, for example, to issue out an injunction to all moderators to delete any TGW post that is in text speak, and also post a public warning for him? Then if that didn't work, obviously banning would be in order, and I don't think many would disagree. But jumping the button on a permanent ban seems silly... Why don't you at least consider a temporary ban? People do change afterall, and they can reform their behaviour, but they need to be shown some lenience for that...
Don't academics talk about normal stuff then?
If the Museum of Modern Art in New York can add Texas Chainsaw Massacre to it's collection, then we should be able to occasionally chat about the trivia that occupies are minds when we are not doing the heavy egg laying.
Ditto. For a long time there were only 3 people participating, and two of them more than the third. Don't know whether they are still in business, or if so, why.
Maybe they are the ones that bought the old PF.
What a revealing remark.
You know, TGW was banned at the last forum too, and someone - I can't recall who, although it's right on the tip of my tongue - volunteered to chaperone him so as to enable him to continue. At which point I found and pasted in the excellent video clip of Paul Simon and Chevy Chase performing You can be my Bodyguard. (Don't know if anyone got it, though.)
When I read "academic forum" I just take that as the moderators being college rejects attempting to feel snooty and sophisticated by slapping the "academic" label on something not inherently academic in really any way. I chuckle at the label because it's trumped up and a joke. If this forum really was an academic environment, we all would be writing in Chicago style and putting in footnotes and writing bibs and...yeah, no, we're not doing that. We allow threads about inane crap, yet will boot a valuable, productive poster because he wouldn't suck the moderators' collective cock. I find that petty and laughable.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, I think we should too. We should also contribute to topics as TGW did.
Quoting Hanover
And it is sentiment like this which leads people to not trust the mods here.
Anyhoo, I won't be posting anymore. I'll log in if I'm wanted in PM's, otherwise, bye.
I am glad that you use the pronoun WE, it just goes to show that your participation here puts on the same level as the rest of us. If you think this place is so bad, why not just go to somewhere better?
I used to be a member of a socialist group that ran a weekly discussion group--it ran about 25 years. It was the same thing there--people would come once, listen; speak; confirm that a group was thinking about the state of the world; then leave, never to return. It was our joy to give them the Good News that they were exploited (and duped) wage slaves. Apparently discovering the truth filled them, and they didn't need to come back.
Note to What was the name of the bot on the old PF? We should either have a bot that responds to first-time-user questions like "How can I know that I exist?" with "What do you care?" or "Why do you want to know?" Hanover could perform that function too. He's been getting kind of botty lately. Per
Quoting Hanover
Years ago I volunteered to give talks on Introduction to Buddhism at a Community College. Same thing happened there. One bloke, I remember, end of the first session, put up his hand and said, 'so it's really all about your state of mind?' Never saw him again. But then, I suppose that could have been a significant thing to learn.
ModBot, the sometimes infuriating old bitch.
Serious philosophers would get a joke? You must be kidding!
(I didn't get it.)
In the case of refusal to be moderated, a poster essentially gives us a binary choice between them and the rules. And we are always going to choose the rules for obvious reasons. And I think the vast majority of posters here understand that. In other cases, context, including what we know about the poster, matters, and we know more about posters who have been here longer. But creating some kind of official hierarchy with regard to rules enforcement depending on length of membership is not going to happen. Apart from being unfair, it would be impossibly complicated.
As I've said before, we'd rather be in the background and just let everyone get on with posting. We didn't create the problem with TGW, he did, by deliberately breaking a sensible rule that is in place for everyone's benefit and then for reasons only known to him refusing our polite requests to adhere to it. So, I think some of the objections and complaints are unreasonable (though yours have been fairly measured) and would not be supported by the majority of members, which is why we won't be modifying policy.
Nowhere in the guidelines does it say this is an "academic forum". That's quite deliberate. I remember because I drafted them.
The relevant line is:
"This is an English language forum on an academic topic."
Which it is. We didn't put an academic label on the forum, we put it on the philosophy we expect discussed (as opposed to the bar-stool type), which makes much of your post senseless.
You are not the worst poster here but your reading comprehension abilities are frustratingly low. Good luck anyway.
There was a person behind the posting of ModBot. I think there were pre-made quotes, but someone was posting behind ModBot. Paul said so here some time ago. Can't find the quote, a lil tipsy.
EDIT: I find it hard to believe that MdBot was able to scour all posts and respond to them when the search function could bring the whole website down.
For instance, the SIRI function from Apple will sometimes respond "humanly" -- one time I said to it "go away". It said, "you could be more polite." Siri and voice to speech are not located in the IPad or phone -- they live on a mainframe. I would find it slightly interesting to know how they programmed that response. "Go away" by itself isn't rude. Can it interpret 'dismissive tone'? Probably not. However it was done (and done in a flash) takes a lot of computer power.
AI will kill us all.
Stop Dave
I think it's closer to admitting to making a mistake for humans. Elaborate process.
Being an upstanding American, I just naturally understand rules, and the whole hierarchical nature of rule making. "It's" is a contraction and "its" is a possessive. I don't like it, but that is the rule. I abide by the rule. I do disobey rules from time to time. Being an upstanding American, I also just naturally understand rule breaking. The trick is to select one's rule-breaking with some care.
Whether one should always choose the rules over a person (a poster) when it comes to moderating is a problem I don't wish to engage. But that's my problem, not yours. Your problem is rule enforcement.
Quoting Baden
Traditional and treasured narratives prefer 3 choices, rather than two. There were 3 little pigs, not two. You get 3 wishes, not 2 or 4. God is a Trinity, not a foursome.
The old forum had a third choice: banishment to the Shout Box area. Does the current software allow for shout box banishment?
No, nor a separate unmodded area as far as I know.
University alumnus, actually.
I provided it here to better explain the situation, as they didn't seem to understand your explanation. I guess you missed it.
Blame @Hanover. ;)
Ah, ok. Fair enough. Apologies @Buxtebuddha on that one. At most, this is an academic-leaning forum (according to my interpretation anyway): it's more aimed at the general public with a serious interest in philosophy than academics per se. But I guess we're into semantics now. The point is we don't expect academic conventions just basic standards of English.
I couldn't agree more. As a long term member in good standing with both an education in the tradition and some original contributions, not to mention all the hard work I have put in over the years, I expect the moderators to cut me some slack, when I say that this is the most fucked-up incoherent, idiotic recipe for disaster I have ever come across.
Oh, wait, I seem to have contradicted myself somehow. No wonder I decided to resign.
I don't think it's a recipe for disaster. In a court of law, very often the damages done through the actions end up more important than the actions themselves. If I committed some sort of fraud, but there actually were no damages for anyone, but rather everyone profited, you'd be hard pressed to give me a harsh sentence just because I broke the law.
Same with taxes. If the paperwork is all screwed up, but I didn't cause a prejudice to the state, not really a big deal. One only risks being accused of tax evasion when there exists a prejudice that is brought to the state.
So in light of the fact that this is how actual justice systems operate, I only see it as reasonable to take into account the effects of the actions. If the member in question has brought a long-standing benefit to the community it's only natural that that has to be taken into account when judging them for whatever they've done.
Say you have a war criminal. He has done many terrible things, but he has also brought great benefit to the nation by serving in the army and bringing home victory. While he does deserve punishment, his punishment needs to be diminished in order to take into account his meritorious service to the country. So who the person is, and their context DOES matter to justice.
Quoting Baden
I agree.
Quoting Baden
I have quite strong doubts about this.
This touches on what I said earlier that context is taken into consideration. So a newbie who comes here and does nothing but flame for their first few days might be banned immediately. A regular poster with a good history who gets in a flaming war is likely to be cut more slack because we know them and that they're likely to stop. Also, even in the case of TGW, he wasn't banned after his first refusal to be moderated (his amusingly uncapitalized "no"). He got another polite message explaining the reasons why we'd like him to follow the same guidelines as everyone else. His response was to ignore the second message and post another text-talk type comment. At that point we gave up. We simply don't have the time or the motivation to coddle posters as if they were naughty children. To give an analogy, imagine you run a club at your house and you have a rule that no-one is supposed to wear shoes when they enter. Someone then comes in with shoes on and you politely explain that that's against the rules, and ask them to please take them off. They say "No" (or "no" :) ). You then politely explain that you don't want your carpet to get dirty as it takes time to clean it and you'd rather get on with running the club. Their response is to tramp around in front of you still wearing their shoes. At this point, it's reasonable to give up and simply direct that person to leave and not come back whether they are a regular or not.
OK, but there's no evidence of support for the idea of formalizing inequality in the way you seem to be suggesting. If you are now just talking about applying a little bit of context regarding history or lack thereof, I've explained how this can already take place in a limited way.
Well :D - if they actually did that when I politely ask them not to, then I doubt that "simply direct that person to leave" will work >:) . I might have to use some means of forceful eviction...
Quoting Baden
I didn't suggest to formalize anything, I'm against formalizing stuff.
Hmm, a surreptious implementation of a policy change without any formal announcement. *Strokes beard* Better PM me and we can discuss this in private. >:)
Which is @jamalrob. Not sure the title of monarch is quite grand enough for him though. ;)
As long as you're not arguing with this, we're good. ;)
I dare say that if this was uttered by a worthless peon such as myself, I would be reprimanded. But seeing as one of the masters cracking the whip has uttered it, no one has bothered to pay it any mind.
>:O This is pure gold. There were like 3-4 people, to say the least who expressed concern over it, but they don't matter. That's good, I didn't know you have to be a moderator to matter ;)
I interpret that in the obvious way as matters (in terms of having the power to do anything about it i.e. is on the moderating team) not matters (is of value in general as a poster/person). But feel free to have fun with it.
Quoting Hanover
It's entirely amazing that nobody has any issue with this guy being a moderator.
I doubt this is going anywhere but do as you will. Just one point, I think you've misinterpreted the term "rank and file". It's a phrase that simply means "members".
Well yes, so he wants a feature that allows the common folk to ban others from the site, presumably if they get some form of majority over it. And that isn't problematic? :s
Sounds like something you might suggest to be honest as you don't trust the mod team that much.
I do trust SOME of the members of the mod team, but I think some others are unfit to be mods.
Ok, so you might support giving general members more say, right?
Anyway, surely you can dig up something worse. Give us some meat to chew on.
You can look up yourself the several times he has expressed a desire to ban people.
Quoting Baden
Yes, but I wouldn't support allowing members to decide who gets banned. That will turn into a popularity contest.
Indeed, I agree we shouldn't give the common folk more power here. They can't be trusted. :-* ;)
Who gets the hemlock, Posty?
Thank you for the suggestion!!! It hadn't occurred to me to try out a publicly available defibrillator on some quite ambulatory citizen. Interesting possibilities...
By the way, you misspelled "publically". Please use standard spellings or the Société Anglaiçe may have to relocate you to less salubrious arrondissement of Atlanta.
Promote me from mod to admin.
That may be too harsh...
See if we all did that we might find the answer to @ArguingWAristotleTiff's question:
"Where is the love? (L) (L) (L)"
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/facetious
Ah well, if you're not the trouble-making common folk supporter we thought you were, you can join @Agustino and I in making sure they're kept in their place.
Quoting Hanover
Quoting Baden
Then promote me from mod to admin. That'll show Hanover.
Hm, maybe. Does Mike (or whatever your name is) matter Han?
Ok, I need to stop now. :B
It's not like there were a couple of thousand post a minute. A real time scan of uploaded post would not take that much in the way of resources and it probably did not even scan them all. But yes there were programmed responses to key words, I found that the same reply came up to several different posts.
Well, I guess it's a mystery then. Paul gave some info a while ago about losing a wager/bet and the outcome was supposedly someone behind ModBot's postings.
Can we get some more philosophical smilies? Like a bust of Plato, portraits of Nietzsche, Marx, and Kant. Sartré puffing on his pipe. And that Thinker sculpture by Rodin would be a classy emoji.
Seriously though, occasionally I'll use texting abbreviations like FWIW, BTW, IMHO, YMMV, etc. Don't think I've ever used OMG or LMFAO, but it is possible. Maybe a silly question, but any problem with doing so? I don't want to be SOL and FUBAR. Thanks!
That's not how it works. When a post is posted there would have been a random chance that ModBot would be activated, check the contents of that post for certain key words, and then respond appropriately.
Occasional anything is generally fine here. And abbreviations like btw etc. are not a problem. But writing whole posts without capitalization in old-fashioned text speak (which developed in the pre smartphone age) makes the site look messy and is hard to correct - we need to essentially rewrite the post. But even then the worst that would happen is that we would ask you not to do that and you, presumably, would then go back to regular writing. We're not here to harass people. We do a mostly boring job with a fairly basic aim - keep the place tidy and try to encourage quality.
Tim Rymel
May 2017
Don't think this is prevalent, but it sure can be found, including among people that others look up to.
And often enough, those harboring a more moderate sentiment just goes along for the ride. :-x
Evangelicals are not sociopathic because they are opposed to abortion. They truly believe it's murder. They are not sociopathic because they oppose gay marriage anymore than 90%+ of the population was 50 years ago when they opposed it.
The liberal concept of tolerance I think demands a more open acceptance of other's views, even those you believe might be less tolerant.
Excellent, thank you. That is what I was guessing, but just wanted to be sure. Though I am not so extremely busy that it's impossible to type out "by the way" or something. :)
No worries. (Y)
The example in the article was of a pastor, on the attack on the gay nightclub in Florida, saying "the tragedy is that more of them didn’t die. The tragedy is — I’m kind of upset that he didn’t finish the job!". That's far from simply being opposed to gay marriage, and certainly does seem sociopathic.
But no doubt his view is just a vocal minority, and the majority of Christians aren't such dicks. The author is likely stereotyping in the same way that a lot of anti-Islam folks are when calling Muslims terrorists.
Calling all Muslims terrorists is bigoted and stereotyping. Giving an honest description of Islamist violence and not copping to the false equivalency that "all religions have their violent extremists" is not bigoted or stereotyping. I'm not saying you were necessarily attaching the above description to the latter position, but it wasn't exactly clear from your post.
Your description of the "anti-religious" crowd is similarly unnnuanced (and I see that the conservative/Republican obsession with "elitists" continued unabated, even as the party caters to the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and non-powerful).
Quoting jorndoe
I'd find that boring. I like face-to-face customer service. The kind of work I was describing was just a temporary phase, and my job role once the store is up and running won't be anywhere near as physically demanding, nor the shifts as long or overnight.
Quoting Agustino
I don't flip burgers.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Personally, I can't stand them.
Try missionary.
It's probably time to put burning man on ice. Not because of the actual burning man (sadly inevitable) but because it appears to have gotten too far from any subversive or deviant qualities it might have once had. Hard core has gone soft, once again. It has become as outré as the 50th Anniversary Celebration of the Summer of Love, sponsored by Subaru and Pepsi; presented by NBC.
Just look how big it's gotten.
Plus a plane is about to crash into it.
That's one from Tarkovsky's favorite sayings. Are you a fan?
Anti-mimesis is a philosophical position that holds the direct opposite of Aristotelian mimesis. Its most notable proponent is Oscar Wilde, who opined in his 1889 essay The Decay of Lying that, "Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life".
Great title, The Decay of Lying.
Check out 'ponderer'.
Not quite. In Aristotelian terms art is false only to the extent that it is taken to be true, and true to the extent that it is understood to be false. In arguing for the beautiful lie, the ideal, Vivian is not attempting to argue that there is no distinction at all between the facts, and art. Otherwise there would be no problem with modern literature, other than being boring, or itself being claimed to be false, and the lie.
You know, Wilde while he was in court for being gay, they brought in some dude saying that they had had relations, and Wilde denied it on the grounds that he wasn't attractive enough, incriminating himself in the process.
:D
Don't say cuddlery is a human thing. :)
Quoting Bitter Crank
Sorry, didn't log back on at the time, by all means, always feel free to steal these posts. (Y)
I take issue with your statement because we have plenty of Bunker Buster Briefs that the men model underground. If this convention is to take place as an "annual post apocalyptic", that suggests that the survivors would bring back civilization, only to have it destroyed annually? I know who is going to be tossed into the burning man, the creator of the event.
It is already happening around us but not out in the West :P This time it is in my home state of Illinois and a place you may know, Hanover Park. They have "Zombie Dogs" so maybe a swimsuit convention should be your second or third priority?
Burning Man been going on since 1986. Started in San Francisco (of course) got adopted by a DADA like society who moved it to Black Rock Desert of Nevada. I read about it each year but I've never really looked into it. Apparently quite interesting group of goof offs. There are spin off, like minded organizations in many locations including Atlanta.
9 days, at 4000 feet above sea level, in middle of the desert with a bunch of goof-offs and others.
The photos are great, wild flights of the imagination.
Keep me posted when next year's event is. I'll buy you a beer.
Conveniently located in downtown SF.
Don't ask me, I don't get it either.
Biggus D*ckus.
No women angels. In fact, the Greek word for Angel has no feminine form. Obviously God didn't want female angels.
Look it up.
Maybe.
I don't think the US will take any unilateral military action unless Japan, South Korea or US are actually at the receiving end of North Korean aggression. Kim Jong-Un is aware of this, I think he relies on this. At the same time NK is rapidly developing a nuclear arsenal and delivery systems. The nuclear explosion the other day had a 100 kiloton yield.
Putin is right, further sanctions will not impact NK's course of action.
Ha ha - I think that's China's gambit. They want a fool in the region who they can manipulate and maybe start a conflict to expand their sphere of influence, without receiving any of the blame. It's so foolish to think that puny North Korea is anything - they're just a mask for China. Kim is China's puppet.
Quoting Michael
That's also naive. One of the reasons why Kim is doing this is because he needs an external enemy in order to keep power and justify his oppressive regime. Loads of people have been moved out of Pyongyang recently out of fear of a rebellion. The NK regime is shaking very badly, and Kim desperately needs an enemy to rally the country behind.
At the same time, China is pulling the strings and encouraging a conflict. China is the sleeping dragon and it has lain dormant for a very long time, building a tremendous military force and economy. It will soon want to move out and expand its regional sphere of influence - but to do that, it needs legitimacy - a reason. China will never let the US take over, nor will it allow the Korean peninsula to be united except under a North Korean puppet regime that they can control.
They might not have a sex, but they clearly have a gender.
Some can have no sex and still have a kid, or so the story goes.
People often confuse the immaculate conception with the virgin birth, see Jesus' conception was still dirty.
Threshold Model Physics promoted by Eric Stanley Reiter (studied physics at California State University).
Reiter seems to be somewhat of a heretic in the community, though not up there with the woo do'ers.
Just in appearance, not in 'reality'
Things that make you go hmmmmmm
I don't know what you mean by that.
... sure...
Gabriel was still sometimes depicted as female. I never made any wild claims beyond that. That level of conversation is below me.
I once made love to an angel. I know that because it was heavenly for her. She was definitely a she.
There are plenty of feedback loops though. More heat and CO2 means plants can grow farther north and will be nourished more from the air...
The amount of variables involved in predicting how even that specific feedback effect will actually play out make it too difficult to do so though.
Angles. Heh.
The fish taco lover strikes again!
And that's why Hanover's dream to become a geometry teacher never materialised.
Sounds conspiratorial but it's not. Some basic neuroscience x some common sense observations = change your life.
Interesting information provided by Doctor Lustig.
Maybe the kid who called the emperor out was wearing specs and a lab coat. Whatever works.
Clearly a feeder who wants you to be fat so she'll be considered the prettier of you two. >:)
I guess book sales will tell that tale. Personally I found the strategy makes him appear less credible, though it is clever to try redefining the concept of happiness as he does.
That exclusive though. How to get rich on a divorce. That's like milking male goats.
The sheer madness!
I do find a pervasive pessimism among philosophers, usually rationalized by an insistence that they possess true knowledge and aren't naive and blissfully ignorant like the masses. The book itself is critical obviously, and not terribly joyful, which is the accepted tone of the academic.
I also note (at least in the portion I listened to) the failure to discuss the link between happiness and spiritual beliefs. The path out of addiction is often paved with religious faith. I seriously doubt one will find happiness by reading that book.
I think that being able to deal with pain, and unhappiness is way better. As more often than not, things are far less than ideal, life is suffering, tragedy, and the most enduring religious and philosophical traditions teach dealing with how much life sucks, not at all pursuing happiness.
Even the most fantastic high ends, even the most perfect relationship is impermanent. Stalin went insane, and hated the world after his love died. The happiness of someone with everything in the world is surely unquestionable, but their ability to deal with hiccups, loss, tragedy very much isn't.
And that statement is probably consistent with the arguments in the book itself. The usefulness of this kind of stuff in my opinion has to do with helping to reinforce something already known at some level. Nobody can just feed you the will-power to develop good habits. Certainly not through a book.
Sometimes I think, "what for?" "why bother", but in my experience doing the things I believe that I should do, and not doing the things I think I shouldn't is a lot less torturous, so for that reason alone, and because they are forced to light by the context, demands a small transformation, while my attention is brought there.
'Xactly, I did more the past couple of days too.
The five keys, the three pillars, the five points to health and safety, the company's vision, blah de blah.
You missed the subtext. I referred to the significance of faith and then said "that" book. You changed it to "a" book.
The path out of addiction has little or nothing to do with religion where I come from. That's an American thing (vs Europe at least). Same with other mental health issues.
This is also doubtful. Yes, relationships - depending on the relationship - can be a source of great ecstasy or great misery as well. I think that good relationships are formed by people who have already found happiness inside of themselves. Beggers can never be happy, whether alone or in a group.
The idea of finding happiness in the external world is pernicious, and I would say the main cause of misery. It causes one to pursue empty things that can never be enjoyed anyway, because one has nothing on the inside to enjoy them with. In addition, it often causes one to pursue things that aren't within their control - and whatsoever isn't within your control cannot be happiness, for it always has an element of uncertainty and pain in it.
I generally feel quite happy. When I'm alone - which is most of the time - I can't say I'm miserable. I'm quite content. When I'm around other people, I'm happy in being able to share my happiness with them and make them feel better too.
But I doubt I'd be happy around others if I wasn't happy alone.
Quoting Hanover
That personable billionaire is also, statistically, more likely to be depressed and suicidal :P Most of these "personable" people tend to be quite sad and depressed when they're alone with themselves. The façade isn't who they really are.
Quoting Hanover
The issue is also that the "brooding philosopher" is often confused with the angsty teenager. The two aren't the same - even though they share some family resemblance.
Quoting Hanover
I agree with this.
Quoting Hanover
Yeah, probably. But it's not bad.
Quoting Wosret
Interesting, never knew that. Is this before he got married?
I'm European, but I agree with Hanover >:O What does that mean?
It was his first wife Kato, and when she died he reportedly remarked "with her died my last warm feelings for humanity." Then seemed to live the rest of his life attempting to prove that sentiment.
Interesting - was this early in his career then before he was a politician? I remember one of his wives to have committed suicide or similar when he was party boss.
Naturally he didn't become interested in politics until he was jaded to the point of deep misanthropy. Like everyone else.
Religion is like ketchup in America. There's a lot of it around and it goes on just about everything.
The Good Doctor abjures any conspiracy in the wicked, high-fructose corn-porn-saturated food industry. However, a relatively small number of very large companies like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill dominate the raw material and basic processing level of the food industry. Extracting corn starch then converting it into oceans of corn syrup with enzymes just isn't a cottage industry. One wouldn't have to round up scores of companies to have an effective conspiracy--a dozen would probably be enough.
I think he's right about sugar, cell phones, and addictions, but I'm not persuaded that he has plumbed the pursuit of happiness more deeply than anybody else. He's flogging his book with a snappy concept on the cover -- the collective American mind is hackable and has been hacked. How would hacked minds overcome their hacking? Even giant credit bureaus aren't able to avoid hacking, apparently (see Equifax).
There was a Second Generation Star Trek episode in which a game was brought on board the Enterprise and turned out to be so addicting that every crew member from Picard to Wesley Crusher (except Data, of course) was rendered dysfunctional. We're in about the same shape, according to Dr. Lustig (who confessed to being addicted to caffeine--so who is he to lecture us?)
True. I suspect him on the candy bar front too to be honest.
This analogy is incomplete because ketchup provides a benefit in certain situations, like on fries. What you mean to say, just to be consistent with your prior posts, is that religion is like idiot ketchup that only stupid people eat. Actually, the US is like idiot Europe. It's like it, just stupider.
The "higher power" that a lot of AA people talk about seems to be a rather generic, powdered-add-water sort of religion. Higher power is to God what Tang is to oranges. What works in AA (if it works at all) is confession and acceptance of their sad, wretched state of addiction. One has to let Houston know that we have a problem (See Apollo 13). Higher powers just don't cut it.
Better than ketchup running all over everything, Religion is much more like the penis. It's really great to have one and use it regularly, but it's just not polite to whip it out in public and wave it around, especially if you are beating me over the head with it.
Seinfeld was right. People just like to say "salsa".
There's also a small mistake, or perhaps definitions need to be changed, being made in drawing a distinction between what gives pleasure and happiness. I would think that sex gives one a sense of pleasure, but not happiness, yet people do it all the time. Why is that?
For most people, I'd say they do that because society expects them to. There really isn't much more going through the minds of most. If they don't do it, then they feel there's something wrong with them, and they start having second thoughts about their self-worth, which isn't very pleasurable, so they avoid that by having it. Then they get to feel "normal".
Yeah, but for the sake of the argument, we are strictly talking about what is the intrinsic motivating factor for people wanting to have sex, be it either happiness (doubt even the most ardent sex addict achieves) or pleasure.
I largely think sexual desire - at least as most people experience it today, is a social construct, largely the result of social expectations people have of one another. There is a biological element in there, but more minor. There's also a spiritual one.
I think sex can lead to happiness provided it is done in the right circumstance (in a married relationship) with the person you love - it's a spiritual happiness, unitive in nature. That unity requires a high degree of trust and security to be possible though. It's impossible in a one night stand and the like for example. Nor is it possible with the wrong person.
Definitely not minor. However, to some large extent how the desire is expressed is totally or largely shaped by social factors.
I just think we have it hardwired to think that pleasure equates with happiness, with the doctor being right and corporate America has capitalized on this facet of human nature for their own well being.
You guys and your analogies. God is a nebulous concept no matter how you slice it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
It ought be more like a whore's vagina, warm and receptive to all comers.
Quoting Hanover
But only to those that pay for it.
AA comes across as a bit cultish to me. But I don't know much about it apart from what Charlie Sheen told me. Whatever works. Addiction can be hellish.
Quoting Hanover
Lol. No, I like the vagina analogy better now. Although my view is actually a bit more nuanced than either ketchup or vaginas or any combination thereof.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Getting closer...
After all the publicity, she'd better perform up to expectations. AT LEAST a category 4.
Well, as much as I love both the liberal press and global warming, it seems unlikely that this hurricane season suddenly proves something that last year's season didn't. Hurricanes are still weather, not climate. It could be that Harvey and Irma owe something to global warming, but then so does every other storm in recent memory.
Global warming is going to get us, perhaps whether we do anything about it or not. We'll have to do a lot about it to make much difference.
Are you a wet bulb?
Some recent experiments with wet bulbs (a test of a body's ability to cool itself) suggests that life is going to get less tolerable as humidity and temperature rise together. After a certain point, sweating doesn't help anymore, and neither does having a breeze.
If it takes the political weaponization of climate events to bash climate deniers into oblivion, so be it. The end justifies the means.
I liked Thomas, should I change it to what? Thomas is just a harmless train engine. Your wish is my command.
Baden, we need Pat's babe magnet, surely...
Lot's of profanity, so watch out:
I think I'll still leave Thomas as the profile picture. But, throw any suggestion and I might flip.
Cheers.
Whimsical is what I've been called. Rarely an asshole though.
For heaven's sake wear that bra. What about the children, must always think about the kids darn it.
Yeah, I said minor relative to the social aspect.
Quoting Posty McPostface
I disagree. I think we're rather trained by our societies to be that way. For one reason, we're more easily controllable if we are that way.
Right, misreport the facts to a group already skeptical of the media in order to gain credibility regarding a subject they're already skeptical about.
You may have a point there but warmer surface water temperatures lead to more hurricanes so there's really no need to misreport anything.
Continuing the series of acts of pointless rebellion.
Didn't King George the III say that.
Quite possibly. The difference being he was wrong. :)
And who would call you an asshole? Nobody would.
Everyone knows assholes are essential and important part of life. X-)
Nice guys finish last. Did a little Hanover there. O:)
Where?
I failed to see anything wise in your comment. :-}
Ah, finishing last is what nice guys do...
Oh, an innuendo on sexual intercourse. How droll.
I think getting rid of people who aren't worth your time is a good thing no? But our culture teaches some wrong messages, unfortunately.
You are offering to pay my legal defense costs after I get rid of the people who aren't worth my time, right...
Well you've equivocated on "getting rid of" :P
"Getting rid of" is the other side of "finishing last". If you finish last, these people get rid of you, and hence you of them, without any action on your part. That, as the Stoics would say, is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Quite.
I don't recall his exact words but when touching on the subject of religion he seemed to claim that the benefit was only in relationships. I guess it would be off-brand to include mind over body science.
Do you mean going to sleep last?
Sleep is all important to me, so if it's between being a nice guy and finishing last and going to sleep soon and comfortably, I take the sleep.
I'm still confused about the finishing part, could we have more details?
And if you're relaxing and enjoying yourself, you're wasting time whereas if you're doing some crappy job you hate, you're using it well. :s
Shamefully, I have none to share. But, I feel a certain pride in that shamefulness. Emotions, tricky things.
Lots of great architecture in Chicago. Oak Park is where Frank Lloyd Wright established the Prairie School of design. Several nice tours. The Carleton Hotel in Oak Park is quite decent, and is close to the last stop on the elevated train from DT Chicago -- about 25 minutes DT to OP. Take the Chicago Architecture Foundation River Cruise. Definitely the best. do the Monadnock Bldg tour; tickets from the Chicago Architecture FNDN on Michigan Avenue, and the Museum of Science and Industry, which was part of the 1893 World's Fair.
Google the zip codes with the most shootings and try to avoid walking around in them at 2:00 a.m or 2:00 p.m. Oak Park is a safe neighborhood, but it is surrounded.
If you want to stay at an architecturally significant hotel try important Chicago Team of Burhham and Root try the Burnham Hotel. It was built over a century ago as an innovative office building. It's across the street from a Macy's Dept. Store. There's also a Virgin Hotel (don't know why anybody would want to stay there) and Trump Towers.
Here's the Aqua Tower, apartments. Gives you an idea of the vitality of Chicago architecture.
According to the tastefully named "Hey, Jackass - Illustrating Chicago's Values" web site, there have been 2664 shootings, of which 494 were fatal. That's not since the city was founded, that's just this year, so far. These were not police shootings. Just business as usual in da'hood. White guys are missing from the stats. They're just not doing their part.
Cool building. Never knew about it!
What is bringing you to My home town?
That's appalling statistics - less than 20%; they should mandate a few hours target practice every week to improve them. I hope the police do better at least.
Is your hometown as dangerous as BC says? What's the likelihood that @Wayfarer will get gunned down during his short stay? :-O
Not safe? Looking for sex, drugs, and rock & roll in the slums and black ghettos, for instance. Or taking a bus back to your hotel from the safe bars and getting off in the WRONG part of town. I did that once. I thought a bridge would conveniently cross the freeways and take me back to the hotel. Not so. 3:00 am, and I'm wandering down a street in one of the worst parts of town (later to be informed it was Cabrini Green). A black cab driver stopped and told me to get in, and set me straight about how stupid it was for a white guy to be wandering around in the neighborhood. I can't remember how much I tipped him -- I hope it was a lot.
That said, there are nice safe areas in Chicago, and a lot of very very not nice/not safe areas.
There is a history to how this came about. The blacks in Chicago were ghettoized from the get go, back in the 1930s and 40s. They were not allowed to live in or work in a lot of areas, and they gradually got poorer and poorer. (A lot of blacks moved out of the south into the midwest to escape poverty, jim crow, KKK, etc. during the 1920s - 1940s. Factories were glad to get cheap workers, but where they were supposed to live was their problem, not the factory owners, who certainly didn't want a bunch of blacks living anywhere close to them.)
Segregation of housing was also FORMALLY AND EXPLICITLY Federal policy until the 1970s-80s, despite court rulings against the policy. Blacks didn't move into and make ghettos because they liked it, they were shoved into the ghettos and forced to stay there, pretty much.
Over time, the ghettos deteriorated economically, psychologically, behaviorally, and so on. Guns, drugs, gangs, that sort of dung.
Congratulations. Have a great time.
Hey don't do that BC! I wasn't responsible for picking the locale of my in-laws, they just happen to live between Wisconsin and Chicago. But it's all a great part of the world I have a feeling I will be around here a bit, so it's not outside the realm of possibility that we'll meet on a future visit.
Enjoy. If you like Wisconsin, Minnesota is much the same.
Quoting Cavacava
Really the reason he got sent to jail - the Hillary thing - is insane. Tell me that that's not evidence that the state has become authoritarian and if you get in the wrong books with them, you will be punished.
He wasn't sent to jail for the Hillary thing. He had his bail revoked for the Hillary thing. He was sent to jail for the fraud conviction.
I don't give two hoots about pharma bro' but Hillary is a bitter axe-grinding liar and she needs to go away now.
Don't worry, she won't. In 2020 she will be running again - and probably because of her power and influence in the DNC, she'll be the primary candidate of the Democratic Party once again.
No, she is too hated. I guarantee you. Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow and her other surrogates in the media can't save her now. The left can't stand this woman, and the Dems need the left in 2020.
Maybe, but she and her family is still extremely powerful and influential. Even if people don't like her, she will still probably manage to clinch the nomination with super delegates.
I don't believe you.
She won't run because she knows she'll lose again and she won't be able to stand that. She's poison and everyone knows it. That's why she feels free to start throwing literary grenades around now.
No, I am. I would never have voted for either candidate but Hillary disgusts me more than Trump. She's trying to destroy someone on her own side out of bitterness and spite. +Kissinger. You could hold a gun to my head and I wouldn't vote for someone who's pally with a mass murderer.
Yes, but you forget that she's narcissistic and extremely selfish. She thinks she deserves the Presidency, and will probably reinterpret her current loss as the stepping stone to her future victory.
Quoting Baden
I think she wants to make dough, and set herself up to run in 2020. She needs to discredit Bernie until then, otherwise he'll become a danger. She's smart, she's not dumb, the witch.
Um...that's not an invitation or anything... :P
But it isn't just about Hillary and Trump. It's about the whole country. Do you think that the U.S is better off under Trump than it would have been under Hillary?
Actually, no, but 4 years of Trump + 4 years of a Dem who is not Hillary is probably better for America than 8 years of Hillary (considering, among other things, she's hawkish on foreign policy and against single payer health care.)
I think that depends on how many (more) Supreme Court justices Trump gets to pick.
I'd hope that would fall to the next administration who, if Hillary was elected this time, may have been heading Republican and now is more likely Dem. But, obviously I agree it's a major downside of Trump
Ahh that's the best thing according to me! :D I would hope Trump gets to pick as many as possible.
It's really strange that it matters. Ideally the judges wouldn't make political decisions, just correctly interpret the Constitution.
Shame life doesn't work that way.
Walk into bookstore. Don't buy books dont buy books dont buy books you have too many books dont buy books.
Buys three books.
You need a longer plumb line. Pass by the bookstore and head for the chandler.
The Chandler?
When me and my ex split up and I moved to this smaller place 11 years ago, the hardest thing to decide was what to do with all the books. How do you decide which 70% of your books have to go? Eventually I decided All Fiction had to head for Oxfam.
Now my smaller house is overflowing. All this damn philosophy :)
Was it?! :-O That is even worse!
Quoting Agustino
I thought he meant 'chandelier' which didn't make much sense either.
Raymond?
No, if you are found guilty of a crime, you are subject to whatever the judge deems appropriate, which is true in most countries. He was out on bail pending sentencing but Pharma Bro decided to put a $5,000 bounty for a lock of Hilary's hair, and the judge said "This is a solicitation of assault in exchange for money," get your ass to jail.
And if he had put a $5,000 bounty on the lock of a random woman's hair from the street, people would have laughed and taken it as a joke right? But because it's Crooked, he goes to jail no?
No, the person targeted might no take it that way at all.
Sure, but he wouldn't have gone to jail right?
Not, in his case, he is subject to the courts wishes...he could have targeted anybody and ended up in jail.
Sure, but likely nothing would have happened. In this case, the court was alerted by the secret services. A regular person would have had no secret service behind them. The Clinton family is certainly one of the most corrupt families in US, and this is just further proof that the state apparatus protects them.
Not that I think Shkreli shouldn't be arrested, I think he should have, however this is, in my eyes, absolutely not a valid reason for revoking his bail.
Ha, ha but you are not the judge.
Which explanation has literally spoiled a joke that was already metaphorically plumbing the depths. :(
Fox news beating the drums to war. What they won't tell you is that this could all have been prevented and still could be if the U.S. and South Korea de-escalate on their side by, for example, stopping their joint military drills. But they won't and never have been willing to give an inch. Deja vu.
Helps me understand why some people hate lefties. The post-modern lecturer is a dangerous nut and the supposed transphobic fascist is talking perfect sense.
@Hanover?
I don't think it's possible to de-escalate actually. Kim has no way to maintain his power. Making peace with the US and the world is his worst nightmare - it's the step that will actually result in him losing power, and quite likely getting killed (and his whole family too) in the process.
He needs external conflict in order to justify his totalitarian regime there. He needs an outside enemy to be able to justify why the country is so poor, and why such oppressive measures are needed.
Kim is in the kind of situation where he really doesn't have options. And it's a situation that has built itself over several generations.
I think Kim is actually benefited by the so called escalations, and not harmed at the moment.
He's too quiet then! And I never knew he is a substance dualist who believes that the mind is a different substance from the body.
Seems so.
Hmm interesting. I never much understood how the doctrine can be appealing. Personally I'm much closer to neutral monism than substance dualism, and I'm not a materialist. I don't think we need another substance - which is a metaphysical category - to account for the mind and mental occurences / representations.
For example, look at Spinoza. Spinoza's substance monism adequately takes into account both thought and extension as two sides of the same coin as it were. This explains why they are correlated (they are two sides of one coin, so of course they will be correlated), and doesn't need to populate the world with more than one substance.
Yes, Peterson makes a lot of sense in his anti-POMO fight. However his personal philosophy with the Jungian archetypes and purely psychological interpretation of religious traditions is very weak I believe.
Because he doesn't want his speech legislated? That he doesn't want to be legally forced? Despite that he doesn't deny that transsexuality, could be biological, but is still like 1% of the population. That he claims that this is something latched on by social constructivists in order to claim that gender isn't even a real thing, but is entirely made up and not biological, which is what the legislation suggests as well, thus completely denying what the overwhelming vast majority of trans people are actually claiming, which does in fact rely on essentialism, and biology?
Wtf are you talking about? This is the opposite of the truth.
That's not true either...
This just seems like an irrelevant quibble. There are mental states and non-mental states, one is made from X, the other Y. Why do I care if X and Y are both made from Z or if X and Y are elemental?
The lecturer says there is no such thing as biological sex (not just "gender") and that scientists agree on that. He also claims that not referring to a trans person by their preferred pronoun is abusive and hate speech.
The first is nuts and the second is dangerous.
Such use of new language should be a matter of courtesy not of law.
I probably was reactionary, and misinterpreted you as meaning JP was the badie you were talking about. I agree with you there, sorry if I misunderstood.
I don't agree with him on everything, obviously - he's a religious conservative more or less - and if I was a lecturer I would have no problem calling someone by their preferred pronoun but he's right on the free speech issue in my view.
Yeah, I was a bit confused by your post there for a minute. :)
And that's where some get confused on this if they don't look into it. It's not like insisting on calling Caitlyn Jenner "he" as someone like Ben Shapiro would.
It's really people that aren't at all on the side of trans people, and use them as a means of support for things that actually delegitimize them, by claiming that it's all made up, but it's totally okay, because everyone else is making it up too.
But, yes, you supporting substance dualism was memorable. :)
Care to explain why you think so? His interpretation of the Fall, the Resurrection, etc. is purely psychological. He doesn't view these events as having spiritual meaning beyond the psychological - in other words he doesn't view the spiritual realm as being literarily there. It's all a way to explain our behaviour / feelings.
Quoting Baden
I disagree. I think both Catholic and Orthodox Christianity would find him leaning very heavily towards the heretical side because of his emphasis on psychological interpretation of religious texts.
Ok, that was just my impression.
I would, however, agree with you that he is a political conservative :P
Well, that's fine, I aim to be on the side of the most rational argument not the most left or right argument. Maybe someone should tell Thorongil and Bustedbuddha that so that they may again grace us with their presence. :P
When you said this, I got scared that you had banned him, so I had to check his profile...
Quoting Baden
Sometimes, not all the time. But yes, you're quite frequently someone who can be reasoned with in matters that don't have to do with moderation :P
Lol, OK.
Do you mean like in his university lectures on psychology, he talks too much about psychology, the thing he is a professor of and teaching? Where do you get that he only has psychological interpretations?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKG4_psaC9k
Because, even though he's very careful not to come off as a cook, and very cognizant of what kinds of ideas and metaphysical suppositions are considered plausible, and get you taken seriously, and less seriously, such that he couches his words carefully. He clearly thinks there is more than metaphor, or story telling with nice morals going on, but the ultimate metaphysical truth is physical, reductionist or something.
Just by listening to his lectures, and also interviews and conversations. For example I remember both of his debates with Sam Harris giving me that idea.
Quoting Wosret
What do you mean "the ultimate metaphysical truth is physical, reductionist or something"?
Quoting Wosret
Also, this makes it clear for example that he is committed to God being like a psychological reality which influences our actions, but he's not certain if there is more to that. For example, he's not sure about Jesus' bodily Resurrection.
He clearly doesn't think that it's all just stories, and that is the ultimate truth (you're just ready to misinterpret everything to be slanted that way, eh?). You're still going to keep thinking, and saying those false interpretations despite seeing him unequivocally say there is to it than that aren't you?
States of what? Affairs? Yes, I don't think anyone will doubt that there are mental states of affairs and physical ones. However! This does not necessitate that mental states are made from X and physical ones are made from Y. In other words, it does not necessitate substance dualism.
Quoting Hanover
Because if X and Y are both made from Z, then they are not substances themselves. In this case, we can explain why there exists correlation going both ways between the mind as phenomenologically experienced, and the brain. Why serotonin in the brain is correlated to a feeling of happiness, and a feeling of happiness is correlated to serotonin being released in the brain.
And this is only possible if we conceive of thought and extension as two attributes of essentially the same substance, as Spinoza did. Like two sides of the same coin. Otherwise how do you explain the correlations? You end up with the interaction problem - how one substance can interact with another.
I don't mean to claim he says it's just stories. Absolutely not. I think he says that there are "transcendent" psychological realities that underlie those stories, but these realities are still psychological, and quite possibly nothing more.
By way of showing my support for Ms Peterson and her principled stand for freedom of speech, and with grateful thanks to Ms Baden and all you lovely ladies who so eloquently argue the righteousness of the case, I shall, henceforth, refer to all posters and all philosophers as feminine. Your support for the universalisation of the feminine is encouraged, as an innovative courtesy, but not mandated. But what starts here may well sweep the internet, and in short order dissolve this linguistic problem with a global feminine pronoun becoming the default for all genders. Anyone who has any objection to such a measure can only be displaying their own sexism.
Not sure about Ms., I'd settle for Lady Baden though.
"Substance" is a pretty nebulous concept, though. What does is mean to say that a photon and an electron are "made from" the same substance? What would it mean for them to be "made from" a different substance?
You might say "there's just physical stuff". Someone else might say "there's just mental stuff". @Hanover might say "there's both physical and mental stuff". And then I respond with "there's just real stuff".
I think the whole notion of substances is hopelessly confused, and pretty much meaningless.
Anyway, shall we start an actual discussion rather than spoil the shoutbox with philosophy?
sub = below, under.
stance = standing.
Substance is understanding. If there is another substance than understanding it can only be understood to be misunderstanding. 8-)
Damn libruls.
I think Spinoza addresses this problem in the first part of the Ethics. What this means is basically that a photon and an electron can be either converted into each other or can affect each other - they are modes of the same substance. Spinoza's point is that precisely because this is the case, we cannot conceive of more than one substance. If things aren't "made from" the same thing, then there is no means through which they can interact.
Strictly speaking, thought never interacts with extension, but is rather parallel to it. This is Spinoza's parallelism of the attributes. This follows because of the underlying identity of the one substance which has two attributes.
Isn't this cheating? You're defining two things as being of the same substance if they can interact.
Or it could be that with this definition you're just talking past the dualist. It could be that there's a bunch of stuff with quality A, a bunch of stuff with quality B, and that the two bunches can interact. You claim that they are of the same substance because they can interact, whereas Hanover claims that they are of different substances because they have different qualities.
Maybe it is, but how else would we conceive of substance? Spinoza's point is that there's no other coherent way to understand substance.
For example, it becomes incoherent how different substances will interact if they share nothing in common. Things can only interact by virtue of what they have in common, not by what they don't. For example, a billiard ball can interact with another billiard ball by virtue of both being material objects and having solidity in common.
So, aside from being able to interact, what do two different things of the same substance have in common?
Depends on the particular things that you're referring to. But very generally, they have at least one attribute in common at minimum. Two extended things can interact with each other.
What about massless point particles?
Massless point particles? Which are those?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle
I don't think those are point particles. They do have extension to begin with. They can also according to some theories be conceived of as excitations in the same field.
I believe the standard scientific view is that they are. One study by one guy with only two citations (both himself) isn't good evidence against this view.
Also, gluons and photons can't interact with each other. So even if I were to accept that they have extension in common, having extension in common isn't sufficient to explain how interaction is possible. And unless you want to redefine your definition of substance, you'll have to grant that they are of two different substances.
What was the question anyway? I didn't read your post beyond that first sentence.
Although I'd probably err on the side of caution and not allow anything that could incite racial abuse. But then I'm pretty strict here. @jamalrob and @Baden are the best people to ask about official policy.
They would still have commonalities - they have spin for example.
Quoting Michael
Hmmm okay, I don't know the physics that well anymore (it's been awhile). I would probably say that having an attribute in common is essential, but not sufficient for interaction to occur in a particular situation (other conditions would need to be met, such as for example the two objects being present at the same point in space, etc. etc.)
Substance.
Spinoza's point is about the logic of having things that interact or in relation in the first place. If I have two states that are connected, whether it be causally (e.g. my experiences and body) or relation (e.g. two chemicals sit inert some distance apart), then they can only belong to the same substance, that is, express the same whole.
They cannot be split into separate substances as that would make them mutually exclusive with each other-- an experience wouldn't be able to be caused by a body interacting within its environment, the inert chemical could not be sitting a certain distance from the other, etc.
Substance does not "explain" any causal relationship in the sense of telling us what it is or how to bring it about, but rather accounts for the context in which we can even have relational states that may or may not interact.
So you're just defining "same substance" as "can interact"?
Upon hearing it had bipartisan support, the president had one question: “Can I call it ‘repeal and replace’?”
“You can call it whatever you want, Mr. President,” a Democratic lawmaker told Trump, eliciting laughter throughout the room.
The president loved that response.[/quote]
As if there was any doubt that all he wants is a PR win. He doesn't seem to care about policy at all.
Which is interesting as just about anything is possible with him (as long as he thinks it will be popular).
My understanding is that this is all a hypothetical construct. A massless particle refers to its invariant mass, meaning its mass independent of motion. While in motion, the particle has mass because motion indicates energy and therefore a certain amount of mass. So, a photon in motion would have mass based upon the energy it has. A photon at rest, though, would have no mass. The problem is that photons don't rest in real life. So, yes, a hypothetical resting photon is a massless particle, but a massless particle also is measureless and non-existent.
With massless particles the relevant equation is e = pc. p is mv, but with massless particles this is just v. So with massless particles it's e = vc. The energy is velocity times the speed of light. Mass doesn't come into it (except with the confusing term "relativistic mass", which I think is seen as a really bad term).
In other words, photons just have a speed (c) and a direction.
Edit: looking into a little more detail, I may have gotten my interpretation of p wrong. It's confusing as all the terms seem to be defined in terms of each other.
Quoting Baden
When I was saying Trump is a good deal maker you were laughing at his incompetence. Now that he's actually making the deals, you're complaining that he's successful! >:O Impossible to please!
The funnier thing though, is that Wayfarer who was absolutely hating Trump until now has started to turn around... soon he will be praising the Great Leader as he used to ironically call him >:O
If I give you my car for £10 then I've made a deal. Trump's deals are helping the Democrats (and his own mainstream public image), not helping him fulfil his campaign promises.
And I'm not complaining that he's successful. I'm pointing out that he cares more about PR than policy. Make of that what you will.
Moderate pragmatist today. Maybe partisan nutter again tomorrow. I don't know how anyone could keep up with that. But like Michael I'm not complaining about any swings in a sensible direction. It's the Breitbart crowd who are burning their MAGA hats. :D
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/14/trump-voters-throw-maga-hats-twitter-bonfire/
The e = mc[sup]2[/sup] formula is for massive particles at rest. For massless particles in motion it's e = pc.
The full formula from which these two are derived is e[sup]2[/sup] = m[sup]2[/sup]c[sup]4[/sup] + p[sup]2[/sup]c[sup]2[/sup]
It stands to reason, though, that if an at rest photon had mass, then when it starting flying at the speed of light, it would gain mass from the increased energy, which cannot be.
I can't remember why we're talking about this.
In a way, but it's more than that. I'm saying Substance means the being or existence of anything that might exist or be in relation. It doesn't just have consequences for saying what might be, the fact there is anything all means there is Substance-- it's not just things which "could interact" which must belong to it, but everything in any sort of relation. In this respect, it not just states of existence which are of Substance, but also anything else as well, including concepts, meaning and any other realm which we might pose, such as, for example, different realms of things which are not existence.
Dualism is not just being cut down for the point of view states are of existence which interact or are in relation in existence. The very logic of dualism is shown to be incoherent. *Even if there we some other sort of thing, above, behind or beyond the minute states of the world we encounter, it would merely be another type of attribute within Substance. Whatever realm we talk about would still be in logic/meaning relation and so express the same whole.
Substance is defined in itself instead being something which is obtained by some state of other doing "something." In this respect, your line of questioning doesn't make sense because Substance isn't obtained in some particular sort of thing and it's interactions, but rather given itself at all times, regardless of which things exist-- the same whole always expressed no matter what is present, in relation or interacting.
The lecturer is right about biological sex (at least in terms of the body; it is correct to say biological sex exists as a socially formed understanding of someone with a body). Scientists who focus on describing the body understand that sex is an identity category we place upon the top of bodies, rather than the body itself or any state it causes. It's not in the existence of a body that someone's sex category is defined. We have to take an action to sort a body within a certain box.
For trans tissues, this is rather important point because the "absurdity" and prejudice towards trans people is really defined in our understanding of sex, that is, the presence of a certain body means someone must take on board a particular social identity. So long a sex is understood to an essential identity defined by a particular body, the trans person will be marked as wrong or insane for identifying with a category they aren't supposed to have because of their body.
In this respect, the sex/gender split is quite suspect. Not in the sense that sex and gender aren't and cannot be distinct concepts which are expressed in certain ways, but rather that it is a poor understanding of what's at stake for many trans people worried about there body.
How does it make sense to say dysphoria has nothing to do with the body?
The sex and gender split treats it like it's some madness of the mind to place one's body in a different identity category, even though that would seem to be what's at stake, given it this issue in these instances is the body and its associated identification. In the way sex and gender split is usually talk about, it is really nothing more than our sex/gender roles defending themselves. By reducing trans identification to gender, by saying "it's just about the mind, nothing to do with the body," the significance of the body in relation to identity becomes hidden. We can write off any trans concern about bodies and identity as just being something of them mind, some pretend fantasy which has no real teeth in the context of their identity as embodied person. Even as we accept the trans person's gender, we still hold the underlying position their identity within a society, as an embodied person, they are really "male" or "female" rather than the category of their identification.
In a sense you're probably using the world, not much... but it's important to remember this isn't talking about distinctions of "real" and "illusion." Any falsehood, dream or illusion is just as "real" in the sense of being a relation of Substance.
It's not trying to distinguish between a "real world" and a "world of illusion."
Then this shows that you'd just be talking past the dualist, because when the dualist says that the body is of one substance and the mind is of another, they're not saying that one is real and the other isn't. They're both real, but of a different substance.
So what you mean by "substance" is not what the dualist means.
For sure... but this shows the dualist argument to be incoherent. In the dualist arguing that both "substances" are real, he poses them in relation, as part of the same whole, of the same "Substance" as I am using it.
The point is not the dualist is somehow claiming one is real and the other isn't, it is the claim of separate substances does not make any sense given that both mind and body are real.
For dualism, the problem isn rejecting the mind or body are real, it's that they don't understand the two are in relation and interaction. The issue is with the dualist account of the logical significance of mind and body, and how that relates to our ability to describe the presence of the mind and body in the world.
They do understand that the two are in relation and interaction. They claim that they causally influence one another.
Why doesn't it make sense? Whatever they mean by "substance" it doesn't entail that they can't both be real. So there's nothing incoherent in claiming that there are two real substances.
You can tie yourself into a verbal pretzel trying to justify any kind of stupid comment you want. But the statement "Biological sex does not exist" is false. And the idea that scientists (the vast majority of them) would agree with the post-modern lecturer over Jordan Peterson on this issue is ludicrous.
Ladies, please show a little more decorum in your conversation.
If taking the middle ground here is fascist, sign me up.
This is about the politest we've ever been to each other. :P
The guidelines state:
The only one I'm worried about is b. What if I don't want to 'advocate' any position with regards to the topic but would like to get a discussion started about it?
You'll be banned.
This exemplifies the male bias of the site, with it's clear reference to the erect penis. I suggest you illustrate your interest instead with a moist, welcoming void - an opening and not a 'post'. Fight the power! That every opening has to have a post thrust willy-nilly into it is the rape culture dogma of the patriarchy.
I went to a philosophy meet up group last night. One guy showed up 30 minutes late and interrupted the speaker and asked for a quick summary of what he missed. Another guy got asked an innocuous question and demanded to know if it were an insult. Another guy insisted that "tautology" meant "trivial," and proceeded to explain why mathematics was not trivial as alleged. Another guy was told "well, that's your opinion," and that resulted in him becoming irate, telling us he wouldn't have his paranormal abilities questioned, and then storming out. I, on the other hand, was entirely diverted by the hot African American girl in the little black dress as the speaker tried to explain how Quine disproved the analytic/synthetic distinction. Finally, this guy with real long hair and a big nose argued mightily that a round planet had no boundry because you'd just keep walking in circles forever without reaching the end if you could.
It turns out that we are really normal and really polite here, all things considered.
Trying to replace us eh? They were probably just all like that because they were Americans.
Except for me, I'm a crazy asshole, and I take pride in my edgy snowflake status.
Quoting unenlightened
LOL - it wasn't a joke, I was serious. Can we start such a topic? >:O
Quoting unenlightened
its* >:)
There's where you went wrong.
I'm going to my regular old-gits philosophy group on Monday. The subject is Cornel West, a writer I've never seen mentioned on this forum. I don't expect similar shenanigans to yours, we're an awfully polite bunch. But then we're Brits: the knives come out in the small group coffee-sharing afterwards.
Actually, yes. Under the replacement terms, you are to report to Atlanta and the hot African American chick is being sent to your house. She will assume your role as admirer of everything Hanover and become a seasonal roofer. You will assume her role and wear her little black dress and smile uncomfortablely as I stare at you.
Even though, I would look spectacular, I don't think that she could handle my life, it's pretty demanding. Don't seasonal roof anymore, now I am doing far less prestigious things. I thought you were paying better attention... I guess that I should dress up more if I want your attention.
Can a snowflake be edgy? Sounds counter factual. Asshole and snowflake don't seem to go well together either.
That just further demonstrates me edginess.
I doubt if Hanover would appreciate this piece by the Fugs:
How do you like it?
When the Mode of the Music changes (reference to Plato)
The Fugs - When the Mode Of Music Changes lyrics
Download When the Mode Of Music Changes 320kbps mp3
When the mode of music changes
When the mode of music is changed
When the mode of music changes
The walls of the city shake
He who does not dance neither shall he eat
He who does not prance neither shall he drink
He who won't romance neither can he think
He who does not dance neither shall he eat
You can have the men who make the laws
You can have the men who make the laws
You can have the men who make the laws
Give me the music makers
When beauty barks I heel
When beauty barks I heel
When beauty barks I heel
When beauty barks I heel
Beware a man who is not moved by sound
Beware a man who is not moved by sound
Beware a man who is not moved by sound
He'll drag you to the ground
drag you to the ground
Come dance with me come dance with me in Johnson's land
Come dance with me and we'll beat that hooary band
Music have alarums to wild the civil breast
Music have alarums to wild the civil breast
Music have alarums to wild the civil breast
It does not bring me rest
It does not bring me rest
But in the bitter end
This wildness brings me rest
I sleep in the eye of the storm
and in the startling end
bluewhiteness makes me calm
I dream in the eye of the wind
I didn't get a notifications for this, but it is a damn good song.
No I hadnt.
No, not unless it's suitable for the 'Questions' subcategory in the 'Learning Centre'. This is a 'place to ask your questions about philosophical issues and concepts', e.g. 'Can someone explain Kant's analytic/synthetic distinction?'. This is a place designed with people who are relatively new to philosophy in mind, and is not to be used as a loophole.
Quoting Agustino
You don't have to advocate any position to get a discussion started about it, but the opening post still has to be thoughtful and of reasonable length. And if you do intend to advocate a position, then you must provide an argument (or arguments).
The Fugs displayed the kind of refreshing irreverence so lacking in many overly serious discussions today.
I sent you the $3k in your dreams to see what you would do with it. So far, you've done nothing with it, other than to get to wonderin.
Well, not everyone can be the Queen of England.
Were you naked? Sometimes that's enough for them to keep people out.
Let's get a video of someone punching you in the face. That'd be even funnier.
Look, Agustino got punched in the face, haha...Are we all three years old now?
No, it's not funny; it's in bad taste especially because it's male on female violence and also because it encourages violence against Clinton individually and political opponents in general. The fact that it's coming from the Presidumb is SAD but sadly not surprising.
Yeah, but they let the naked guy in front of me in... :s
Yes, let's do that when I become a corrupt, narcissistic & dishonest politician funneling money through my foundation :P
Quoting Baden
It's just a funny clip, has nothing to do with male on female violence or encouraging violence against Clinton for that matter. It wouldn't even have been this funny had Clinton not been supremely arrogant before the voting - and after too.
You're starting to sound much like a politically correct postmodernist now. Does watching that video make you feel more violent towards women, or towards Hillary for that matter? Probably not, I certainly didn't see such an effect on myself.
I broke my tooth on a chicken wing
Which is what I shall name my next child
So I went to the dentist to get a root canal
Not unlike the passage in Panama
But the man in the room just one over
Started to have a heart attack
Much like those who worry themselves
So an ambulance came and took him off
And that slowed down my relief
Relief like you get when you finally sleep
He gave me a discount for the delay
So I bought a new shirt