I know one of the long term effects. We won't be in the EU.
I think you guys should join the USAU (USA Union). You'd adopt the US dollar, we could fly back and forth and work in each other's countries, and all the decisions would be made in Washington DC.
Wait, I have a stupider idea. Instead of leaving it to the US to decide your future, leave it to Brussels.
Instead of leaving it to the US to decide your future, leave it to Brussels.
Interesting how these metonyms of place or indeed of entire peoples come to stand for a government. I used to get brassed off by the way the country's name had been appropriated by government: 'The British view is...' 'Britain has decided to wage another futile bombing campaign on a distant land on a wave of earnest belief that you can do good by killing people,' sort of thing. These abstractions often justify the powerful to themselves: Brits r Us. So We don't need to worry about all the little people except when it comes to a vote or conscripting them in a war.
In that sense I think the Euro-referendum vote has been a heartening kick in the teeth for such high-ups. Britain has spoken, and most of the We people don't like it, but they feel they have to lump it.
Are UK's conservative the same as US conservatives?
In reading and listening to both, I get the impression that US conservatives are far to the right of the main stream UK conservatives?
If anyone is looking for another place to causally discuss philosophy (this and old PF are a bit more serious), come check out: https://discordapp.com/channels/184181859045867522/184181859045867522
Some of us from here and old PF are over there as well.
I think he's questioning that if I'm not entitled to a minimum wage and other benefits when I work for myself then why should I be entitled to a minimum wage and other benefits when I work for someone else?
It doesn't even make sense to make that comparison. If you can't afford to pay staff the minimum wage, then you don't get to run a business. I don't know the law about pay for self-employed people: whether minimum wage is applicable or not. But if not, that would be understandable, since there's only a single person in the business. As for benefits, again, it doesn't make much sense. Unfair dismissal for someone who works for themselves obviously shouldn't be an issue. If you want to take time off work because you've just had a baby, no one's stopping you.
Reply to Sapientia Which economic authorities have anything close to a good record of prediction?
I think "long term effects" is to frame the economic future in the wrong way, in the habitual way that managerial politics does, as beyond political control. What are the long term effects of leaving home? It depends what you do about it.
So we'll have a committee debate and decide what each person should make, as opposed to having the market determine it. Sounds like some sort of USSR totalitarian communist Marxist nonsense.
This sort of thing already exists in both of our countries, which obviously aren't USSR-like totalitarian communist Marxist states, and there's nothing nonsensical about it. Not only does it make sense, it is the right thing to do.
The government sets taxes, and, over here, it's the responsibility of HMRC to control and administer taxes. That is one way of determining what people make, and it isn't, nor should it be, determined by the market. (Although it can be influenced by the market, and by macroeconomic factors).
Another way is by having a minimum wage, which has been increasing in recent years, and, over here, the Conservative government even introduced something called the National Living Wage, which is a higher minimum wage for those who are 25 or over. Now, it's pretty clear why they called it that: to make it appear as though they're ensuring that these people are paid a living wage, when in fact that isn't the case. The idea of the living wage comes closer to Marxist ideas, but it would be ridiculous to claim that the Conservative government of the United Kingdom is, or is attempting to imitate, USSR totalitarian communist Marxist nonsense.
Which economic authorities have anything close to a good record of prediction?
I'm not sure, to be honest. But many important and intelligent people listen to them, and consider them credible and authoritative. The only incorrect predictions that I'm aware of are two big ones that were mentioned during the debate, which are the Euro and the 2008 finical crisis. I assumed that besides those, they must have a pretty decent track record, which would explain my second sentence above.
It will be interesting to see what happens, and then we can better judge the accuracy of their prediction.
It doesn't even make sense to make that comparison. If you can't afford to pay staff the minimum wage, then you don't get to run a business. I don't know the law about pay for self-employed people: whether minimum wage is applicable or not.
I'm sure Hanover is aware of the law. What he's questioning is the sensibility of the law.
As for benefits, again, it doesn't make much sense. Unfair dismissal for someone who works for themselves obviously shouldn't be an issue. If you want to take time off work because you've just had a baby, no one's stopping you.
It's not about unfair dismissal. It's about whether or not a company is obliged to offer certain benefits. Hanover's point is that people are free to either apply or to not apply for jobs that don't offer the benefits they need. If you plan to have a baby then don't work for a company that doesn't offer parental leave. If you don't plan to have a baby then it's pointless to be guaranteed that benefit.
If you have to choose between unemployment or employment at a new company that can't afford certain benefits, many would choose the latter. Some money is better than no money.
It's not about unfair dismissal. It's about whether or not a company is obliged to offer certain benefits. Hanover's point is that people are free to either apply or to not apply for jobs that don't offer the benefits they need. If you plan to have a baby then don't work for a company that doesn't offer parental leave. If you don't plan to have a baby then it's pointless to be guaranteed that benefit.
If you have to choose between unemployment or employment at a new company that can't afford certain benefits, many would choose the latter. Some money is better than no money.
But if we gave companies free reign, that would allow abuses to occur, and it would have a knock-on effect. What if my wages go down as a result? What if [i]your[/I] wages go down as a result? What if countless people who already struggle on less than a living wage suffer as a result? What if they can no longer afford to pay the rent?
As for parental leave, I don't think it would be a good thing to limit peoples career opportunities and life choices, which is what would happen as a result. Countless people already in work would no longer have that safety net, and might be forced out of a job or to make a terrible life choice which they'd come to deeply regret.
But if we gave companies free reign, that would allow abuses to occur, and it would have a knock-on effect. What if my wages go down as a result? What if your wages go down as a result? What if countless people who already struggle on less than a living wage suffer as a result? What if they can no longer afford to pay the rent?
As for parental leave, I don't think it would be a good thing to limit peoples career opportunities and life choices, which is what would happen as a result. Countless people already in work would no longer have that safety net, and might be forced out of a job or to make a terrible life choice which they'd come to deeply regret.
I don't think he's suggesting that all companies should have free reign. Already there are different legal requirements depending on whether you're a sole trader or a PLC. I assume he's suggesting that the small, independently-owned businesses shouldn't have to offer the wages and benefits which, as a small company, they simply cannot afford.
It's better for them to be in business and for their employees to have a job than for them to go out of business and for their ex-employees to be unemployed.
An employment contract, like any contract, should be whatever the signees agree on (assuming that neither is being forced into it).
I think he's questioning that if I'm not entitled to a minimum wage and other benefits when I work for myself then why should I be entitled to a minimum wage and other benefits when I work for someone else?
The logic is indeed twisted enough to be Hanoverian. Funnily enough, when you work for yourself, you are entitled to all the profits of your business. The right not to share any of those with the employees is counterbalanced by the right of employees to decent conditions including a minimum wage. Capitalist cake and eat it doesn't fly here.
I assume he's suggesting that the small, independently-owned businesses shouldn't have to offer the wages and benefits which, as a small company, they simply cannot afford.
The good ones can at least afford to pay minimum wage. Entrepreneurs that come up with a business plan that doesn't provide the resources to do that simply aren't good enough and should either innovate or give up. It's not the government's job to hold their hands so they can more easily exploit the most desperate in the workforce.
I don't think he's suggesting that all companies should have free reign. Already there are different legal requirements depending on whether you're a sole trader or a PLC. I assume he's suggesting that the small, independently-owned businesses shouldn't have to offer the wages and benefits which, as a small company, they simply cannot afford.
It's better for them to be in business and for their employees to have a job than for them to go out of business and for their ex-employees to be unemployed.
An employment contract, like any contract, should be whatever the signees agree on (assuming that neither is being forced into it).
My counterargument still applies, only on a relatively smaller scale. Your "some money vs. no money" dichotomy is false, since a better option would be to get a job which meets the minimum wage. If you want to start a business but can't afford to pay employees the minimum wage, or you can, but are unwilling to do so, then tough shit. The economy can cope without these small businesses, and wages won't go down as a result, and there will be better job opportunities in terms of quality, and we're doing better in terms of quantity than we have been for a long time.
An employment contract, like any contract, to be valid, must be legitimate, i.e. conform with the law. And the law should contain fundamental workers rights, which, fortunately, it does.
Another way is by having a minimum wage, which has been increasing in recent years, and, over here, the Conservative government even introduced something called the National Living Wage, which is a higher minimum wage for those who are 25 or over.
There are objections to the minimum wage law, but that pales in comparison to what you're suggesting, which is the setting of all wages by a fairness committee. That is pretty openly Marxist in that it sets salaries based upon need. The government control required to implement such policies goes far beyond just setting wages, but it results in the crushing of the individual spirit.
The logic is indeed twisted enough to be Hanoverian. Funnily enough, when you work for yourself, you are entitled to all the profits of your business. The right not to share any of those with the employees is counterbalanced by the right of employees to decent conditions including a minimum wage. Capitalist cake and eat it doesn't fly here.
The logic isn't twisted. It's just your failure to recognize that most small business are barely keeping afloat and the entitlement to keep all your profits may not mean a whole lot. Small businesses fail every day. The logic simply allows that those who take the considerable risk of starting a business, including investing all they have for the dream of achieving self-sufficiency, to receive the benefits of their risk, which may be large, small, or non-existent. You make out the businessman to be some sort of villain sucking up the labor of others and piling up his money like Ebenezer Scrooge. They are the lifeblood of the economy, and it's the very reason that immigrants constantly flock to the US. Your rejection of the American dream isn't based upon some profound insight that it doesn't really exist. It's based upon Euro-pseudointellectual pessimism that looks near and far to find new victims who didn't even know they were victims.
The good ones can at least afford to pay minimum wage. Entrepreneurs that come up with a business plan that doesn't provide the resources to do that simply aren't good enough and should either innovate or give up. It's not the government's job to hold their hands so they can more easily exploit the most desperate in the workforce.
Brilliant. I can only pay $5 per hour, some guy is willing to accept it, but I'm required to pay $6, so the government has helped us all out by shutting down my business so that neither gets paid anything.
Reply to Hanover That did make me laugh, thanks. Anyway, how could I possibly reject the American dream when I see it being played out so elegantly at the Republican convention?
Reply to Hanover Innovate. If you're not smart enough to come up with a business plan that allows you to pay a decent wage maybe you should reconsider your line of work. Isn't that capitalist enough for you?
If you're not smart enough to come up with a business plan that allows you to pay a decent wage maybe you should reconsider your line of work. Isn't that capitalist enough for you?
At least recognize your anti-business bias. Why blame the businessman for not making enough money to pay higher wages instead of blaming the worker for having so few skills that he must earn minimum wage? If you find yourself unable to earn anything more than minimum wage, why are you excused from coming up with a better business plan, yet the businessman is condemned for not being more innovative?
There are objections to the minimum wage law, but that pales in comparison to what you're suggesting, which is the setting of all wages by a fairness committee. That is pretty openly Marxist in that it sets salaries based upon need. The government control required to implement such policies goes far beyond just setting wages, but it results in the crushing of the individual spirit.
Marx did not advocate the setting of all wages by a fairness committee, and he did not advocate for "to each according to his need" as a practical policy to be implemented by a revolutionary socialist government. The formula, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", is part of a picture of a future society of superabundance in which the individual spirit is given free rein. Any "crushing of the individual spirit" was anathema to Marx.
To be fair, that doesn't necessarily apply to self-professed Marxists, and it doesn't mean that his road to freedom was not doomed to catastrophe and the very "crushing of the individual spirit" that he despised.
Reply to Hanover I'm all for giving small businesses breaks. The minimum wage is where I would draw the line because in my world if you work full time at any job you should at least have enough money in your pocket to be able to buy food and afford decent housing and be able to send your kids to school. Just what objection do you have to that? Why is it more important to you that wannabe businessmen who don't have the smarts to start a business that can support this reality be propped up by a low wage economy?
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 21, 2016 at 13:29#141250 likes
Funnily enough, when you work for yourself, you are entitled to all the profits of your business.
*Do not forget to include that when you work for yourself, you are entitled to all of the loss that the business might/will endure. Additionally, when you work for yourself, there is no such thing as 'paid time off' or 'unemployment' checks. When you work for yourself, you have to endure the times of famine/no profits, as well as the times of feast/profits. It ALL depends on YOUR efforts and reality.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 21, 2016 at 13:31#141260 likes
The good ones can at least afford to pay minimum wage. Entrepreneurs that come up with a business plan that doesn't provide the resources to do that simply aren't good enough and should either innovate or give up.
OR just understand that that some of the best Entrepreneurs small or large, depend on contracted employees, because they cannot guarantee themselves (let alone other peoples lives) where and if there is another contract coming, for there to be work.
[quote=Baden] It's not the government's job to hold their hands so they can more easily exploit the most desperate in the workforce.[/quote]
I agree.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 21, 2016 at 13:39#141290 likes
The other obvious point is that having a minimum wage is an excellent way to put more money in the pockets of poor people who are likely to spend almost all of it and drive the economy forward.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 21, 2016 at 13:43#141310 likes
The logic isn't twisted. It's just your failure to recognize that most small business are barely keeping afloat and the entitlement to keep all your profits may not mean a whole lot. Small businesses fail every day. The logic simply allows that those who take the considerable risk of starting a business, including investing all they have for the dream of achieving self-sufficiency, to receive the benefits of their risk, which may be large, small, or non-existent.
OMG Someone who truly understands what we are striving for everyday.
Cleansing exhales...Thank God
Nothing, not one damn thing is promised when you are a small business, other than it is YOU that the business depends on.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 21, 2016 at 13:50#141320 likes
The other obvious point is that having a minimum wage is an excellent way to put more money in the pockets of poor people who are likely to spend almost all of it and drive the economy forward.
Yes, if I or Honeywell KNOW what our NEXT contract is, where it is coming from, how long it will take and blah, blah, blah. So much of our work force is fragmented that it is hard to find anyone promising, anything anymore.
There are objections to the minimum wage law, but that pales in comparison to what you're suggesting, which is the setting of all wages by a fairness committee. That is pretty openly Marxist in that it sets salaries based upon need. The government control required to implement such policies goes far beyond just setting wages, but it results in the crushing of the individual spirit.
How is anything I've actually suggested much different from the current system? It isn't. You speak of a "fairness committee" (your words, not mine) to make it sound silly, but that is already a function of the state - at least that is what statesmen tell us, and that is what we tend to expect of them: to pass fair laws. Where we likely differ is the extent to which the state regulates, and which direction we should be heading towards. For example, I think that not only was the cut to the top rate of tax by former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osbourne, unfair, it cost the country £2.4 billion (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/george-osborne-claims-cutting-the-top-rate-of-tax-raised-8bn-it-cost-the-country-24bn-and-heres-how-a6905836.html), and was therefore wrong. Nor do I think that it's a good thing that the UK now has one of the lowest corporation tax rates of the major global economies. (Thanks again, brexiteers! Since this was a reaction to the anticipated economic consequences of brexit).
Yes, it does indeed relate to Marxism, in that it sets a minimum wage based upon need, but we're talking about a [i]bare minimum[/I] here, which is something which is [i]part of[/I] a typical capitalist pay system - based on notions of merit - as opposed to an [i]alternative to[/I] it.
The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 took effect on 1 April 1999, and remains in place today. It's a good thing, and it's absolute nonsense to say that it results in the crushing of individual spirit.
How is anything I've actually suggested much different from the current system? It isn't. You speak of a "fairness committee" (your words, not mine) to make it sound silly, but that is already a function of the state - at least that is what statesmen tell us, and that is what we tend to expect of them.
If your position is simply that there should be a minimum wage, then there's not much to argue, considering there already is one. Whether that ought to be the case for businesses over a certain size (which is the current law, although the size requirement is being argued to be changed), I didn't think was the point of the discussion.
I took your position to be that everyone ought to get something fair in return for their labor, which is different from a minimum wage law that I take as a law that will assure that there be a certain bare bones minimum that a worker should get for working any job. If I misunderstood your position, then maybe we're in agreement, but I thought you were saying that if work as an auto mechanic (for example), I should be paid something based upon how hard I work and how much I contribute to the business etc. etc, with each factor being a criterion of fairness. So, if the minimum wage law is $7/hour and I'm getting paid $20/hour as a mechanic, but the owner of my auto shop is getting paid $100/hour and I'm doing all the work, I took your position as being that I should be legally entitled to more money. Is that not what you were saying? My position would be that I would be entitled to $7/hour and anything above that is what I have been able to negotiate.
I took your position to be that everyone ought to get something fair in return for their labor, which is different from a minimum wage law that I take as a law that will assure that there be a certain bare bones minimum that a worker should get for working any job. If I misunderstood your position, then maybe we're in agreement, but I thought you were saying that if work as an auto mechanic (for example), I should be paid something based upon how hard I work and how much I contribute to the business etc. etc, with each factor being a criterion of fairness. So, if the minimum wage law is $7/hour and I'm getting paid $20/hour as a mechanic, but the owner of my auto shop is getting paid $100/hour and I'm doing all the work, I took your position as being that I should be legally entitled to more money. Is that not what you were saying? My position would be that I would be entitled to $7/hour and anything above that is what I have been able to negotiate.
But the original topic of discussion was, specifically, the minimum wage and workers rights as reflected in current legislation, and whether or not small businesses should be exempt from the aforementioned; not my broader position. So you've changed the subject.
But I am more sympathetic to the position you ascribe to me in the quote above, than to your position.
President François Hollande has proved himself incompetent in one area -- hair. He's been spending $10,000 on his hair -- not in a lifetime, not in a year, but each month! and for what? Look at his hair (l'horreur): Is his hair helping him rule France?
[URL=https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/36859305?client=ms-android-alcatel#]Florida policeman shoots autistic man's unarmed black therapist in Miami[/URL]
The other obvious point is that having a minimum wage is an excellent way to put more money in the pockets of poor people who are likely to spend almost all of it and drive the economy forward.
That's not obvious. That's just some economic theory you want to be true so you've asserted it with amazing confidence. http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2014/11/26/the-facts-on-the-minimum-wage-increase/#6740bc7852ad
Florida policeman shoots autistic man's unarmed black therapist in Miami
Wow. Another one.
A spokesman for the advocacy group "Circle of Brotherhood" "Mr Muhammad, said "there was an "inherent fear of black men in this country that allows us to to be gunned down without provocation". This statement needs to be tightened up a bit. If there was an "inherent fear of black men" then many more black men would be getting shot by police and civilians.
Many civilians do fear black men, big young black men in particular, in certain contexts, like walking down a dark street with little foot traffic around; being a clerk in a convenience store in the slum; being a lone female on the street with black (or white) men around, and so forth. These fears may exist, but most civilians typically do not preserve their safety by shooting whoever is nearby. Convenience store clerks don't pull out a gun and shoot potential shoplifters or robbers, and women usually don't shoot men on the street.
We deal with our fears in other ways. We avoid dark streets, we don't go out at night, we walk in groups (if possible) and so forth, or we accept certain risks (and for the most part, get away with it).
The police shoot way too many unarmed or compliant black men who are armed. In some ways, it's surprising that many, many more black men aren't shot, given the mind set with which police are operating.
I don't know about police elsewhere in the world, but police in the United States are not extensively trained. They often receive "police-type training" in the military, and they receive training offered by 2 year community colleges and private training companies. The officer who shot Ferlando Castile in St. Paul a couple of weeks ago had supposedly been through what was called "bullet-proof officer training" which apparently encourages rough-and-tough approaches to police work. Police culture in general develops a skewed view of high crime neighborhoods, discounting the value of any given individual.
The police are a quasi-military operation in many cities (there is nothing that makes them "military" other than the mindset of the chiefs, supervisors, and the cops themselves). They don't feel obligated to "serve and protect" the community as much as "surveil and control". Police don't like being challenged in any way, shape, manner, or form by civilians be they young, old, white, black, respectable, or disreputable. When a cop approaches somebody from a group that is especially distrusted, no benefit of the doubt is extended.
Plus, obviously enough, the cops (in the US, at least) are always armed. Being armed and trained to shoot prepares a cop... to shoot.
It seems like, when it comes to certain police and black suspects, they are prepped to shoot. There is a disconnect between the preparation to use the gun and the perhaps glaringly obvious signs from the civilian that he is not resisting in any way.
If cops had to rely on Tasers only, there would be more cases of unnecessary Taser use, too -- which most people would survive.
The black community isn't the only group of people, by any means, to take the brunt of police bias, which of course is no excuse for police behavior.
And then there is race hatred, as if the other crap wasn't enough.
A spokesman for the advocacy group "Circle of Brotherhood" "Mr Muhammad, said "there was an "inherent fear of black men in this country that allows us to to be gunned down without provocation". This statement needs to be tightened up a bit. If there was an "inherent fear of black men" then many more black men would be getting shot by police and civilians.
That fear is supposed to have been a factor in the development of the Civil War (per Stephen Oates), but it was localized in the Southeast as an apocalyptic image of a massive slave revolt. Some connect that folklore to the topic of the first full-length movie, Birth of a Nation.
Post Muddy Waters, Jimi Hendrix, Mike Tyson, and Barack Obama, I find it hard to believe that this "white man's fear" of strong black men is what drives contemporary racism. But I don't have x-ray vision into anybody's soul.
Charles, the therapist said that he was lying on ground with his hands up, figuring I'am safe...I got my hands up...then he got shot...he said he was so surprised it felt like a mosquito bite.
Charles said he asked the officer why he shot him and the officer replied, according to Charles, "I don't know" as he and another officer rolled Charles over and double handcuffed him.
The British upper class and bourgeoisie in the 16th and 17th century loathed their poor people who were as white as they were (though that wasn't a big issue at that time). They were lazy, parasites, useless, wicked, dirty, etc. They were offensive. Garbage, Junk. A waste.
After the Civil War a great deal of effort went into oppressing the recently freed black slaves on new terms. Former slave owners were profoundly resentful that they were forced to give up not only tremendously valuable assets, but abandon an entire social order based on slavery. The planter enmity toward the former slave was close to infinite.
Both poor whites and poor blacks attempted to ameliorate their circumstances. The south didn't offer much opportunity, but the north offered more, especially in the burgeoning auto industry, and then in all industry during WWII. Many whites were able to surge ahead in the new industrial front and actually hold on to their gains, and pass their gains on to the next generation.
Blacks wanted to do the same thing, but ran into barriers: segregation in education and housing, and systematic bias in lending and employment. Whites exhibited a lot of solidarity in excluding blacks from their neighborhoods, schools, better job categories, churches, social clubs, etc.
It isn't that blacks posed any sort of material threat to working white people. The problem was that the whites (formerly white trash) felt that only through solidarity and black exclusion could their economic and social gains be maintained.
It always helps to define people you don't like as being decidedly inferior. Blackness became a heavily freighted condition. They were or are hyper sexual, physically violent, lazy, parasites, useless, wicked, dirty, etc.
So, if black people are considered more killable than white people, it shouldn't come as a big surprise.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 22, 2016 at 13:57#141820 likes
Bittercrank,
10k for the upkeep that turns out looking like his? It might be a little on the high side but a necessary expense. I am just saying, as far as thinning hair goes, his is pretty good.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 22, 2016 at 14:09#141830 likes
They don't feel obligated to "serve and protect" the community as much as "surveil and control". Police don't like being challenged in any way, shape, manner, or form by civilians be they young, old, white, black, respectable, or disreputable. When a cop approaches somebody from a group that is especially distrusted, no benefit of the doubt is extended.
Beautifully articulated and absolutely accurate from a civilian's point of view. At the same time, most police here in the desert are mindful of the fact that many people are armed, black, white, Hispanic, old, young, respectable or disreputable so (knock on wood) we don't see the police shootings that others are.
Florida policeman shoots autistic man's unarmed black therapist in Miami
Wow. Another one.
The officer claims he was trying to shoot the autistic guy and missed and hit the black guy. Not sure that that improves things all that much. But wait and see. Videos aren't always the complete picture.
That's just some economic theory you want to be true so you've asserted it with amazing confidence. http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2014/11/26/the-facts-on-the-minimum-wage-increase/#6740bc7852ad
Matched only by your amazing confidence that I would read Forbes for you. Give me something respectable and I'll take a look.
The officer claims he was trying to shoot the autistic guy and missed and hit the black guy. Not sure that that improves things all that much. But wait and see. Videos aren't always the complete picture.
The idea that the police officer in Florida tried to shoot the patient and not Charles strains credibility. This explanation, I read, was attributed to the Police Union and not from anything the shooting officer said.
Charles, the therapist said the officer told him he didn't know why he shot him and apparently this is the same answer he told other officer with the him.
Reply to Thorongil Oh yeah, I like anime and you don't value it in the same way as I do. I am insulted, the cut is deep.
Go back to telling everyone how we should just die already, and human to human contact is evil or whatever it was you were about, you giant ball of sunshine.
Wait, are you suggesting that instead of shooting the therapist by accident, had the police aimed properly they would have killed the autistic man with the toy truck? I thought you were daft, but not that much.
I will say, though, that after they resolve the more serious problem related to killing the autistic, they will need to work on the issue of aim. At some point, they may actually encounter a dangerous criminal, and we need to be sure he takes the bullet as opposed to damaging a mailbox or the like.
The officer involved in the shooting is a 4 year veteran, member of the SWAT team...well ya'll know it is Miami...I live about 40 miles north of where this occurred. Miami is its own little world.
Actually, the power company has cameras in the area and my understanding is the police now have a full recording of what transpired. I imagine they will release it? Another officer was suspended without pay (unlike the shooter who is being paid) for giving a false statement.
Reply to Question Sarcasm is when someone says the opposite of what they mean. It's sort of like if I suggested you should take sarcasm literally. That'd be sarcastic. We seem to be talking around each other, so I thought I'd explain. You're welcome (sarcasm).
You missed the irony of when I attempted to chastise someone for misunderstanding sarcasm, I was misunderstanding irony for sarcasm. Can anyone understand me?
Reply to Baden Your attacks on my great nation give me little to work with other than making the obvious leprechaun, four leaf clover, violent drunk, and potato famine references. If trying to elicit a more entertaining response, I'm much more receptive to creepy sexual innuendo. My material in that regard is unlimited and, IMHO, much more troubling.
Reply to Hanover The main thing I get from that is that you are confused about shamrocks. Rather than jump straight into words, which I know can be difficult for New World brains to deal with, I will precede my deconfusing with a visual illustration of the pertinent point:
"Traditionally, shamrock is said to have been used by Saint Patrick to illustrate the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity when Christianising Ireland in the 5th century. The first evidence of a link between St Patrick and the shamrock appears in 1675 on the St Patrick's Coppers or Halpennies. These appear to show a figure of St Patrick preaching to a crowd while holding a shamrock, presumably to explain the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. In pagan Ireland, three was a significant number and the Irish had many triple deities," (Wiki).
The picture you've provided of the clover leaf was indeed helpful, although I thought the three leaves were symbolic of the three orifices typically available for a gentlewoman to show her affection to a suitor. I thought a four leaf clover was particularly lucky because it implied a 4th mystical orifice which would undoubtedly offer pleasures previously unimagined. I am today to learn that the clover leaf is to be called a "shamrock" and that it holds religious significance, an easy mistake for me to make, having been brought up in the Jewish tradition. I must call my dear family rabbi and tell him that what he has been teaching in Hebrew school isn't exactly as the Christians are teaching it and he may wish to modify his lesson plans.
So, was my thread about the science behind 9/11 deleted? I wasn't even interested in talking about the politics of the matter if it seemed too outrageous to some (ehem, close minded?) people.
Reply to Question I was going to add a comment to your 9/11 thread; after I clicked "post Comment" I got a message "can't complete your request" or something to that effect.
I closed the page out (about 3 minutes ago) and revisited the landing page. Now your thread on 9/11 had disappeared, whereas it was visible maybe 10 minutes ago.
This is the second time this has happened with a thread (not just yours). First the message, "can't complete your request"... then close page, revisit landing page, thread under discussion has disappeared from list.
Thanks for the thought suppression! It seems everyone needs to censor out things they don't believe in themselves or find too outrageous to consider. The struggle is real.
Reply to Question It's a interesting response. It almost sounds like...a conspiracy. And I was hoping to further indulge my intense, though irrelevant, frustration at the AIA for its horrible form contracts which all architects/engineers/contractors seem to swear by.
Depressing response to be honest. What's depressing about it is the unwillingness to consider any alternatives other than the official spoon fed narrative. A feature of insecurity or self censorship? Possible.
To be fair, whether the 9/11 attacks were caused by Bin Laden or GW or my cat ( the leader of the illuminati) or whoever isn't really philosophy. Or is it??!!
I don't think people realize that 9/11 was (at least for me) the most important day in modern American history. It profoundly affected my life, worldview, and assumptions I hold about the world - least we speak of the foreign policy of America along with the doctoring of its' constitution.
I view the whole thing as a noble cause, that is, investigating, in my overabundance of free time, as to the real causes of 9/11. I find it therapeutic and satisfying to do so and also patriotic.
Funny that people jump to the conclusion that something is a conspiracy theory when presented with questions about the validity of the said established belief. We wouldn't have gotten very far without Galileo and Copernicus or Darwin, would we?
And I was hoping to further indulge my intense, though irrelevant, frustration at the AIA for its horrible form contracts which all architects/engineers/contractors seem to swear by.
Sorry about that Cicero. By all means indulge yourself here in the Shoutbox.
One thing I don't like about Airbnb is that many owners don't seem to know how to use the system. I was travelling with my business partner, who is a good friend but not so good that I'm willing to sleep with him, so I wanted an apartment with at least two bedrooms. I specified two bedrooms in the filters and booked a suitable-looking place, but then the owner got in touch to ask which room we wanted to choose. To her way of thinking, she did have two rooms available, so she must have selected two bedrooms in the online form; it's just that we could only choose one. She completely lacked any insight into what somebody might want when they search for a place with two bedrooms, i.e., two bedrooms. When I protested she went mental and then complained to AirBnB. They saw my side and I got my money back.
Another thing is the professional photos by Airbnb photographers. I stayed a month in Toulon and had to sleep on a small uncomfortable sofabed that looked, in the photos, like one of the grandest beds I'd ever seen. And the photo was not just accidentally deceptive (owing to the distortion corrections that make everything look bigger), but deliberately so: the bed was made up to look like a full size double bed with the pillows where they could never actually be used when sleeping on it. I blame the photographer though cos the owner was a cool guy.
Another thing is the bad photos, by owners. Worst of all, missing photos. Yeah it says two bedrooms, but where's the photo of the other bedroom?!
Another is having to make it there at a certain time to meet the owner. It's too stressful and they're too unreliable.
Another is the lack of the feeling of public adventure that you get in hotels. It's like the difference between driving and taking the train to a big station in the centre of town.
And yet, I still use the site a lot. I think it's largely because the web site interface and functionality are so good, with a brilliant map search, my primary search method. As far as I know there's nothing for hotels that comes close.
I don't travel much though I have traveled within the US and in Canada, UK and East Africa. What I like in hotels is a fair degree of predictability and anonymity. The hosts of a bnb or airbnb might be delightful people, but I'd rather not deal with them.
Just because an industry can be disrupted doesn't mean that the disrupters are beneficial in the bigger scheme of things.
Just because an industry can be disrupted doesn't mean that the disrupters are beneficial in the bigger scheme of things.
I guess you're right. Personally, I'd use hotels more often if there were an equally good web site/app, and if I could trust them when they say they have secure parking (therein lies another story).
My thought is that if you're going to use airbnb, then you need to be ready to roll with the punches. I've stayed in a number of places and it's always a gamble how comfortable the beds will be, if there will be adequate space, whether all the appliances will work and things like that. The advantages I've seen are that typically the owners are conscientious and want to make accommodations, the prices are cheaper than a hotel, there's more room than a hotel, and it's much easier to buy groceries and cook and live in your place than in a hotel.
I'd say they're much better for leisure travel when you don't really care if everything isn't just so than it is for business travel where everything has to be right. I don't mind that my room smells of cats when all I have planned for the day is haggling with the locals, but if I have work, I'd rather smell of dogs, not cats.
This idea of a transcendent identity doesn't make sense. That I am the same through time, it is time that I am smeared across. All my thoughts are temporal, they are not unified in the way we normally feel they are. This 'I' that I am so concerned with, the 'I' that will disappear at my death, is always fleeting. I grab onto this 'I' of my self reflection, in this moment. It slips away, lost in time.
This idea of a transcendent identity doesn't make sense. That I am the same through time, it is time that I am smeared across. All my thoughts are temporal, they are not unified in the way we normally feel they are. This 'I' that I am so concerned with, the 'I' that will disappear at my death, is always fleeting. I grab onto this 'I' of my self reflection, in this moment. It slips away, lost in time.
If the word "I," which describes self identity makes no sense, then any identifying word makes no sense. Why is my cat (or my hat or my mat) the same thing as it was yesterday? Can I then conclude there is no cat, no hat, and no mat? If so, then why am I calling the thing on the floor a mat? Do I just spontaneously come up with words to describe my thoughts every day or is there something about these definitions that holds in my mind across time? If there is, we now have an "I" which is the holder of thoughts across time.
Reply to Hanover The word "I" has a meaning, the concept of the ego as the always there experiencer is what I am denying exists. I actually don't think the cat of the mat is the same thing as it was yesterday. We do treat it as if it was when we think and use language.
Every word instantly becomes a concept precisely insofar as it is not supposed to serve as a reminder of the unique and entirely individual original experience to which it owes its origin; but rather, a word becomes a concept insofar as it simultaneously has to fit countless more or less similar cases--which means, purely and simply, cases which are never equal and thus altogether unequal. Every concept arises from the equation of unequal things.
Just as it is certain that one leaf is never totally the same as another, so it is certain that the concept "leaf" is formed by arbitrarily discarding these individual differences and by forgetting the distinguishing aspects. This awakens the idea that, in addition to the leaves, there exists in nature the "leaf": the original model according to which all the leaves were perhaps woven, sketched, measured, colored, curled, and painted--but by incompetent hands, so that no specimen has turned out to be a correct, trustworthy, and faithful likeness of the original model. - Nietzsche, On truth and lies in the non moral sense
I don't see why there needs to be an I which is the holder of thoughts across time. Concepts are not sitting in the mind waiting to be used, rather you have the ability to recognize the cat or the mat as a 'cat' or 'mat'. In the same way that my ability to drive is not always sitting somewhere stored in my mind.
I actually don't think the cat of the mat is the same thing as it was yesterday. We do treat it as if it was when we think and use language.
Then why do we keep calling it the same thing? Or, are you suggesting that the world is completely recreated every millisecond and what was bears no relation to what is?Quoting shmik
don't see why there needs to be an I which is the holder of thoughts across time. Concepts are not sitting in the mind waiting to be used, rather you have the ability to recognize the cat or the mat as a 'cat' or 'mat'. In the same way that my ability to drive is not always sitting somewhere stored in my mind.
Something is sitting in my mind over time or else I wouldn't have the ability to recognize a cat from day to day. I don't understand your driving analogy because I would insist that your ability to drive has to be in your mind somewhere. If you suffered injury to your brain, I could see why you could no longer drive.
Then why do we keep calling it the same thing? Or, are you suggesting that the world is completely recreated every millisecond and what was bears no relation to what is?
Not that it bears no relation but that it is a simplification.
To turn this around a bit, we see the mat on the floor. Sometimes its covered in dirt, sometimes it's rolled up, it's slowly loosing it's color etc. It's always different every time you see it, yet you know it as the same object.
From this I take it that there is some structure in the brain that processes information in such a way that whenever you see the mat, with it's slight changes you still recognize it as the same mat.
What I am asserting is that what's going on here is not recognition of already existing objects but rather something constructive on our part. The world is always in flux, we take some of the flux, the parts that are changing at a slower rate than other parts and view them as objects.
Something is sitting in my mind over time or else I wouldn't have the ability to recognize a cat from day to day. I don't understand your driving analogy because I would insist that your ability to drive has to be in your mind somewhere. If you suffered injury to your brain, I could see where you could no longer drive.
There's a difference between mind and brain which can get a bit fuzzy in these conversations. I agree that there is structure in the brain for all of this, but that isn't to say that the ability to drive is in the brain.
With regards to the mind, there is nothing about driving in the mind.
Edit: So my view would be that you have the ability to drive, you achieve this though some structures in the brain/body. Your cognition is something the brain does, just like digestion is something your stomach does. In this way the mind doesn't store anything in itself as if a container.
From this I take it that there is some structure in the brain that processes information in such a way that whenever you see the mat, with it's slight changes you still recognize it as the same mat.
What I am asserting is that what's going on here is not recognition of already existing objects but rather something constructive on our part. The world is always in flux, we take some of the flux, the parts that are changing at a slower rate than other parts and view them as objects.
I'll acknowledge that the mat is both an external thing and we impose our subjective evaluation on it. The problem though is that you speak of flux, but you also must assert some constant. In your post above, you imply a constant thing which you describe as a subjective evaluative thing that exists through time and it's able to evaluate that fluctuating mat on the floor. If you want to also say there is a fluctuating floor mat and a fluctuating brain substance evaluating that fluctuating floor mat, we're still left with both of these fluctuating things maintaining a certain consistency over time. The mat keeps presenting mat like and the brain keeps perceiving mat like qualities.
Reply to Hanover As you are pointing out it is difficult for me to speak about this without falling back into what I am contesting.
In the example I spoke about a mat which is fluctuating but I don't think that is what is actually going on (although it is what we experience as going on). Rather I could try to use another piece of imagery which will also be limited and have it's issues.
You walking down the street and look up at the clouds, its a mess of tiny ice crystals with no distinct shape. Suddenly you notice an area of cloud that resembles a dog and you point this out to your mate. As you guys watch it, the dog's ears grow longer and more spread apart, eventually the whole shape changes and it's no longer a cloud dog just back to an amorphous mess.
In this example we speak about the dog as if it's ears grew and spread apart. But in reality there wasn't a cloud dog that this was happening to, it's not as if there was a stable object that was undergoing change. It's the same with the mat, the temptation is to think of the mat as changing, or something vague and mat-like changing. But actually there was always just this chaotic flux to which we have picked out what we consider objects. Before we do that, they are no separate from their surroundings, but in a way immersed in them. Like the cloud dog is not really separate from the rest of the cloud.
I'm not arguing that this is the only way to think of objects or the the common sense view of the mat undergoing change is necessarily wrong. I just find this way more appealing and it removes some of the philosophical issue around stable objects. (Ship to Theseus, problems about identity, problems about vagueness etc).
The mat keeps presenting mat like and the brain keeps perceiving mat like qualities.
I'd say it as something like, this area of the flux keeps presenting itself as mat like, and this other area presents itself as being an object with perceptual properties.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 01, 2016 at 12:50#148600 likes
"Summer is a promissory note signed in June, its long days spent and gone before you know it, and due to be repaid next January."
— Hal Borland
Thinking of the gorgeous Winter weather while living inside for the last 90 days. Either our summers our getting hotter or I am getting older. :s
edit: and don't tell me I am getting both
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 01, 2016 at 13:23#148630 likes
I have been trying to figure out what I want my final professional destination to be, as I return to school to gain the education necessary to get to there from here. I have been mulling over three destinations all based in social work. The first was in to be on an intervention team for troubled teens. The second rises from experience in trying to help a fellow neighbor who is an animal hoarder and would like to have helped her before the law intervened. The final destination has a very real calling to me and the more I think about it, the more I think I want to be a Hospice Counselor. Mom was a Hospice Charge Nurse for 15 years so maybe it is in my blood to want to comfort others, about things we really know nothing about, in their hour of need.
Pondering....
Researchers at Oxford University found that prior to Great Britain's EU referendum a third of all tweets during that time were created by social bots...much of Tinder's erotic chat was/is bot generated...hot or bot?
I have been mulling over three destinations all based in social work
Watch out for the shadow of your mother in what you do :) Hey, Tiff, good luck when you take the existential leap. Me I'm too old for all that now, so I'm aiming for my last but one destination...philosopher...:)
I'll be so bold as to ask the current financial state of our fair forum as I see there's been a recent appeal for more subscribers. I do wish to be sure we don't fall into the difficult times of our predecessor and hope there's not currently a small number of subscribers attempting to shoulder an unfair portion of the debt.
I also must say that I rather enjoy speaking this way, although I don't precisely know what you would call this tone. I'd suggest it be called "pleasant concern," but I would consider another name if I find there to be another common preference.
Reply to Hanover@jamalrob takes care of finances, so he may want to give more details but I'll just say this: While we do need to continue to build a subscriber base to keep the place afloat, there is no imminent issue. Membership is growing steadily, we're doing well on Google, and we're committed to making this place work. I'm optimistic about our prospects.
Our senses deceive us so badly it may not be real, but I think I saw Trump ads on the old site. I suppose it's too much to hope the new owners have an impish sense of humor.
Reply to Hanover I know the feeling. I was in the minority that voted in favour of it, but I'm glad its gone. Those down-votes were bloody infuriating. I would tell myself that I'm stoically indifferent, but my actual reaction was always "Idiots!! How dare they?! Can't they see that I'm right?".
Reply to Cavacava We did have just likes, and no dislikes, as well as a total number of likes on display, but there were concerns about there being some sort of popularity contest serving as a distraction, if I recall correctly. (Those concerns were misplaced, however. There wouldn't be much of a contest, because I'd sail to victory and leave the rest of you in my dust).
Hmm. This talk of the early days reminds me: we're only a couple of months away from the first anniversary of this forum, which had its first members join on the 20th October 2015.
Never thought I'd see a line like this on the Fox news website:
"The more than three decades-long civil war in Guatemala claimed at least 200,000 lives before ending in 1996, with the U.S.-backed army responsible for most of the deaths, according to findings of an independent truth commission set up to investigate the bloodshed."
Reply to darthbarracuda
It's like that flick The Matrix. Emotional investment makes the forum more fun but potentially more stressful. Unfortunately, when things get bitter, the mind hardens. Extension of the self (assimilation) becomes secondary to defending the self against humiliation. I like the stoics especially guarding against crippling emotion. The brain shrinks and expands with the heart? Exceptions to every rule, etc. War urges adaptation, too, no doubt.
Commentators claim it's still possible for Trump to be elected president. One silver lining I can see to that cloud is that it would forcefully inject the topic of American involvement in NATO into the conversation.
I agree with Trump that it's time for the US to back out of NATO and let western Europe take care of itself. I didn't see it at first, but I also agree that an alliance with Russia makes a lot more sense than allegiance to any country in western Europe. I think the majority of Americans who think about such things would agree with that.
If Trump wasn't such a fascist, I'd probably vote for him.
I didn't see it at first, but I also agree that an alliance with Russia makes a lot more sense than allegiance to any country in western Europe. I think the majority of Americans who think about such things would agree with that.
Reply to Mongrel
That is not economically viable I don't think.
The US and Europe are very heavily entangled with one another at a macroeconomic scale.
Even if we did withdraw from NATO it would only be a symbolic gesture and probably would have little influence in terms of collaboration of policy.
Reply to Mongrel
America's in NATO because it's in its interest to be in it. It's not going to pull out. And Trump is a narcissistic blowhard who doesn't believe in anything except being the centre of attention. If he gets elected, all he'll do is give some tax cuts to his rich friends then go play golf.
That is not economically viable I don't think.
The US and Europe are very heavily entangled with one another at a macroeconomic scale.
There's a global economy and a global market for goods. The US and Europe are competitors. How would backing out of NATO change anything?
[quote=m-theory]Even if we did withdraw from NATO it would only be a symbolic gesture and probably would have little influence in terms of collaboration of policy.[/quote]
It would be a cost saving symbol. I was thinking long range. Toward the end of this century, petroleum and natural gas will be gone from the world's markets. The last hydrocarbons will be huge coal reserves in the US and Russia. There's no reason for the US and Russia to be at odds there. We should join together to protect one another. Alaska becomes a hub. :)
It would be a cost saving symbol. I was thinking long range. Toward the end of this century, petroleum and natural gas will be gone from the world's markets. The last hydrocarbons will be huge coal reserves in the US and Russia. There's no reason for the US and Russia to be at odds there. We should join together to protect one another. Alaska becomes a hub. :)
A better long range strategy would be to become less dependent upon fossil fuels in my opinion.
I blame the Dutch for this (yes, that means you, @Benkei!). If they don't stop pissing Americans off with their damn opinions, we're all getting nuked.
We are heavily invested in European markets and European markets are heavily invested in ours.
Our major banks would be really difficult to untangle.
I don't think backing out of NATO would have anything to do with that, but since you bring it up... The US national debt is around $19 trillion. I don't see that as a stable situation long-term.
Ideologically the US and Europe are more in agreement than the US and Russia when it comes to governing.
We share similar interests and values.
Our ideological similarities is what unites us in a willingness to defend those values.
Russian culture was profoundly mangled by the USSR. That was actually the goal of the Communists.. to just tear up Russian culture. They did a pretty good job. There's not much that's deeply rooted about Russia now.. except the ways of their medieval countryside.
I think American interests will take priority over any ideological issues. I think previously the tie between the US and Europe was frankly some racist shit. Europeans look like white people... at least they used to.
I blame the Dutch for this (yes, that means you, Benkei!). If they don't stop pissing Americans off with their damn opinions, we're all getting nuked.
I got pneumonia in June. I was out of work until the middle of July. It sucked. I started watching the news everyday (I didn't used to). That's how I got hip to the Trump-view and how many Americans find it appealing. It's just how politics works. Having demonstrated that you can get votes by preaching isolation, another Trump will come along... probably a smarter one next time.
I don't like Benkei because he's never been anything but an asshole toward me. I imagine most Dutch people are just normal people.
I don't think backing out of NATO would have anything to do with that, but since you bring it up... The US national debt is around $19 trillion. I don't see that as a stable situation long-term.
Counting private sector debt the US is more like 700 trillion underwater.
I don't see why we can't just keep laundering private sector debt into public sector debt and have the middle class pay for it like we always do.
Russian culture was profoundly mangled by the USSR. That was actually the goal of the Communists.. to just tear up Russian culture. They did a pretty good job. There's not much that's deeply rooted about Russia now.. except the ways of their medieval countryside.
I think American interests will take priority over any ideological issues. I think previously the tie between the US and Europe was frankly some racist shit. Europeans look like white people... at least they used to.
Typically when we expect people in the west to wage war we must evoke our ideology in order to inspire interest in violence.
Our desire to defend and even impose our ideology is what motivates our cultures to go to war.
I know I would not risk my life to defend Russian ideology simply because our nations had made some political arrangement.
But if you don't care about what western cultures values represent more power to you.
Counting private sector debt the US is more like 700 trillion underwater.
I don't see why we can't just keep laundering private sector debt into public sector debt and have the middle class pay for it like we always do.
The national debt is partly the Cold War and attitudes formed during that time. Some portion of it is a recent effort to prop up the global economy after ((choke)) 2008-2009
I know I would not risk my life to defend Russian ideology simply because our nations had made some political arrangement.
What do you think Russian ideology is? What has shaped your thoughts about that?
[quote=m-theory]But if you don't care about what western cultures values represent more power to you.[/quote]
LOL. The west holds no monopoly on values. In some fundamental ways, people are the same everywhere.
The national debt is partly the Cold War and attitudes formed during that time. Some portion of it is a recent effort to prop up the global economy after ((choke)) 2008-2009
It also doesn't help if you try to use supply side economics and Keynesian economics at the same time.
Each are appropriate in different economic situations but both at the same time just balloons public sector debt.
Reply to Mayor of Simpleton
I am not a news bug but what little I do tune into I have not heard any mention of Turkey.
Perhaps someone that watches more frequently would better be able to answer this question though.
Mayor of SimpletonAugust 22, 2016 at 15:33#172180 likes
I was curious, as when the "coup" (if it really was a coup) occured, I was watching Austrian, German, French, British, Turkish and American media as the event unfolded. I watched it live for 4 hours... it looked like a very good stage production, but anyway...
Where the non-American media was concerned with the people of Turkey and what type of politcal actions Erdo?an was beginning to set into motion, the American only viewed the events in terms of "what does that mean to the USA in it's fight against ISIS".
Now that Erdo?an is starting to (or better said "has") set up a dictatorship, I was wondering if the US mainstream media reports anything beyond it's typical navel gazing obsessive compulsive ISIS is the only game in town media storm.
Meow!
GREG
Mayor of SimpletonAugust 22, 2016 at 15:38#172200 likes
I'm really sick of the "threat of ISIS" in the USA.
There are far greater threats... like the NRA or the Tobacco Lobby.
Seriously... Scientology is a greater threat.
ISIS just shoots people and makes a lot of threats in videos. Scientology has bought lots of lobbists and votes in Congress. Which of them is really a threat?
Scientology has bought lots of lobbists and votes in Congress. Which of them is really a threat?
Holy crap.
Now that is scary.
Mayor of SimpletonAugust 22, 2016 at 15:48#172240 likes
Reply to m-theory
I wish I had access to a recent documentary I saw as to how Scientology has direct conncetions in the CIA and FBI, as well as access to political policy in the USA. The evidence was seriously strong. Problem is that it's in German.
OH... and in Europe... Scientology is considered a cult and not a religion.
Check out Clearwater, Florida. They have taken over the entire city. It's worth a bit of research. Talk about some seriously scary shit! WOW!
The US has moved its nuclear arms out of Turkey (to Romania I think). Erdogan's wants to have Fethullah Gülen extradited from the US, he blames him for instigating the coup attempt. Gulen denies having anything to do with it. Gulen lives in Pennsylvania. The Turkish gov has sent over reams of paper regarding Gulen, but so far the US has resisted extradition request, pissing Erodgan off. The last I read US DOJ was send a team to Turkey to review the allegations.
Everything I have read suggests that Gulen's movement is secular and Erdogan wants Turkey to be more a Theocracy.
Britain's Boris Johnson, poem to The Spectator won the most offensive poem contest back in the Spring with the following ditty:
There was a young fellow from Ankara
Who was a terrific wankerer
Till he sowed his wild oats
With the help of a goat
But he didn’t even stop to thankera.
When I stayed in St Petersburg a few years ago, the landlady said she wasn't racist, she just thought people from the same latitude got along together better. I suppose that's the mirror image of NATO, a strange undemocratic military alliance of people of a similar latitude.
I'm a bit shocked at Mongrel's views about Russian culture earlier. Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tchaikovsky, Eisenstein, ballet - to be frank I think of this culture as more deep-rooted and profound than U.S. culture.
I don't like Benkei because he's never been anything but an asshole toward me.
My list only has the following people on it to whom I have been an asshole at some point in time:
Hanover
Gassendi1
Endomorphian
peter rabbit
Neither Mongrel nor Kelvin can claim getting under my skin to such an extent that I went out of my way being an asshole to them. Didn't you fall over the word "hate" and "US" being in the same sentence when discussing Syria at some point? Is that what this is about?
Reply to Benkei I didn't catalog the details. I haven't had any interaction with you where you weren't aggressive and insulting. Maybe I caught you on a bad day and then held a grudge. I tend to do that.
Reply to darthbarracuda Goes to a moderator queue and we check it and approve/delete. Based on some of the stuff that's been in there, I think accidental flagging happens quite a bit.
unenlightenedAugust 25, 2016 at 09:00#177790 likes
They were like Laurel and Hardy, except that one of them had a really big moustache, and they were from different parts of the world, and they lived hundreds of years apart.
Reply to Wosret I'd have preferred September. I'd've been among the oldest in my school year, and one of the first able to buy beer. Rather than the youngest and the last.
Even if they go about exclaiming life's greatness retroactively, this does not have any ethical implications where it does seem true that preventing suffering would be ethical.
What about if they go about exclaiming "Life's greatness retroactively!"?
Sorry MoS. Now that I've discovered that all I have to do to make Baden and Sapientia lose their composure is talk about American isolationism... you've gotta know there's going to be more where that came from.
Don't lie, Baden. You thought God created the heavens and the earth and then He created the United States of America to defend Eastern Europe from the Russians and that's why the US is bound to NATO.
Apparently once you get 1000+ posts, it just says 1k. That's not really fair because it suggests someone with 1,000 posts is just as good as someone with 1,999 posts. I think someone should look into this.
Apparently once you get 1000+ posts, it just says 1k. That's not really fair because it suggests someone with 1,000 posts is just as good as someone with 1,999 posts. I think someone should look into this.
Good point. At least I can still bask in the glory of being superior to someone with a mere 514 posts.
Every cloud...
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 25, 2016 at 20:44#179200 likes
Watch out for the shadow of your mother in what you do :) Hey, Tiff, good luck when you take the existential leap. Me I'm too old for all that now, so I'm aiming for my last but one destination...philosopher...:)
Thank you for the wishes of good luck! My love for helping others and being there for them in the hardest of times is not something I look forward to but I do feel a degree of ease/ satisfaction when doing it. The people who I have helped so far were very grateful. So in a perfect world, if I can be half the woman my Mother is, we are Golden my friend. O:)
btw: you have already reached the "thinker" status ;)
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 25, 2016 at 21:00#179250 likes
?ArguingWAristotleTiff
Isn't the healthcare industry already well over a billion dollars and primarily women work in that field?
I don't like the idea of 'Health care" being an "industry" but that is just my own favor of terminology. Yes, there are many women and men in Health Care but it takes a special kind of person to work Hospice. The desired outcome between a regular counselor and a Hospice counselor are polar opposites. I enjoy engaging/interacting with souls that are troubled and what better place than to be privileged to help another person transition over to the 'other side' of living. We as "thinkers" ponder what happens after we cease living and much like the validity of God, no one really knows. I don't know and you don't know either. So wouldn't you rather have someone available to you, who can help you navigate the road when you or a loved one are actively leaving life as we know it?
I want to offer that relationship to others.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 25, 2016 at 21:09#179270 likes
Personal update: Dad has chosen to stick around a bit longer and accepted the three lead pacemaker he so desperately needed. (L)
Not a concern of mine for many reasons. Drinking age was 19 in New Brunswick, though it's 18 in Alberta. I dropped out at 16 to work, and didn't go back to get my remaining credits until I was like 21. When I was 16 I used to just call cabs to pick me up cigarrettes and booze. Do they do that in England or wherever you were?
Reply to Sapientia New to me, too. Taxis as a (non-people) delivery service?
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 26, 2016 at 14:44#180600 likes
France's highest administrative court on Friday suspended a controversial ban on the burkini by a French Riviera town after it was challenged by rights groups.
In a judgement expected to set a precedent, the State Council ruled that local authorities could only restrict individual liberties if wearing the Islamic swimsuit was a "proven risk" to public order.
The judges said there was no such risk in the case before the court concerning Villeneuve-Loubet, one of around 30 towns to have introduced the bans.
The French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) hailed the ruling as a "victory for common sense".
Reply to Bitter Crank It's over. The ban was found "seriously and clearly illegal". The cultural fascists lost. The only people pulling guns on women now to force their clothing choices down their throats are ISIS and their ilk.
Not a concern of mine for many reasons. Drinking age was 19 in New Brunswick, though it's 18 in Alberta. I dropped out at 16 to work, and didn't go back to get my remaining credits until I was like 21. When I was 16 I used to just call cabs to pick me up cigarrettes and booze. Do they do that in England or wherever you were?
So you know how things go down in the US of A:
The drinking age is 21 in all states ever since Reagan said he'd withhold highway funds if a State didn't raise their drinking age. Before that, it was 18, but all the Asian owned convenience stores would sell you beer as long as you were 11. Now they're real strict and they card you even if you're 50. I get carded all the time, but I have the face of baby Jesus. If you drop out of school at 16, you can't get a drivers license until you're 17. That's because you learn so much in high school that you make a smarter driver. If a cabbie buys you cigarettes and booze, by law, he is raped to death by a guy named Freight Train. That happened to me once, but some guy in a wheel chair gave me the Heimlich and brought me back to life.
I particularly liked the randomness of that last sentence. It's the shit of Pulitzers.
[quote=Sarkozy]If we do not put an end to this, there is a risk that in 10 years, young Muslim girls who do not want to wear the veil or burkini will be stigmatised and peer-pressured.[/quote]
The solution? Make it so that Muslim girls who do want to wear the burkini are stigmatised, peer-pressured, and arrested.
Can we use the same logic to promote public nudity? I wonder where the line is between too little and too much clothing?
Does the veil have both a slit for the eyes and the vagina? I'm not fully familiar with the design, so I wanted to withhold judgment until I understood how restrictive they were.
Can we use the same logic to promote public nudity? I wonder where the line is between too little and too much clothing?
It isn't specifically a question of what is too much clothing and what is too little, aside from personal preference. It is about cultural values. Traditional (probably conservative) muslims have a set of cultural values which includes a rather rigid idea of "modesty" for women. Secular French have a set of cultural values which includes women exposing much of the body (face, neck, arms, legs, cleavage) or more.
Why shouldn't the French enforce their cultural norms in their homeland? Granted, the Republic will not fall because some women waddled in the water wearing more cloth than would seem reasonable. Secularism is a core value for the French, as is a positive attitude towards exposed skin on beaches. It's part of their culture.
Secular French have a set of cultural values which includes women exposing much of the body (face, neck, arms, legs, cleavage) or more.
Why shouldn't the French enforce their cultural norms in their homeland?
If it were simply about the cultural values of women exposing flesh, they'd be forcing nuns to strip at the beach. But it's not. It's about Islamophobia. Just like prison terms for homosexuality in some countries are not so much about cultural values but homophobia. And even if it were about cultural values in either case, any secularist should be against the oppression of rights involved.
Yeah, I know, it sucks in America, come to Canada!
The point with the cabbie is that they are put into a difficult position, they can either keep it, try to take it back, or just take the money. Sure. dick move on your part, and they don't always give it to you, but it's just more difficult for them not to, and they usually would.
Didn't drive till I was 28. Only been four years. My writing is way more smeared with Pulitzer shit than yours!
Reply to Baden I see. These nuns are not wearing the pleated wool habits that nuns around here wore when they were still wearing habits. They've switched up to cotton-poly blends that are, no doubt, wash and wear straight from the dryer. With such progressive religious, you would think the Church Triumphant wouldn't be figuratively on its knees.
I think men should be required to wear bikini swim trunks -- at least, nothing having more cloth in it than a Speedos.
Reply to ????????????? The US is a case study in mixing religion and politics, which usually doesn't end well, and the French would be risking values they hold dear if they did that.
Also, secularism is totally compatible with citizens wearing swimming outfits that conform to their religious practices. What would be incompatible with secularism would be, for example, remarks -coming from politicians- about the Christian roots of the French Republic and calls to incorporate religion into politics.
Exactly. The hypocrisy is breathtaking if not unexpected.
The US is a case study in mixing religion and politics, which usually doesn't end well, and the French would be risking values they hold dear if they did that.
Reply to Bitter Crank I was trying to think of an apt analogy for homosexuality and the burqini ban but there isn't really one. Closest I got was forcing gay men who don't practise sex with men for religious reasons. Presumably they're oppressed but really ought to be forced, I mean free, to have sex with each other in the Netherlands or other progressive countries. Preferably being round up and stigmatised by police in public.
The French Court lifted the ban on the Burkini, it suspended it...saying it would rule on its legality latter. Several of the towns with bans in place, intend (at least in the short-run) to defy the Court, hoping to legislate its ban into law. Le Figaro 8/26
Reply to Baden The idea would be that French nuns are a part of French culture. Burkinis are not. Therefore the former are okay at beaches, but not the latter.
The United States is a multicultural nation -- partly by design, partly by accident, partly over the strenuous objections of earlier arrivals, sometimes deplored, sometimes celebrated, never perfect.
Backwater Minnesota became home to a large group of Somalians about 35 years ago. How long does cultural integration or assimilation take? Even for European immigrants, it takes 1 or 2 generations. New arrivals generally don't learn English well or at all; their children do. Clothing usually changes quickly, but not always -- especially when clothing is central -- like with Hasidic Jews or Somalian Moslems.
Acceptance of new cultural differences by natives also takes time, more than a generation, sometimes. None of the European immigrant-groups in the United States found ready acceptance. Not the Irish, not the Germans, not the Norwegians, not the Dutch, not the Jews (earlier arrived German Jews were not happy about later arriving Ukrainian Jews), not the Poles, not the Russians, not the French, not the Greeks, not the Italians, etc.
The current conflict over the burkina seems pretty predictable. I've heard there is conflict over French school menus -- which often include pork. Predictable and not a crisis.
Cultural adjustment isn't guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it's not friction-free, and people are going to be unhappy about it at particular moments. Give it time (maybe 40 years, maybe longer) and it will have resolved itself.
?Bitter Crank I was trying to think of an apt analogy for homosexuality and the burqini ban but there isn't really one.
That's because homosexuals are not "a people". Gays do not beget gays. Instead, we are created and grow up in heterosexual families -- and keep up the good work, by the way.
There are "cultural habits" which gay men tend to share, though. For one, many gay men share the cultural habit of soliciting sex in public places -- not McDonalds, but in parks, highway rest stops--places that are lightly policed. The gay culture which produced the Gay Liberation Movement was largely put together through networks of sexual contacts. It works.
The larger, heterosexual culture has generally reacted very negatively to public sex venues, once they discover that such things exist. Considerable efforts have been undertaken to eliminate such venues by re-designing parks, for instance. Arrests still occur. (Liberalization of marriage laws do not apply to public parks.)
Cultural friction again, and as with all cultural friction, it is gradually ground down. Fewer gays hang out in parks and heterosexuals become more tolerant.
Is it all to the good? Not really. Some good, some bad.
The Roman conquest of Europe will tell you: between 50 to 100 years.
That seems about right. Figuring 20 years to a generation (off the cuff average), that's 2.5 to 5 generations. If one's great great grand parents were introduced to the Via Romana, it would seem totally native. And unlike the evil French, the Romans weren't trying to annihilate adaptive swimwear.
The Romans could have been more careful, though. Their garum (fish sauce) they loved so much and traded distributed the European fish/human parasite, whipworm, throughout the empire. And the Roman toilets -- which were scooped out and used to fertilize crops -- made things worse. And the Roman baths were more of a public health nightmare than you might suppose. (Like, the water wasn't changed very often.) Lice, fleas, worms, bacteria, etc. used the warm slop for pubic public transit.
We know all this because parasite eggs survive in fossilized feces which we can't help but study.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 27, 2016 at 22:55#182180 likes
2.3 GPA? Really? I am surprised by that. I would have expected at least a 3.0 but then again you did become an attorney so in the end I guess it all worked out. 8-)
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 27, 2016 at 23:07#182200 likes
On returning to her car she made a small sign of the cross as she slid into her seat. Navigating one’s way on a French motorway during the height of summer can be a fraught experience, particularly for the nervous driver. Suddenly there was a violent thump on her window. She jumped with fright. A man stooped so his face was level with hers. ‘Why do you make that sign?’ he asked, menacingly. ‘You don’t make the sign of the cross in France.’ The man then ran his eyes over my girlfriend’s summer dress. ‘And next time you go out,’ he sneered, ‘cover yourself up.’ She was still in shock when she phoned moments later. Did you get his number plate? I asked. She hadn’t, she’d been too bewildered. But she’d spotted the headscarved woman in the front passenger seat.
Maybe it is because I was raised in the land of religious freedom that I would respond so abruptly to that 'sneering" man who decided it was his position, to offer up unsolicited advice on how I should live my life, which God I should believe in and the way I should dress.
Or maybe it is because the older I get, the less tolerant I am becoming about other people's unsolicited opinions and how they think they should apply to my life. My response? Go look in the mirror, you have got enough on your hands, without taking me on.
I am not Muslim and I am not someone who would wear a burkini myself, BUT I would defend any woman or man who made such a choice. And for those that applauded when she was shamed? They should be ashamed of themselves and I would let it be known verbally that they need to do with their judgements. Chances are I would need someone to post bail for me but I am willing to take that chance. I no longer feel intimidated about focusing on the absurdity on which PC is founded.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 27, 2016 at 23:16#182230 likes
How long does cultural integration or assimilation take?
My guess would be 50 to 100 years as well, but then there seems to be a progression full circle, back to self segregation. I always thought that if you give people the choice to integrate, they might play the game of integration at work, at school and some social situations but the place you can clearly see if cultural integration is 'successful' is on Sunday morning and what house of Worship is chosen.
I have no doubt that nuns choose to be nuns and therefore choose to wear the clothes they do. I'm not sure the average Muslim woman has the ability to choose what to wear in the context of her culture.
The Muslim world is in fact hostile to the Western world and vice versa. Fear of another culture can be rational and need not be called a "phobia."
I stopped lusting after nuns once I reached puberty (wait for it..) which was the same time that priests stopped lusting after me (and the drum roll).
The Muslim world is in fact hostile to the Western world and vice versa. Fear of another culture can be rational and need not be called a "phobia."
No, definitely phobia. First, there are no monolithic cultures. Second, even if I lazily throw together Muslims like this, fact of the matter is that a majority doesn't hate the West (if I lazily want to throw together countries arbitrarily belonging under that denominator). Third, it's hubris on your part (and the extremists) to pretend you can speak for an entire culture along your chosen arbitrary boundaries. So nothing rational about just a lot of post facto rationalisation.
it's hubris to pretend you can speak for an entire culture
Yet that is done fairly often even on The Philosophy Forum. I've read that the United States is a racist country in its entirety. Hubris just comes naturally to humans: It's what we do. I'm not an anti-natalist; I don't think life is horrible, but I do think we should at least come to terms with our intellectual limitations and moral slovenliness. Our virtues have a short shelf life; our vices we can take to the bank.
People are writing as if the burkini here some kind of religious costume. It's just a thing an Australian Muslim woman invented, and makes a little money out of, so women like her could swim in public and go to the beach while remaining modest, in accordance with their principles. I don't like her principles, but she has every right to them . To ban burkinis will be to banish such women from some public spaces, which is hardly an improvement. I am suspicious that 'we' are somehow provoked by how women dress, but not by men. I am provoked by how many people dress, but that doesn't imply banning it. This has Phobia written all the way through it.
The Muslim world is in fact hostile to the Western world and vice versa.
Like Benkei, I don't accept this dichotomy. People from Bangladesh are not hostile towards the Irish on the whole, for example, and we Irish are not hostile towards them, or Malaysians, or Turks, or Irish Muslims. It may be fairer to say that the Muslim world is somewhat hostile to the US (mostly in a non-violent way), but so are large parts of the western world outside the US (global polls have identified the US as the country that is the largest threat to world peace, for example). Some practical steps to remedy this situation could include things like not starting pointless wars and not elevating dangerous billionaire nutcases to close to the top of your political power structures.
Fear of another culture can be rational and need not be called a "phobia."
What about a fear of Jews? What should we call that? I would call it anti-semitism.
And if any politician in any country suggested all Jews should be banned from entering that country, would you have any problem with calling that politician and, by extension, his followers anti-semitic?
Reply to Thorongil And we're supposed to take a propaganda video by a right wing anti-Muslim group seriously why?
"Clarion Project members are not credible sources to discuss issues [regarding Islam] given their virulent history of Islamophobia. Clarion Project has been widely criticized for producing and spreading Islamophobic material including the movie, Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, a film that depicted Muslims as terrorists seeking world conquest. Think Progress reported that this was only the first installment of “Clarion’s ongoing production of Islamophobic films.”
In other words, these guys are about as credible as Alex Jones. Nice to know how you inform yourself on these issues in any case. It does help to put some of your views in context.
Also, your quote claims that Clarion is not credible, because... wait for it... (pregnant silence) Islamophobia! I would weep if I were not laughing and may in the end do both.
Here's a question, Baden, is "Loonwatch" a credible source? The video I posted has statistics which you can look up for yourself. Did "Loonwatch" provide any? Did they offer any refutation other than the boogeyman of Islamophobia? Notice that the title of the film it criticizes is a true statement. Radical Islam is and wants to fight the West. That's not Islamophobic. That's simply a fact. Moreover, the presenter in the video I linked, herself a Muslim (though maybe not a True™ Muslim, according to progressives), also distinguishes between Islam and radical Islam, calling the latter and their supporters the threats we need to own up to. That's not Islamophobic.
Reply to ????????????? That's correct. The point is to show that the minority who either are terrorists or hold opinions in agreement with terrorists, is much larger than most progressives (and people generally) imagine.
Reply to Thorongil The video is 14 minutes of fear-inducing propaganda interspersed with a couple of minutes of cherry picked statistics. It's pathetic that you expect anyone to take that seriously. We can debate the Pew research results all you want, which do show some disturbing attitudes on both sides but they don't show that a majority of Muslims hate the west as you've admitted. And now your only point seems to be that you think you know what progressives think and they're wrong. Well, thanks for the time waste.
Reply to ????????????? I get tired of the constant refrain heard whenever Islam is being discussed that "not all Muslims are the bad guys." It's uttered almost like a nervous tic. Yes, I think we got that memo. But it also remains true that a whole damn lot of Muslims are the bad guys or agree with what the bad guys are doing. We're talking about millions of people, people who do the things they do and hold the views they do because of a certain interpretation of Islam.
Here's a question, Baden, is "Loonwatch" a credible source?
You don't like them. Fine. There's plenty more.
"The Southern Poverty Law Center described the organization [The Clarion Project] as an anti-Muslim group, and the Muslim advocacy group Council on American–Islamic Relations said the group promotes Islamophobia in America"
Reply to Baden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American%E2%80%93Islamic_Relations#Allegations_of_ties_to_Hamas
I'm going to use your favorite line against you and say that the SPLC and CAIR do not speak for all Muslims. Why don't you let Muslims speak for themselves? They don't need you or CAIR to be outraged for them, or to wield the Islamophobia hammer against those you perceive to be offending them. Some of them might not appreciate this. Raheel Raza doesn't appreciate this.
Reply to ????????????? I was just sharing clarificatory information. Benkei's statement was merely the impetus to share it. I never said anything about disagreeing with him, which I've told you twice now, so stop making me repeat myself.
Reply to Thorongil Hilarious. Do you even know what percentage of Muslims are "the bad guys" i.e. jihadi militants? Roughly 100,000. Do the math. That's about 0.006% of Muslims i.e. in relative terms not "a whole damn lot".
"The vast majority of the estimated 85,000 to 106,000 militants fighting with militant jihadist groups around the world are fighting for purely local reasons, for instance, trying to install Sharia law in northern Nigeria or trying to impose Taliban rule on Pakistan and Afghanistan, while only a small number of these militants are focused on attacking the West.
By historical standards this is hardly a major threat. At the end of the Cold War, Soviet and other Warsaw Pact countries could muster around 6 million men to fight in a war against the West, a number that is some 60 times greater than the total number of militants estimated to be fighting for jihadist organizations today.
...
The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the threat posed by jihadist organizations around the globe is quite inconsequential when compared with what the West faced in the past century."
I guess this guy who is an award winning journalist, author, documentary producer, professor, think tank executive and CNN's national security analyst is just delusional while you and the Islamophobic Clarion Project have your finger on the pulse.
Reply to Baden Hole-E-Mackerel, Baden. It amazes me that you never watched the video and never paid attention to what I have said. I'm simply going to quote myself, since I'm losing patience.
The point is to show that the minority who either are terrorists or hold opinions in agreement with terrorists, is much larger than most progressives (and people generally) imagine.
Reply to Thorongil You can drop this "losing patience" BS, which is just an attempt at deflection that nobody here is going to be fooled by. If anyone here is losing patience it's those of us using actual empirical evidence to counter your vacuous generalities.
The point is to show that the minority who either are terrorists or hold opinions in agreement with terrorists, is much larger than most progressives (and people generally) imagine.
Hello. Look up. You are the one not paying attention. Do you really think most people think that far less than 0.006%* of Muslims are "terrorists"? Do you get out much? It's just the opposite problem: Due to the right wing Kool-Aid passed around in the US in particular, of which this video is a case in point, Americans of all political persuasions are being led to believe that a far higher percentage of Muslims are involved in terrorism than actually are.
*Note that even doubling or trebling this number depending on who you want to count as "terrorists" doesn't affect the point as its such a tiny proportion.
The point is to show that the minority who either are terrorists or hold opinions in agreement with terrorists, is much larger than most progressives (and people generally) imagine.
This might be a personal tick, but "homophobia", arachnophobia, and "islamophobia" are not equivalent terms. In Freudian theory (as far as I understand it) homophobia is a fear of homosexuality arising from self-doubt that one's heterosexuality is not as robustly obvious as one thinks it should be. Arachnophobia, agoraphobia, and the long alphabetized list of phobias arise from unpleasant experiences, generally no later than mid-teens.
Islamophobes are not in doubt about the security of their religious credentials.
Many people like to attach "phobia" to ideas, utterances, or behavior they don't like because it makes the accused (they seem to feel) seem sickly, twisted, and defective while making the diagnosers sound healthy, straight, and properly put together. It ain't necessarily so.
Atheists who hate Christians (or any other believer), believers who hate Christian, Moslems, Hindus, and Jews, Democrats who hate Republicans (and visa versa), and so on may be right or wrong, misinformed, well-instructed, or whatever but they aren't "sick". Not being sick, no cure is in order.
I am somewhat arachnophobic, but I dislike many aspects of religion -- Christian as well as Islamic. As far as I can tell, I am entitled to these preferences. Speaking out against Moslems might make me persona non grata in some quarters, but it doesn't make me "islamophobic". Most people who hate homosexuals just hate homosexuals--they are not homophobic. Same with people who hate Jews, vegans, or liberals.
Reply to Thorongil Obviously, I was dealing with the groups as separable, and taking the first one first, which is a valid way to interpret the sentence. Your aim now seems to be to conflate Muslims who are actually involved with terrorism with those that share some opinions in common with terrorists.
Reply to Baden "Conflate" is exactly what I didn't do. I made a distinction, one which you have refused to see, which is also made in the video, which you apparently didn't watch. The point is, you don't have facts on your side, just patronizing smears.
Reply to Bitter Crank Islamophobia is a poorly chosen and misleading word in some senses. I am in a certain way "phobic" to all forms of religion, but not towards Muslims or Christians in general. I don't know a way out of it. There's no other better word at hand.
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 28, 2016 at 18:10#183450 likes
It may be fairer to say that the Muslim world is somewhat hostile to the US (mostly in a non-violent way), but so are large parts of the western world outside the US (global polls have identified the US as the country that is the largest threat to world peace, for example)
"The vast majority of the estimated 85,000 to 106,000 militants fighting with militant jihadist groups around the world are fighting for purely local reasons, for instance, trying to install Sharia law in northern Nigeria or trying to impose Taliban rule on Pakistan and Afghanistan, while only a small number of these militants are focused on attacking the West.
""
It seems like "purely local reasons" is something of a strained euphemism.
"Attacking the west" entails more than a slight difference in cultural emphasis.
Boko Haram (from Wikipedia)
Many of the group were reportedly inspired by Mohammed Marwa... born in Northern Cameroon who condemned the reading of books other than the Quran. In a 2009 BBC interview, Yusuf, described by analysts as being well-educated, reaffirmed his opposition to Western education. He rejected the theory of evolution, said that rain is not "an evaporation caused by the sun", and that the Earth is not a sphere.
Reply to Thorongil I did watch the video. I can even point out some specific instances if you like where ambiguity is used to allow for an interpretation that exaggerates the threat, a typical tactic of propaganda. Speaking of facts, do you agree with the following or not?:
"Gallup International’s poll of 68 countries for 2014 found the US as the greatest threat to peace in the world, voted three times more dangerous to world peace than the next country.
Among Americans, we overall voted our own nation as the 4th most dangerous to peace, and with demographics of students and 18-24 year-olds also concluding the US as the world’s greatest threat."
Americans of all political persuasions are being led to believe that a far higher percentage of Muslims are involved in terrorism than actually are.
The precise opposite is occurring with alarming frequency and normalcy. The mainstream media, most major politicians in Europe and America, and virtually all self-identified liberals and progressives do all they can to downplay the astounding number of Muslims, even in their midst, whose behavior is abhorrent and whose opinions are vile. I would call support for suicide bombing, stoning, etc as "being involved in terrorism." The people who support terrorists may not themselves be terrorists, but their support is an enabler for such people.
I would call support for suicide bombing, stoning, etc as "being involved in terrorism." The people who support terrorists may not themselves be terrorists, but their support is an enabler for such people.
"Conflate" is exactly what I didn't do. I made a distinction...
And I'm making one here. I asked you specifically about the numbers involved in terrorism meaning, as I think you know, directly involved in terrorist acts not about those who support them or even more nebulously hold opinions in common with terrorists. So, can you answer the question I asked not the one you wanted me to ask?
I don't think she was saying that the statistic is BS, but that the opinion the statistic is tracking is BS, which it is.
Both are possible. The quote is useful anyway I think. Note that most of your young people hold the opinion, in common with the terrorists I presume, that the US is the greatest threat to world peace. This helps to illustrate why judging those who share political views with terrorists as potential supporters or enablers of terrorists is a very blunt instrument with which to analyze the situation.
No, I didn't. I don't know if you're making a statistical claim or just giving your impression. If it's the former, then of course I won't dispute it, but that doesn't refute any of the points I've made, as I think you know.
large parts of the western world outside the US (global polls have identified the US as the country that is the largest threat to world peace, for example)
I don't think she was saying that the statistic is BS, but that the opinion the statistic is tracking is BS, which it is.
I found the Gallup International Poll's about the Western world's opinion of the USA in regards to it's ranking in "Greatest International thread a bit superficial and feel it needs to be narrowed down. But before I did that I was thinking about what could be a common thread for kids that age to have dealt with and I came up with two things.
Among Americans, we overall voted our own nation as the 4th most dangerous to peace, and with demographics of students and 18-24 year-olds also concluding the US as the world’s greatest threat."
What happened during the years of 1992 and 2016, that would impact both the children of that age, as well as the way in which their parents AND it's society shaped it's young? What would cause such a mass fracture between our United States Armed Forces and the up and coming younger generation, made up of eager to learn kids but opposed to war and definitely not ever being okay with being told that their opinion doesn't matter in the Forces.
Two things came to my mind, one being the baby boomers and 9.11. But I remained open and asked my 17 yr old and my 20 yr old, what country they thought is the largest threat to world peace?
My 20 year old repeated the question so he knew he understood it and shrugged and said that the answer is a no brainer, the USA is the greatest threat to world peace.
My jaw hit the floor.
My 17 yr old who was on a Vive virtual reality game in the living room, who was listening and talking thru his answers and he said "China or Russia are the greatest threat to world peace, then maybe the USA."
The logic of my eldest was that we the USA have enough nukes, WITH military instillations all over the world AND the ability to use them? It's us Mom, the USA.
The logic of my youngest was that even though the USA has the greatest number of nukes, does not matter that we are 'able' to use them. He explained how it takes over 12 people to come together in various ways, to plug in various codes, that allow a disk to download the activations codes, that have to be entered in by two different people, before we can even launch a nuke.
Stunned, I had one more question and asked them both if they think that ending the draft has anything to do with the way they feel today and both said they would never participate in a draft and doubt that there will ever be another generation that allows a draft to be implemented.
Gallup International’s poll of 68 countries for 2014 found the US as the greatest threat to peace in the world, voted three times more dangerous to world peace than the next country.
What was their first clue? Gigantic globally deployed military and massive nuclear arsenal?
World armament sales...the top 5 in millions of dollars.
2014
1 United States 10194
2 Russia 5971
3 China 1978
4 France 1200
5 Germany 1110
Also, I think removal of the draft by the US, and it voluntary service, as well as outsourcing to organizations such as Blackwater insulate the general population of the US's from its war like character. I protested against the draft, because while I could not vote, I could have easily died (in a very stupid war) at that time.
I wouldn't rank any of the major powers as a leading threat to world peace--such as it is.
The countries that give me the most worries are those which are (among other things) unstable, critically located, capable of offensive military moves, and may perceive that they have not too much to lose. Leading my list would be Pakistan. Most have nukes, they are chronically unstable, and well located to feel threatened and to export conflict. Insurgents might make a move against the central government and gain control of some or all Pakistan's nuclear weapons. From Pakistan, they could be moved anywhere.
North Korea is about as dangerous as Pakistan but for slightly different reasons. 10,000,000 people live in Seoul which is just across the way. A nuke-carrying guided missile would not be necessary. Japan is not very far away.
Saudi Arabia should be high on the list of dangerous countries. Wahhabism, a very conservative brand of Islam, is Saudi Arabia's chief cultural export and this retrograde Islam is the source of a lot of problems in the world.
In terms of economic risks, there are many time-bombs waiting to explode--the US for one, but most other economies as well. If the way the world economy operates is unsustainable, we'll all be gored at the same time. In terms of environmental risks, there are many guilty parties and we will all bake together when we bake; nearly 8 billion hunks of well done steak. There will be no more misery when the world is our rotisserie...
Wahhabism is described as "ultraconservative" "austere" "fundamentalist" "puritanical" or "puritan" and as an Islamic "reform movement" to restore "pure monotheistic worship" Adherents often prefer to be called Salafi.
Wahhabism is named after an eighteenth-century preacher and scholar, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792).
Today Wahhab's teachings are the official, state-sponsored form of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia. With the help of funding from Saudi petroleum exports (and other factors, the movement underwent "explosive growth" beginning in the 1970s and now has worldwide influence.
Estimates of the number of adherents to Wahhabism vary, with one source (Mehrdad Izady) giving a figure of fewer than 5 million Wahhabis in the Persian Gulf region (compared to 28.5 million Sunnis and 89 million Shia).
Wahhabism has been accused of being "a source of global terrorism", inspiring the ideology of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and for causing disunity in Muslim communities by labelling Muslims who disagreed with the Wahhabi definition of monotheism as apostates and justifying their killing. It has also been criticized for the destruction of historic mazaars, mausoleums, and other Muslim and non-Muslim buildings and artifacts. [from Wikipedia]
That guy was a total dick. Even his family hated him and banned him for his views. He didn't gain power until he got the support of a famous brigand: ibn Saud.
I'm regurgitating from memory but I'm pretty certain that's correct.
I think the solution to the problem of Islamic terrorism, if there is any, needs a multi-faceted approach involving separate issues.
First, an acknowledgement of the role that the US, and the West generally, has played in destabilizing the Middle East, beginning at least after the First World War. And in conjunction with that a shift in our behavior moving forward. I'm referring to Sykes-Picot, the Balfour Declaration, the overthrowing of a democratically-elected Iranian government in place of a stooge serving Western interests, the hypocritical support of an oppressive and non-democratic Saudi royal government, not being an 'honest broker' in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,. etc. etc.
This blatant disconnect between our professed principles - and yes I know that the English and French were the primary culprits initially - and our actions on the ground. These have done much to delegitimize any sense of moral superiority that the exemplary representatives of Western Civilization could have enjoyed in the eyes of Arabs in the twentieth century. This in turn has led to a situation in which a large percentage of 'average' people living in the region probably became more inclined towards Islamic extremism than they otherwise would have been, or at least sympathetic to its cause to defend the culture and people against a hypocritical and self-righteous West.
Second, once that change has taken place, we'll be able to separate the legitimately grieved from the bloodthirsty and barbaric, and by aligning our values and actions we can isolate the latter and dry up much of the support they now receive from more moderately-inclined Arabs and Islamists. Hey, I'll be the first person to admit that if my family or community or nation was disrespected and disgraced by some foreign power I would turn to whatever source promised vengeance and justice. Hate and revenge are not emotions that only inherently 'evil' human beings feel, but IMO are a result of continued antagonisms that even decent people may eventually succumb to in particular contexts.
Finally, a reassessment and internal 'soul-searching' of those of us living in the West about what we truly stand for. Consumerism and environmental degradation and endless distractions and sham-democracy? Or something else? And what is this something else? Things we pay lip service to, perhaps, as outlined by our exceptional philosophers and poets and statesmen over the past 2500 years: things like respecting human dignity; like self-cultivation through education; like acceptance of the limitations of our perspective; like a renewed appreciation of beauty and our stewardship of the natural world. Basically a return to, and re-appropriation of, sources lying latent within our own exceptional tradition. If we can only get the conversation with our heritage off the ground - and the heritage of other, non-Western peoples should obviously also be involved in the dialogue - then we may recognize and act upon those possibilities.
This is obviously a broad overview and extremely hypothetical 'solution' to the matter from my perspective. The details are left murky, but I do believe the overall picture is accurate (perhaps naively). This would involve a radical transformation of Western existence at the core of our historical being, from modern decadence and nihilism to something many of us (who now think otherwise) would feel worthy of fighting and dying for if the necessity arose through the threat of ISIS or any other group. Right now cynicism reigns supreme, and rightfully so IMO. I do think of this as a 'spiritual' battle of sorts - I'm using that word in an unorthodox way - involving a shift in how we interpret ourselves and our world.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Maybe the more pertinent question is: What can the forum blame me for? ;) By the way, your kids sound cool, give them a high five from me. 8-)
ArguingWAristotleTiffAugust 29, 2016 at 14:54#184640 likes
It is possible that a UBI would benefit those who must remain at work full time in two ways: first, it might reduce the drag on wages that the anxious-for-work unemployed provide for employers, and secondly it would give the dissatisfied worker more confidence to quit if no increase in wages could be extracted from the employer. On the other hand, a UBI might also reduce worker dissatisfaction -- leading to greater workforce stability.
It seems to me that the 1960s-70s theorists supposed that it would raise consumption and thus stimulate the economy. This seems like a no-brainer
One of the differences in society between the last 30 or 40 years, and 40 to 80 years ago is that families have needed at least two earners to maintain their desired standard of living (and this is a working class problem, not a problem of professional and elite classes). There is an economic reason why people are "bowling alone" to borrow that book's title -- there isn't enough leisure time for people to engage in time-consuming social activities.
A UBI should improve the lot of those at the bottom of the economic distribution. There are, it was reported on NPR -- if I remember this correctly from a couple of weeks ago -- 20 million people living in "deep poverty". That is defined as "living" on $2 to $6 a day, depending on where they live. These are people receiving "economic assistance" of not much more than $200 a month (and often less, depending on the state of residence). Above the bottom are gradations of poverty.
UBI would free up creative energy. 99.41% of the people receiving UBI will not come up with life-changing discoveries or creations, but maybe 30% will make significant improvements to others--their family's and community's collective lives. At least another 30% probably will enhance the quality of their own mental lives -- reading more, learning to play more complicated games, work their way through all of Galsworthy's and Trollope's novels (just joking), finding better porn sites (hey, that counts as an enhancement), weeding their gardens more often, and sweeping the dirt off their sidewalk. 40% might not do a damn thing for anybody or themselves, but at least they would have less to bellyache about.
So, why is Ireland trying to turn down £11 billion?
Isn't it horrid? Who would think that anyone would accuse those nice Apple people that all my designer friends love of being tax-avoiding oligopolists? They need 200 billion dollars in cash worldwide in case there's a -------, don't they? And the Irish are so charming, even in government, that it's hard to believe there would be any sweetheart low-tax deals with them just so nice Apple would locate a lot of jobs there, so it isn't.
The EU commissioner Margrethe Vestager is married to a teacher of maths and philosophy, so he can help her with the sums and the rationale :) (I mean, rationality)
Ireland made a deal with Apple. You move here and we will give you a tax break, that was back in 1990. Now the EU 25 years latter cries foul? Sounds like the 'long con' to me.
Ireland is not screaming for the tax, the EU is, which may be one of the reasons why the UK left. What does being a sovereign nation mean?
Reply to Thorongil Sure. Nothing like that at all. It wasn't a tactical decision or anything. Just a coincidence.
TheWillowOfDarknessAugust 30, 2016 at 23:58#186690 likes
Reply to Thorongil Worse than that: regardless of the credibility, it is Islamophobia.
The problem is not necessarily the accuracy of any statistics (though they are frequently misused and manipulated) or identification of Radical Islam, it's the way the debate is framed, which throws the entire Muslim community into that category. If they not terrorists, then they are definitely support them. If they don't specially supporting them, then they at least secretly hate our values. If by some miracle the don't hate our values, then they are ineffective "moderate muslims" who haven't prevented terrorist attacks with the appropriate level of public condemnation within the Western media.
Islamophobia is the issue itself. Refuting of the presence of radical Islam isn't the point. It's targeting the misrepresentations and excuses used to justify the vilification of all Muslims and any instance of Islam.
It's targeting the misrepresentations and excuses used to justify the vilification of all Muslims and any instance of Islam.
The only person I know who's doing that is a Palestinian Christian I know. He absolutely hates both Muslims and Jews. Most of my interest in studying Islam was to refute the stuff he said. It wasn't as easy to refute as I thought it would be. Sunnis actually do accept that the Prophet married a girl when she was 6 and had sex with her when she was 9.
Nobody talks about that stuff, though. And rightly so. If you're not a Sunni Muslim, it's really none of your business how they work it out.
Occasionally things happen in France that make me wonder about the rise of anti-Islamic sentiment there. That's been going on since before Jon Stewart ceased to be my main news source.
TheWillowOfDarknessAugust 31, 2016 at 01:01#186800 likes
I'm referring to the response amongst the Western media and its commentators who suggest Radical Islam is not being taken seriously. It's hardly an occasional occurrence. These arguments are trotted out whenever Radical Islam (and frequently just Islam; often Islam doesn't register as part of our culture and society beyond the threat of Radical Islam) is discussed. It's a deeply embedded aversion to Islam within are cultural and political discourse. We just don't envision as an aspect of our culture as we do, for example, with Christianity. Islam, in any form, is consider "other" in our mainstream discourse.
Many might object to this on the grounds that Islam hasn't been interested in engaging in our society, that it's secluded itself into it's own rather than engaging with the wider community, maybe even because some Muslims feel their values don't fit with Western culture (though this doesn't mean radicalism and terrorism; it might just mean, for example, they don't feel they fit with people who drink alcohol as a hobby). This is true to one extent or another, but it only reinforces with problem with how the West responds to Islam.
If Islam is seen to be a separate culture, something which is not part of our society, we've already dismissed there is any version of Islam which fits with Western society. Everything the West professes to demand of Islam in criticism (to fit with Western society, to "assimilate" to our culture) is precisely what they reject in the very foundation of their criticism. Instead of putting up an Islam which does fit with the West and then challenging people to meet it, they think of Islam as something which doesn't fit until it becomes Western. It destroys any link between Islam and being part of our society. Islam is left scrambling trying to justify how it can become part of our society rather than being understood a pillar of the Western community (with the responsibilities, values and engagement that entails).
I recall having read this article before on power politics in countries with significant Muslim populations: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30675
Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'
When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table.
The article then proceeds to paint a picture of what countries look like with certain Muslim population percentages.
It destroys any link between Islam and being part of our society. Islam is left scrambling trying to justify how it can become part of our society rather than being understood a pillar of the Western community
A multitude of similar stories have played out in the history of the US. Sometimes the experience of a group is affected by world events, Japanese Internment, for instance. Sometimes affliction is an expression of difference plus stress (as with the large migration of Irish after the British failed to murder them.)
Every story has its unique features. The story of American Muslims lacks some the the more colorful aspects of immigrant life such as organized crime as exhibited by Chinese, Latinos, Sicilians, etc. and etc.
Instead, the history of American Muslims is fraught by.. you know what. It'll work out in the end. It always does.
which throws the entire Muslim community into that category
Neither the presenter nor myself are doing this. So if you are attempting to throw us into some unwholesome category without justification, then you are the bigot. If, on the other hand, you're referring to other people who throw all Muslims into the category of extremism, then I condemn them just as you do. But then, I wasn't talking about them, so for you to bring them up is a red herring.
If by some miracle the don't hate our values, then they are ineffective "moderate muslims" who haven't prevented terrorist attacks with the appropriate level of public condemnation within the Western media.
The moderate Muslims are by definition ineffective. Just as the moderate Germans during the Nazi dictatorship were ineffective, or the moderate Russians under Stalin were ineffective, or the moderate Japanese under the Emperor were ineffective, or the moderate Christians opposed to slavery in early American history were ineffective, etc. All of these and many other moderate majorities throughout history have been largely useless in the face of injustice. It has mostly taken political action and brute force to root out the scourge of Nazism, slavery, and other similarly wicked groups and institutions. And it will take, to a large degree, brute force to destroy radical Islam.
Even if all the people in the world ceased being Islamophobic according to your standards, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Saudis, the Iranians, etc will still be here, butchering people and denying them their rights according to what they view as the correct interpretation of Islam. How are you going to stop them? Words don't work. They aren't going to go along with your progressive paradise simply because you told them to. This is why I find the constant droning on about the peaceful, moderate Muslim majority to be an utter waste of time. These are the people who are being killed the most by radical Islamists, so if you really cared about them, you would stop pretending, or appearing to pretend, that the main problem is Islamophobia. It isn't.
Islamophobia is the issue itself. Refuting of the presence of radical Islam isn't the point. It's targeting the misrepresentations and excuses used to justify the vilification of all Muslims and any instance of Islam.
Nope. Once again, radical Islam is the issue. Islamophobia is the issue you'd like it to be and prefer to focus on, but it's a red herring. The people you and others here would accuse of Islamophobia do not detonate their bodies in crowded markets or empty the magazines of Kalashnikovs deliberately aimed at civilians whilst screaming "Allahu Akbar." The people you accuse of Islamophobia are mostly poor, uneducated saps who watch Fox News and attend Trump rallies. You may not like them, and I don't really either, but you have completely unequal priorities if they are the primary target of your anger and verbal venom.
Even if all the people in the world ceased being Islamophobic according to your standards, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Saudis, the Iranians, etc will still be here, butchering people and denying them their rights according to what they view as the correct interpretation of Islam
I do think that if you deal in a laundry list like this that trails over into 'the Iranians etc' you are not discriminating carefully. I live among Muslims in an English town, I find this fiery rhetoric a sad mirror-image of the Islamist rhetoric you're against. Opinionating is all very well: but mainly let's live together, try and work out our differences and have a little humility about whether we have really understood the way the world works. These enormous generalisations about Islamophobia or radical Islam seem like big word-toys to beat each other up with.
Oh, and I'm always wary of etcetera except when used by e e cummings.
I do think that if you deal in a laundry list like this that trails over into 'the Iranians etc' you are not discriminating carefully.
Why? "Not discriminating carefully" would be to lump all or most Muslims into the the groups I mentioned, which I have repudiated and did not do. That's why I gave very specific examples, like the Iranian regime, which is to discriminate carefully. Or are the Iranians unobjectionable to you? If so, I would love to know why.
I find this fiery rhetoric a sad mirror-image of the Islamist rhetoric you're against
How? Do you realize what you quoted me as saying? I supplied "fiery rhetoric" against indiscriminate murder and the curtailment of human rights. That's not something to be "fiery" about for you?
Opinionating is all very well: but mainly let's live together, try and work out our differences and have a little humility about whether we have really understood the way the world works.
Why on earth do you suppose that I am opposed to living together and humility? Did you honestly think I would reply by saying, "nope, I'm in favor of segregation and egotism?" That makes you sound extremely condescending.
Reply to Sapientia So you are disappointed in her. Interesting. Are you disappointed because she doesn't conform to how you think Muslims ought to think and behave? That she doesn't appear to agree with you politically? Something else? Maybe the color scheme of her outfit was unappealing to you?
Reply to Sapientia You said "something," implying that you are disappointed in something other than her being a Muslim. I admit the conjunction "or" is ambiguous, though. In any case, you only used one word in your reply, so perhaps use more next time if you don't want people misinterpreting you.
Hmmm personally I am for better collaboration and respect of Islamic culture (as I would be towards any other religion), including respect AND ENCOURAGEMENT for non-violent traditions (such as the way they choose to dress) and also for completely and immediately wiping ISIS off the face of the Earth, who are about to become a more serious threat to the Western world than cultural degradation if we keep treating them with a soft glove and ignoring them. You don't mess around with evil and let it grow like a scourge there, destroying an entire region of civilisation (most of whom by the way are MUSLIM), pillaging, raping, AND taking control of important strategic resources - OIL - while you sit doing nothing. Obama (the founder of ISIS - Trump was right) is very stupid if he wants the US to use ISIS as a tool to generate instability in the Middle East, hoping to affect Russia and Turkey, and allow the US another 100 years of global hegemony. You don't play with fire - those guys down there are extremely dangerous, they are earning a lot from the oil - much more than you're imagining, as they've spread through Iraq like a mafia, everyone pays tribute to them in exchange for protection, especially those operating oil fields that ISIS doesn't directly control. God forbid that they get their hands on a nuclear weapon, then you will see what this weakness and inability of dealing with them means. And Obama's administration is embarassing - for at least three years they keep parrotting how ISIS is driven back, how ISIS is defeated everywhere, how the airstrikes have killed them, how this leader and that leader is dead, and yet the influence of ISIS is expanding, undermining Islamic culture in the region, destroying mosques, killing BRUTALLY both Muslims and Christians and taking control of oil. And maybe more importantly, it is becoming an ideological virus that is spreading all through the world, and people who have no affiliation with them decide to engage in terrorist attacks and claim that they are doing it for ISIS. If it's not eradicated soon, ISIS cells will form in other regions of the world as well - then it will be everywhere, and virtually impossible to completely eradicate, much like the Sicilian Mafia in Italy.
Apart from the US being complete idiots to invade Iraq, while Russia and China were sitting on the side and loving how stupid the US could be, thinking it would easily win the war, and capture the oil resources, not being able to predict the rise of extremism, and the effect on costs of the war dragging due to guerrilla warfare, they've also created a monster. The US paid 6 trillion for that war. The oil reserves are just 2 trillion. A terrible investment. That's why Obama got out - it would have crippled US's economy to remain. And then he thought he could use the instability that would be created there to keep the Middle East in chaos, as a way to control whatever threats could arise from that region (Iran). But even this backfired, and he created what may soon become a global monster, threatening even the US itself, despite the great geographical distance. Wouldn't it have been wiser to leave Iraq alone, so that Iran and Iraq would keep bickering, as they have through all their history, and the US could avoid losing so many resources for nothing, and earning the hatred of the world? But now it's too late. ISIS has to be destroyed, by force, and the sooner the better.
"Gallup International’s poll of 68 countries for 2014 found the US as the greatest threat to peace in the world, voted three times more dangerous to world peace than the next country.
Yes no wonder after the great stupidity, both strategical and otherwise, that they have displayed, the US is very dangerous. An idiot with a lot of power is indeed very dangerous. That's what happens when Pentagon officials spend government money in strip clubs and casinos (https://www.rt.com/usa/357693-pentagon-employees-casinos-strip-clubs/), and Harvard trained security specialists are beaten by an old Romanian taxi driver who goes by the name of Guccifer who breaks into Clinton's and other high officials servers with NO PROGRAMMING BACKGROUND (they are lucky because of Romanian authorities, otherwise they wouldn't have caught him). This lack of seriousness and morality in the past 2 US administrations is indeed a global threat, and it is in fact a threat to the US itself. This will be especially true if Crooked Hillary is elected (at least Big Ego Trump has a grain of common sense in him).
Luckily, most idiots don't have much power. You probably don't have much power either, which is also probably lucky.
Hehe, I dunno. I think I would like living under a benevolent dictatorship of Agustino.
TheWillowOfDarknessSeptember 01, 2016 at 01:42#188690 likes
Thorongil:Neither the presenter nor myself are doing this. So if you are attempting to throw us into some unwholesome category without justification, then you are the bigot. If, on the other hand, you're referring to other people who throw all Muslims into the category of extremism, then I condemn them just as you do. But then, I wasn't talking about them, so for you to bring them up is a red herring.
All of which is empirically true and which doesn't malign the majority who do not fit this description.
It does malign the majority because Radical Islam is the only discursive category in which the West places Islam in relation to itself. We don't get-up and say the majority (many who are those "disgusting moderates) are part of Western society. They are always an "Other," consider to be aberrations who have to work or become to fit within the West. Since we reject Islam is part of our culture, we don't even register it as part of what our society is interested in.
Only in terms Radical Islam are Muslims considers relevant to our culture, so that's how our popular discourses read Islam. Muslims, in general, are either understood as a threat who we must admonish (resulting in such nonsense as vilifying moderates for not stoping terrorist attacks with words or burkini bans) or the victims of prejudice (which is true, but doesn't really say anything about Radical Islam or how to deal with it). You say you aren't talking about the majority, but the effect or you language is otherwise. By denying Islam a space within Western culture, you tar the majority with the expectation that the only relevance and meaning of Islam is in the radicals who are out to get us.
Thorongil:Words don't work. They aren't going to go along with your progressive paradise simply because you told them to. This is why I find the constant droning on about the peaceful, moderate Muslim majority to be an utter waste of time. These are the people who are being killed the most by radical Islamists, so if you really cared about them, you would stop pretending, or appearing to pretend, that the main problem is Islamophobia. It isn't.
Exactly. Which is why the constant droning of your ilk that "Muslims are taking care of their own. The moderates need to do more to stop terrorism" is nothing more than a prejudicial rant for Westerns to feel better about themselves. The words of moderate Muslims have no more power to stop Islamic Radicals than you or I.
"The droning about the peaceful majority" is about protecting our society from Islamophobia. It's not about stopping Radical Islam. We do not, in making this argument, direct our care and attention towards the thousands being killed by Radical Islam around the world. Rather we direct it towards our own, to prevent various scenarios where our society harms or destroys the lives of Muslims under the misguided belief it amounts to fighting Radical Islam.
Thorongil:The people you accuse of Islamophobia are mostly poor, uneducated saps who watch Fox News and attend Trump rallies. You may not like them, and I don't really either, but you have completely unequal priorities if they are the primary target of your anger and verbal venom.
On the contrary, they are exactly who is worth targeting with our verbal venom. There are words actually have some impact. We can prevent ourselves turning into culture which advocates Muslims being second class citizens or worse. Our words can't do that with condemnations of Radical Islam-- fighting that takes a combination of social, economic, military polices and time, probably more than half a century.
Thorongil:Even if all the people in the world ceased being Islamophobic according to your standards, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Saudis, the Iranians, etc will still be here, butchering people and denying them their rights according to what they view as the correct interpretation of Islam. How are you going to stop them?
For the most part, we won't. There's nothing we can do to force such an immediate stop. Military action simply won't work on that scale. We'll end up with and Iraq and Syria in more places. We'll probably help the next radical group, as happened with ISIS (and many other groups before that). For most of those issue, there is no solution. Whether we act militarily or not, we are going to have to wait until they work themselves out because we simply can't control everyone and how they act.
It does malign the majority because Radical Islam is the only discursive category in which the West places Islam in relation to itself. We don't get-up and say the majority (many who are those "disgusting moderates) are part of Western society. They are always an "Other," consider to be aberrations who have to work or become to fit within the West. Since we reject Islam is part of our culture, we don't even register it as part of what our society is interested in.
Only in terms Radical Islam are Muslims considers relevant to our culture, so that's how our popular discourses read Islam. Muslims, in general, are either understood as a threat who we must admonish (resulting in such nonsense as vilifying moderates for not stoping terrorist attacks with words or burkini bans) or the victims of prejudice (which is true, but doesn't really say anything about Radical Islam or how to deal with it). You say you aren't talking about the majority, but the effect or you language is otherwise. By denying Islam a space within Western culture, you tar the majority with the expectation that the only relevance and meaning of Islam is in the radicals who are out to get us.
Wow, I found this quite insightful and on point. Living in Melbourne (if I remember correctly that was also your location on old pf) when I speaking to someone from a minority, I most the time won't even think anything of it at all. For example, if I'm talking to someone of east Asian descent my thoughts will be pretty much the same as if they were White. There is a sense that if I am interacting with a Muslim, I know they are Muslim. I may be thinking about their culture or their private practices, when I wouldn't be doing the same for someone of another minority.
@shmik @OglopTo
I find that awareness and caution about the background of somebody from a different culture can come up not just for Muslims. I work with a really clever and nice guy of Chinese family, who has a local accent, speech, affinities and behavioural patterns indistinguishable from people whose ancestors have lived in Australia for generations. We often talk about current events, including politics. But even though his ethnic background is invisible to me in our daily dealings, I do find myself suddenly getting more cautious if we get onto the topic of the Chinese government, and touchy issues like their attempt to annex the South China Sea. I expect my friend is probably as appalled at the Chinese govt's behaviour as I am. He may be as anti-Chinese govt as many Cuban emigres are anti-Castro, but I just find myself automatically and unconsciously choosing my words more carefully when it comes to a topic like that. Because I don't know for sure and am anxious not to offend someone I like.
That's why I gave very specific examples, like the Iranian regime, which is to discriminate carefully. Or are the Iranians unobjectionable to you? If so, I would love to know why.
Here you are eliding between 'Iranians', 'the Iranians' and 'the Iranian regime'. I'm telling you how it reads to me, as if you are boiling over with indignation.
I find the Iranian regime objectionable, but Iranians in general have struck me as profoundly interesting people. Their history is rich and their culture deep and broad. Persians were the administrative class in much of central Asia before the colonial struggle between Russia from the north and Britain from the south two centuries ago eventually squeezed them out. They still have a level of democracy, and are in stark contrast to the Sunni Saudis, for instance, in the prominent role and good education of women. These are some of the reasons why I think one should make one's distinctions carefully, and why I strongly disagree with a rhetoric that regards 'Iranians' as somehow intrinsically dangerous.
Here you are eliding between 'Iranians', 'the Iranians' and 'the Iranian regime'. I'm telling you how it reads to me, as if you are boiling over with indignation.
Why would you assume that I meant every individual Iranian? That is the least charitable and the most nonsensical interpretation you could have assumed. The lack of a quantifier does not excuse you, logically, to assume this either.
but Iranians in general have struck me as profoundly interesting people.
Of course! As they do to me. In fact, there is a popular democracy-supporting contingent among the young in Iran right now, which we should aid by doing whatever is necessary to isolate and topple the regime.
They are always an "Other," consider to be aberrations who have to work or become to fit within the West. Since we reject Islam is part of our culture, we don't even register it as part of what our society is interested in.
It's a two way street, I'm afraid. Many Muslims consider the West an enemy, irrespective of whether the West treats them badly, and so refuse to respect or integrate into Western society. Conceiving of this class of people as entirely benign and innocent is a naive and stupid thing to do.
Only in terms Radical Islam are Muslims considers relevant to our culture
Radical Islam gets more press, if that's what you're referring to, because it is more dangerous than moderate Islam. It's very simple. The former commits mass murder, the latter does not. Which do you think is more "relevant" to talk about and the more immediate threat to Western culture? The answer is obvious.
By denying Islam a space within Western culture, you tar the majority with the expectation that the only relevance and meaning of Islam is in the radicals who are out to get us.
But I haven't said this, so you've merely presented a straw man.
to prevent various scenarios where our society harms or destroys the lives of Muslims under the misguided belief it amounts to fighting Radical Islam.
This is rare, compared to the harm and destruction of life caused by the latter, hence my claim that your priorities are misplaced. To speak only about the speck in your brother's eye while ignoring your other siblings who are being tortured and murdered is moral cowardice. The burkini ban, for example, is not in any way on a par with the attacks in nearby Nice. Do I repudiate both of them? Yes. But which is more important and deserving of greater attention? Clearly the latter.
There are words actually have some impact. We can prevent ourselves turning into culture which advocates Muslims being second class citizens or worse. Our words can't do that with condemnations of Radical Islam-
Oh, how interesting! So words can't defeat Radical Islam, but they can defeat "Islamophobia?" And that's done how exactly? By ridiculing people and calling them ignorant bigots and Islamophobes? By shutting down all possible disagreement with and criticism of Islam? By passing laws that prosecute hate speech and thereby limit free speech? Well, if so, then don't be surprised that no one goes along with you. What else do you have in mind, because you've done nothing to endear your position to me.
Defeatist poppycock. Away with that crap. I'm sure radical Islamists would love to hear this, but I for one won't give them the impression of surrender and capitulation, thank you very much.
You said "something," implying that you are disappointed in something other than her being a Muslim. I admit the conjunction "or" is ambiguous, though. In any case, you only used one word in your reply, so perhaps use more next time if you don't want people misinterpreting you.
Yep, wrong interpretation. I could have been clearer, and you could have asked for clarification before making that assumption.
Next time I'll use two words. Maybe even three if I'm feeling generous.
Hehe, I dunno. I think I would like living under a benevolent dictatorship of Agustino.
Madness. He's like a mini-Trump at times, with his agreement with the ridiculous claim that Obama is the founder of ISIS and references to "Crooked Hilary".
Hehe, I dunno. I think I would like living under a benevolent dictatorship of Agustino.
How sure are you about that? To return to seriousness; I would not wish to live under any dictatorship, whether so-called 'benevolent' or not. Also, I think the most self-righteous people are often the most corruptible; I think power inexorably tends to corrupt in most cases, and so I highly doubt that Agustino's dictatorship would remain "benevolent" for long. Did you read his opinions about "torture for horrendous crimes"?
Reply to andrewk Sure and I don't think we should ignore differences. I was thinking about when meeting a new person, how if they are Muslim I will likely think more of it than if they were Chinese.
Reply to John If Australia had a decent tyrant we'd get more done. Faster internet, better public transport, maybe even proper policies towards global warming. It's harder to get behind democracy when there is a 2 party system in which without fault the parties oppose each other on issue. The party not in power is even called the opposition, if they happen to agree with a specific government plan then apparently they're not doing their jobs properly.
Well, I guess if "getting more done" is your criteria for the good life, then a "decent" tyrant ( if there is such a thing) might be useful.
I agree the two-party system does seem to be a significant block to 'progress'. But for every con there might be a pro; perhaps if the nature of the system stops the politicians from meddling to much with it; that is if it stops them getting anything much done in the way of imposing their individual and/or collective wills on societal proceedings, it might not be an entirely bad thing. To be honest I think most politicians only see their role as being to implement the 'will of the people' on the odd occasions when the will of the people happens to coincide with their own ambitions and ideological agendas.
Well it's not the only criteria. Separation of power is great, but I don't think it's better to have a government that is impotent when it comes to the jobs it should be going.
It's not as if us people know which projects are better. More of our information comes from the government itself then independent experts. Funny system when the government is supposedly the will of the people, yet it runs add campaigns.
Implementing projects, if by that you mean projection and development of infrastructure, seems to be mostly a function of state governments in Australia, and I do agree that there must be progress in that regard (at least if that imperative is predicated on the inevitability, if not the desirability, of continual growth). But I don't believe the Federal Government can do what I think is most pressing: to make the corporations and the very rich bear a fair share of the tax burden. I don't believe many (or even any) politicians are even ideologically committed to that these days, and even if they were I'm not convinced they could work effectively enough against plutocratic interests to achieve it. It should be a bilateral imperative regardless of whether left or right politics is favoured; Really, it is simply a matter of fair play.
Georgetown University, a Jesuit institution, apologized in public for its selling of 272 men, women and children in 1838, and said it will give preference to the heirs of the people it sold as a form of reparations for its original sin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/slaves-georgetown-university.html?_r=0
Did you read his opinions about "torture for horrendous crimes"?
Well John, are you planning to be a cold-blooded serial killer who brutally and viciously rapes and murders his victims? If you are, then you should be very very afraid of my dictatorship, because unlike today, you will not get to live and be fed on state money after you have committed the most atrocious crimes against justice. + you forget to mention that I no longer support that view - I would just execute the criminal in such horrendous cases, unless they show repentance, in which case life-long prison (as I have in fact stated in that thread, if you had actually read it). If they don't, then straight execution, although they do deserve hell-fire - but God will deal with that.
lol... it doesn't matter who the President is so long as justice gets done my friend. In fact, I would rather not be President - I would rather not be a leader in any community, because it is a mean, difficult and ardous life. It's not a nice life, especially in today's world. I'd rather sit on some farm, taking care of the animals, and sitting by the fireside with my family and children and my God. I would read, study, write and converse with my family and the local community, and promote morality along my fellow citizens. But alas - such has become impossible in today's world, and people no longer have a choice to live a decent life. This has become impossible. So we have to do something about it. We have to restore order to the world,all of us. There's no one left to do it. So we must all play our part - regardless of whether we're businessmen, politicians, thinkers, or anything else. Only a civilisations combined effort, in self-remembrance can stop the advance of decadence.
Today the common man no longer has a right to have a family - a divorce rate higher than 50%, and an infidelity rate around 50% for MARRIED people. Today children no longer have a right to have a family - that's why 40% are born out of wedlock. Intelligence is no longer respected. Art is no longer valued. We have to do something about it, and nobody else is talking about these problems. Terrorism and extremism, whether it is the secular progressive one which destroys culture, or it is the radical islamic one which brings about brutal and rampant violations of justice must be fought. It's as simple as that, otherwise we won't have a society anymore, and the traditions and world we have inherited will be left in ruin.
Haha thanks Reply to jamalrob, good to see you again. Reply to shmik I have been crazy busy this past year and haven't been on PF much, so I'm not entirely sure what's going on there at the moment. All I know is that the new owners have simply abandoned it. Its an awful, buggy mess now. And Reply to Michael, yep, likewise. But I replaced the slot for PF's bookmark with TPF 8-)
Might even be worth a thread if, you want to argue the toss about who should have been left out or died. There's a few I've heard of amongst them, and some possibly interesting links
Reply to Michael I'm surprised the police haven't showed up at your front door to find out what kind of illegal operation you have going on in your basement.
I got to play with a barn owl yesterday. It was like playing with my cat. I love triggering that predatory response by imitating the movement of their prey.
Britain is now the second biggest arms dealer in the world - woohoo. :-}
[quote=The Independent]Britain is now the second biggest arms dealer in the world, official government figures show – with most of the weapons fuelling deadly conflicts in the Middle East.
Since 2010 Britain has also sold arms to 39 of the 51 countries ranked “not free” on the Freedom House "Freedom in the world" report, and 22 of the 30 countries on the UK Government’s own human rights watch list.
A full two-thirds of UK weapons over this period were sold to Middle Eastern countries, where instability has fed into increased risk of terror threats to Britain and across the West.[/quote]
unenlightenedSeptember 07, 2016 at 21:31#198610 likes
The Independent:where instability has fed into increased risk of terror threats to Britain and across the West.
Good job we've a thriving armaments industry then, to counter the threats.
rolleyes, banghead, throwuphandsindespair.
There was this guy said something about those that live by the sword dying by the sword, but that must have been subversive nonsense.
[Quote=The New York Times][W]e, an irresponsible media, have built a false equivalency in which the choice between Clinton and Trump seems to have equally bad implications, because we have framed it as a choice between a liar and a lunatic.
But this obscures the fact that the lunatic is also a pathological liar of a kind and quality that we have not seen in recent presidential politics and perhaps ever.
Trump is in a category all his own.[/quote]
Source: [url=http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/opinion/donald-trump-is-lying-in-plain-sight.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&referer=https://t.co/vlXb9w9rq7]Donald Trump Is Lying in Plain Sight[/URL]
This one's good too: [url=http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57d16e09e4b03d2d4598a87f]Donald Trump Keeps Saying Things That Would Destroy Any Other Presidential Candidate[/URL]
The New York Times:[W]e, an irresponsible media, have built a false equivalency in which the choice between Clinton and Trump seems to have equally bad implications, because we have framed it as a choice between a liar and a lunatic.
The irony is that the media believes it is responsible for the outcome of elections, the very objection Trump supporters make against the media.
The truth is that if Trump wins (or loses), it will have nothing to do with the media. It will have to do with what the public wants, which is far less manipulatable than people think.
From the current US candidates Trump is the only one who has the capacity to be a leader. Not saying anything about his morality and his character - just about his leadership abilities. Hitler also had amazing leadership abilities, but a very very poor character. I think Trump has a decent character compared to Crooked Hillary - not a great character though, and definitely plagued by a lot of defects and vices. I think it will be much better for the world if Trump wins as opposed to Hillary. Hillary is very dangerous because of her corrupted character and her stupidity - we don't need another George W. Bush.
From the current US candidates, Trump is the only one who has the capacity to be a leader.
That isn't true. All of the candidates that entered the contest have the capacity to be a leader. Hilary Clinton has plenty of experience and easily fits the role. It isn't at all difficult to imagine her as President. Trump has that capacity too, but he gives the impression of incompetence, bombast, and rashness, and he is constantly putting his foot in his mouth. Hilary certainly isn't without her faults either.
All of the candidates that entered the contest have the capacity to be a leader.
Yes! Especially this one... :D (this must be who @Sapientia is voting for, him being the cool libertarian, sans-culotte, 'everyone is free' - 'liberté égalité fraternité' and all!)
I wasn't even aware of that guy. I had in mind the candidates from the two main political parties.
I won't be voting for anyone, since I'm not eligible to vote, but it would never have been that guy or anyone from his party. For me, since Bernie Sanders didn't make it far enough, it would be between Hilary Clinton and Jill Stein; and I think I'd have to go for Clinton, at the very least as an anti-Trump strategy, but also because she has some merit and I agree with her on more issues than I agree with Trump, and Trump is the worse candidate. And I'm certainly not alone in that opinion. Trump is very unpopular here as a candidate for President (although he's popular as a clown and has attracted much attention as a cause for concern), both with the general public and with people of political importance, and for good reason.
Yeah, it's the guy who has about three times the percentage of Jill Stein in the polls :P But you seem to have some keen interest in the fair sex. Let me just remind you though that this is about the Presidency of the United States of America, just so we're clear. One should make the choice based on the rational faculties of the soul, not upon one's passions as in other matters... :-*
Job 2:6-7:The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life.” So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head.
US is the largest exporter of 'defense' equipment. No wonder they are very supportive of military 'partnerships' with the world -- war sustains their economy.
I don't think Trump is party motivated, or loyal to the Republican Party and many of the senior elite of the Republican Party understand this and they have come out against him in public. He has bears little allegiance to the Republican Party its ideas or its sacred cows.
It is amazing that the media outlets that ran this advertisement escaped criticism.
Unfortunately they are not the only ones who have tried to capitalize on this tragedy: Walmart with its twin towers of soda pop (that's Florida), Marriott with its free coffee and mini-muffins, AT&T using a ghost like image of the towers to sell cell phones.
To the extent that attitudes are passed down by parent to child, the attitudes of those who do not want children and who do not have children will not be passed down and this aberration will end. Rest assured, the species will survive. It's just not clear which gene pools will continue forward.
A nose by any other name would sound the same, study finds
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/09/nose-any-other-name-would-sound-same-study-finds
To the extent that attitudes are passed down by parent to child, the attitudes of those who do not want children and who do not have children will not be passed down and this aberration will end.
While I agree that the human "species will survive", the premise used is flawed, I think.
Terrapin StationSeptember 13, 2016 at 13:11#210000 likes
To the extent that attitudes are passed down by parent to child, the attitudes of those who do not want children and who do not have children will not be passed down and this aberration will end.
Yes, I also heard that the inclination to have children is a heritable trait. If your parents didn't have any children, then you probably won't have any either.
Yes, I also heard that the inclination to have children is a heritable trait. If your parents didn't have any children, then you probably won't have any either.
This sounds correct, although Adam and Eve had no parents, so it's not clear where their propensity to have children arose from.
Reply to Michael OK, I think I get the logic now but still... (Maybe I still don't get it...)
Nevermind, the point I'm trying to raise as a reply to Hanover's premise is that ideas rub off to other people even in the absence of parental link.
Or maybe he's arguing that a propensity to procreate is a genetic quality instead of an idea. Not sure if this discussion is serious or not. Haha. Oh well, we're in the lounge anyways. : ))
Well, I've checked with my parents and apparently I was never born, so that screws up my lineage. Bugger.
Your only hope is that the propensity to have children is an atavistic trait. In that case, even though neither your parents nor yourself have had any children, maybe your grandchildren will rescue your lineage.
Reply to OglopTo It is hard to know what Hanover is arguing. Asking him will do no good. He even talks about himself in the third person, as if he's larger than life.
A hummingbird came inside my screened-in porch and couldn't get out. I named her Stuckey. I got a tennis racket and she climbed on the head of it and I gently removed her from the room. I then renamed her Loosey. This happened to me before, same names and all.
I named the fly in my room Walkie, which I thought ironic, sort of like calling Baden "Flash" or something that would make you think he actually had a brain.
This is what happens when you take a day to work from home. I think I might paint a lady's face on the soccer ball on my floor and name it Lucille Ball and start talking to it.
danielpedregonSeptember 13, 2016 at 20:20#210640 likes
What exactly is the shoutbox?
Pierre-NormandSeptember 13, 2016 at 20:27#210670 likes
Some online fora have a chat-box on the main page that allows users to chat in real time about random topics and trivia. This is a thread that has a similar function.
One must wonder how such specimens ever get to run for President.... Just have a look especially at the two girls in the back, on the right side... (N)
I don't get it Agustino. That clip elevated my opinion of Jeb Bush considerably. I am absolutely no fan of George HW, George W or Jeb, as their values are extremely different from mine. But that clip touched me. He came across as warm, genuine, human, and he was even saying sensible things. For the first time in my life I actually liked him.
I saw that as a graceful way of handling a potentially awkward moment, that probably just arose because he didn't get his intonation quite right in his last sentence, so they didn't realise his speech was finished. I read it as somewhat ironic, self-deprecating, even humble. What's not to like?
...sort of like calling Baden "Flash" or something that would make you think he actually had a brain.
There's a very different reason for me being called "Flash", which my lawyer has instructed me not to divulge. (He also write that last bit coz it have big wurds.)
I saw that as a graceful way of handling a potentially awkward moment, that probably just arose because he didn't get his intonation quite right in his last sentence, so they didn't realise his speech was finished. I read it as somewhat ironic, self-deprecating, even humble. What's not to like?
It feels more like they were half asleep through his speech to me (probably being there only because they were paid), and furthermore, asking your audience for applause gives the wrong impression as applause is always something that the speaker must earn, not demand. If his intonation wasn't quite right, it would have been better to continue the speech when they didn't applaud, and come up with a more dramatic ending in order to provoke the applause at a later time. Asking for it is the sign of someone who has no greater inventiveness and imagination and cannot find a way to move past the defects of his performance, except the straight forward "clap please" - this is also offensive to the audience, it's like forcing them to applaud even if they don't feel that it's deserved.
I really wish they'd show the puppy moments after the fall so that we would know if he sort of just got up and ran away or whether his neck was snapped and he laid dead. If the latter, I'd really rather not have watched the video.
Reply to Hanover Now that I think about it, someone is obviously there (aside from the larger dog), possibly delighting at the sight of the puppy falling down.
EDIT: Mystery solved: pupper is alive and there is no hysterical laughter.
This cop was fired for not shooting a suicidal black man with an unloaded gun. Basically, his being smarter and more compassionate than his fellow officers, and making the right decision based on his military training (he's a vet) made him unsuitable for the police force.
Anyone who claims there is no systemic problem with law enforcement in the US is either ignorant or blind. (Also, anyone who claims all cops are pigs, take note. It's not the cops, it's the system.)
Reply to Baden "While almost every news outlet is using this situation to further divide law enforcement and the community and claiming that Officer Mader is a victim, sources indicate that Mader’s initial assessment to not fire his weapon was not the reason he was terminated but rather he did not take action when Williams changed his behavior to a more aggressive, deadly demeanor.
When other responding officers arrived, Williams reportedly advanced upon the officers and allegedly “waved” his gun towards them in an aggressive manner."
Reply to Hanover Fine, but in terms of that aspect of the event, all this article says is that "Eventually, two other officers arrived and one of them shot and killed Williams Jr., hitting him in the back of the head, just behind his right ear". So, it's not clear why they think Mader had to shoot him too to protect those officers. It looks like they arrived, disturbed the guy, he got agitated and they shot him from behind. It is possible, of course, that they arrived, guns undrawn, then the guy waved his gun at them and Mader spent time watching him doing that without responding, but it doesn't say that's what happened in the article. If it was, why not just say so?
[URL=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/37380673?client=ms-android-alcatel]British troops condemned over Iraqi boy's death in 2003[/URL]
[Quote=BBC News]The four soldiers involved, who were granted anonymity in the report, were acquitted of manslaughter at a court martial in 2006.[/quote]
It's difficult for me to understand people getting upset at this.
Is there a reason why you have difficulty with this basic understanding? There's a big difference between understanding why people get upset at that sort of thing - which is obvious - and being of the opinion that it is nothing worth getting upset over.
Reply to Sapientia
LOL! This makes him seem like a good guy, but without any charisma or really worldly know-how. His brother, George, was much more charismatic than he is. George would have had a chance against Trump - at least he comes off as witty, friendly and funny (although he is stupidly dangerous).
Jeb should have avoided trying to tackle Trump head on. That's very stupid. He should have befriended or ignored Trump, while attacking the other candidates - if Trump said anything bad about him or his brother he shouldn't have said anything. Push himself into the top 3, wait for other candidates to drop out. And only then should he have jumped on Trump. Trump needs another Trump to beat him. His rhetoric is the best I've seen in politics in the past 20 years at least. He comes off as strong, dominant, and overpowering. To beat Trump you need to play his game - bring out paper work confirming or suggesting illegal activities that he has been engaged in. Rub it in his face during a debate - surprise him. Tell him that he deserves to go to prison, etc. The thing is, because the Western world hasn't had real leaders for many many years - they have forgotten what it means to fight. That's why Trump so easily beats them. He's the only one up there who can fight. And he will very likely beat Clinton - Clinton has no energy. Especially the debates will ruin her. Obama would have fared better, but I think Trump would have still beaten Obama - he's far more aggressive. These people think that Trump can be beaten by mocking him, or sneering him, etc. This is false. He can only be beaten by being overpowered. This is the wrong approach to Trump:
His rhetoric is the best I've seen in politics in the past 20 years at least.
That's an amazing statement to make. In terms of effectiveness, yes, it has been effective, but it has also massively backfired. And in terms of substance, credibility, and morality, it is abysmal. But it will of course soon be put to the test, and my hope is that the electorate will see through his rhetoric enough not to vote for him. Here in the U.K., at least, his rhetoric has had the opposite effect. Very few people of importance endorse him. The question here is often phrased along the lines: if Trump became president, how would you react, or handle the situation? You don't get that question about Hilary Clinton, which is telling. The implication is that Trump is a problem.
These people think that Trump can be beaten by mocking him, or sneering him, etc. This is false. He can only be beaten by being overpowered.
Pointing out his massive faults is probably an effective strategy. I don't think that fighting fire with fire would be very successful, unless it was done very subtly - but that can't be done if there is no subtlety in the fire. Clinton would look an even bigger fool, or even more odious, than Trump if she stopped to his level and used his language.
Here in the U.K., at least, his rhetoric has had the opposite effect. Very few people of importance endorse him. The question here is often phrased along the lines: if Trump became president, how would you react, or handle the situation? You don't get that question about Hilary Clinton, which is telling. The implication is that Trump is a problem.
Because in the UK most people only listen to mass-media snippets of him - not to full speeches. The mass-media is making a caricature of it - they are not honestly portraying what is happening - they only show the most outrageous statements, which also come packed with a negative interpretation. So the UK people, as well as the rest of Europe, is seriously misinformed about Trump. The media can't have the same effect in the US - why? Well for a couple of reasons. First word of mouth from Trump supporters. Second Trump is active very much there, and people see much more of him, whether they like it or not. Thirdly, the US has much more extensive conservative resources than Europe at the current moment.
That's an amazing statement to make. In terms of effectiveness, yes, it has been effective, but it has also massively backfired.
I don't think it has backfired. Negative advertising is still advertising (and it's free!), not to mention that a leader to be effective must be polarising. The job of a leader is precisely in creating and enforcing distinctions between good and evil - whether he does so in a way that is moral or immoral is a different story. But if he succeeds to enforce such distinctions, then he is a strong leader. Hitler for example was a strong leader - without a doubt - but we can also agree that without a doubt he was also highly immoral. But a leader can be effective regardless of his morality - hence why we have good leaders (Marcus Aurelius), and evil leaders (Hitler). So to a certain extent if a leader doesn't have enemies, then he isn't really a leader. This is exactly the failing of modern politicians. They want to please everyone. They're not polarising. They have, as Trump says, no strength. That's why Trump gives Putin as an example - he has strength - he is polarising.
Pointing out his massive faults is probably an effective strategy.
People don't care though. They see that Trump has strength, confidence, that he managed big and complex projects and made most of them work, that he is determined to do something, even forcefully if he must. They see in him a man who is determined to find a way, not a man who is resigned to his fate. Also, they see in him someone determined to stare problems straight in the face and not give up until he solves them. Whereas in Crooked, they see someone who has relatively few achievements, who has always had good political backing due to the influence of her husband, who has made some bad mistakes in government, who has shown definite signs of being paid by big money, and being corrupt, who is physically weak, and who simply isn't willing to admit the very serious problems that the Western world has. Even I would vote for Trump, even though I find some of his behaviour immoral (like cheating on his first wife). At least he has the minimum necessary to be an effective leader, whether for good or for bad.
Reply to Baden As long as you start with the premise that the only type of justifiable police shooting is one that is necessary, you don't end up in shock when you hear that an officer has been fired for not shooting someone. If a shooting is necessary, it logically holds that it would be wrong not to shoot the person as well. For example, if I'm shooting randomly in a crowd and an officer has the ability to shoot me to stop me, he must do that. He'd be wrong to allow me to continue shooting.
Instead of doing any evaluation into whether the shooting were necessary and whether Officer Mader failed to act appropriately to the threat by eliminating it, you instead just jumped to the conclusion everyone else has. You consider all US officers trigger happy, and when his superiors learned that Mader wasn't similarly trigger happy, they fired him. He was one of them, not one of us, so to speak.
Since yours is the conspiratorial theory, I think you need the evidence for it as opposed to just jumping on the anti-police bandwagon every time a story appears to support your accepted narrative.
Reply to Hanover Yet it's fine for you to jump on the pro-police bandwagon because it suits your narrative. Hypocritical much. Look, Mader made the accusations and the police admit the suspect was shot in the back of the head. We don't need a grassy knoll to make the cops look bad on this one. Given the police denial you brought up though and the lack of further facts, I'm willing to suspend judgement for now. Thank you for making the world a better place.
Yet it's fine for you to jump on the pro-police bandwagon because it suits your narrative. Hypocritical much.
I'm not on the pro-police bandwagon. I don't walk around thinking that cops are always great and make no mistakes. I just think there's this trend where everyone now looks at officers as the enemy. The primary enemy of the police are those who break the law. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are exceptions.Quoting Baden
Thank you for making the world a better place.
I am making the world a better place than those who think that attacking officers are. The end result is going to be higher crime and a more dangerous society if we continue going down the road of justifying distrust of officers. That's already playing itself out.
Also, anyone who claims all cops are pigs, take note. It's not the cops, it's the system.
If you want to argue with cop haters, go find some.
ArguingWAristotleTiffSeptember 16, 2016 at 14:56#215420 likes
Having spent some time in the hospital lately (for a family member) I have noticed a few ironies as well as being completely confuzzled about an acronym.
One irony was that in addition to the food being horrid, the cafeteria is single handedly keeping the Cardiac floor in business as a result of their menu. Would you like fried chicken strips or chicken nuggets with tater tots or sweet potato tots? Side of Ranch?
The acronym that has me baffled is STAT - which stands for Sooner Than Already There
Now can someone tell me how to satisfy that need? Or would you fail before even starting?
They don't exactly have to try hard. He [i]is[/I] like a parody or a caricature. He provides them with all the ammunition they'll ever need. Of course the media will spin it a certain way, but these Trump quotes speak for themselves, and Trump often arrogantly stands by them and even boasts about them. He just keeps digging.
His [url=http://uk.businessinsider.com/polls-donald-trump-khan-2016-8]attack on the Khans[/URL], his [url=http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-polls-20160616-snap-story.html]reaction to the Orlando shooting[/URL]... Surely you're not oblivious.
They don't exactly have to try hard. He is like a parody or a caricature.
Why do you think so? I think regardless of whether he's a good or bad man, he surely isn't a parody. He's got some very difficult construction projects completed, which is not easy at all. I've worked in construction, and it probably is the most complicated out of all businesses, since the expertise and teams that are involved are very diverse (architects, civil/structural/geotechnical/hydraulic engineers, workers, technicians), projects require large financing and typically involve multiple investors and/or financial institutions, there are many uncertainties and risks which can always push projects beyond time/budget, and the sheer details that are involved and their execution is difficult to manage. And I haven't even got into all the bureaucratic problems involved in construction, all the licenses needed, all the approvals, etc. Although I will give you this. It's much simpler if you already own a company with a large revenue, as people come to you and are willing to work for you based on your yearly turnover. But to get into it, even if you have 5 million dollars, but no revenue or connections - almost impossible. It's not like some web-based business that you can start, wing it, and manage it all by yourself from your chair at home giving a few phone calls here and there to a lawyer or accountant. This type of business actually involves a lot of people and is very difficult to manage (and very easy to lose a lot of money in, one might add).
His attack on the Khans, his reaction to the Orlando shooting... Surely you're not oblivious.
Maybe. I think his attack on the Trump University Mexican judge was the thing that harmed him most so far. Orlando shooting didn't really harm him - that provided him with a stronger argument for his policies, and a way to appeal to the LGBT community from the Republican side. The attack on Khan - that wasn't an attack, quite honestly. All he said is that "many people have said that the wife had nothing to say, that's why she was sitting silently" - that's not an attack at all. Then he congratulated them for being a gold-star family and said their son wouldn't have died if he had been president. Nothing too serious there - the media just tried to blow it out of proportions. The Mexican judge was serious though - he basically said that someone couldn't be a judge in a court case involving him if he is Mexican. That was outrageous, and it did alienate many people.
Yet it is a predicable cause-effect occurrence. Offensive comments cause offence. People are sensitive and there are sensitive subjects which people are sensitive to. There is no on-off switch to emotion. Some comments are bound to trigger an emotional reaction.
But I suspect you already know this, and that your comments come from a position of willful ignorance. You've chosen to play the stereotype of a stoic, and these facts get in the way. You come across like Spock. But you aren't Vulcan. You're not even half-Vulcan half-human like Spock. You're just human like the rest of us.
Because I've seen him on television. I've heard what he has to say, and I've seen how he behaves. I've picked up on his poor attitude, his arrogance, his ignorance, his boastfulness, his childishness, his prejudice, his divisiveness. I've seen the lies, the bluster, the hyperbole. I know of his outrageous claims: what he has said about Mexicans, Muslims, Obama, Clinton, [url=http://news.sky.com/story/trump-police-fear-for-lives-in-radical-london-10336732]parts of London and our Metropolitan Police[/URL], and other things.
Yes it did. The evidence says otherwise. Did you follow the link?
The "evidence" is that his poll numbers were lower after the Orlando attacks? Let me remind you that in that period a lot of other events happened, including the Mexican judge event I mentioned. His polls were sliding from the attacks he was receiving from both the Republican Party (as they were still at war with him) and the Democratic Party. I read the link you have provided. I saw that 25% agreed with his Orlando attacks attitude, and 51% disagreed. It doesn't say much to me though - one needs to see the big picture. In the big picture, I doubt the Orlando attacks were very harmful to him.
If I was the father I wouldn't have felt insulted. I would have clarified why my wife didn't say anything sure, but I wouldn't have made a big deal out of it. Trump didn't make a big deal out of it either, it was just one interview where he mentioned it. The speech of the Khans during the democratic convention DID however seriously harm Trump. It wasn't Trump's reaction, so much as the event itself.
Ok sure, but you certainly must realise that there's a lot more about a man than what you see on television. You could very well say he has a nasty character, or he is arrogant, etc. as you in fact did. But that's not to say that he's a parody. Those are not equivalent. He is clearly capable of getting serious things done - and complicated things that many others wouldn't be able to. He also has tremendous determination and energy - qualities that many others don't have. This doesn't sound like a parody to me. Not liking someone from a moral standpoint is different than refusing to recognise that they have some qualities.
"[...] there is more to be learned from each page of David Hume than from the collected philosophical works of Hegel, Herbart and Schleiermacher taken together." - Arthur Schopenhauer
The "evidence" is that his poll numbers were lower after the Orlando attacks? Let me remind you that in that period a lot of other events happened, including the Mexican judge event I mentioned. His polls were sliding from the attacks he was receiving from both the Republican Party (as they were still at war with him) and the Democratic Party. I read the link you have provided. I saw that 25% agreed with his Orlando attacks attitude, and 51% disagreed. It doesn't say much to me though - one needs to see the big picture. In the big picture, I doubt the Orlando attacks were very harmful to him.
Well, both probably contributed. Either way, given your acknowledgement, I take it that you no longer think that his rhetoric hasn't backfired. It obviously has.
Funny that after that, he went from boasting about how he was doing in the polls to decrying them as phony. Sore loser.
Ok sure, but you certainly must realise that there's a lot more about a man than what you see on television. You could very well say he has a nasty character, or he is arrogant, etc. as you in fact did. But that's not to say that he's a parody. Those are not equivalent. He is clearly capable of getting serious things done - and complicated things that many others wouldn't be able to. He also has tremendous determination and energy - qualities that many others don't have. This doesn't sound like a parody to me. Not liking someone from a moral standpoint is different than refusing to recognise that they have some qualities.
Yes, there's more to a person than what you see of them on television. But that doesn't discount my judgement. This is how he acts when he has an audience of millions. This is the message he is sending. It's very important.
His character contributes to his comedic status. I didn't suggest that they're equivalent. His boasting, name calling, and outrageous claims are farcical, and anyone who isn't blinded by how enamoured they are with him should be able to see that.
[URL=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/16/trump-miami-clinton-disarm-security-obama-birther?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=190773&subid=19571099&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2]Trump hints at Clinton's assassination again after retracting 'birther' theory[/URL]
At least he finally came out and acknowledged that Obama was born in the U.S., although he falsely claimed that Clinton started the 'birther' movement.
Interested to hear your apologetics on these ones, @Agustino.
Reply to Sapientia To be fair to him, I think he's trying to point out the hypocrisy in arguing in favour of gun control but wanting to be protected by guns.
Although, to be fair to her, he certainly is exaggerating the extent to which she wants to control gun ownership.
So, really, the title of the article just seems like typical media misrepresentation.
Trump hints at Clinton's assassination again after retracting 'birther' theory
Oh give me a break! Nowhere in there is there a hint about Clinton's assassination, that is just crazy from the media. I've listened to his speeches yesterday, no such thing. The comment is aimed to show that if Clinton wants gun control for the general population, she should accept it for herself and her security as well. As for Trump doing something less than adequate yes he actually did yesterday. Although he is right - Clinton was indeed involved with the birther rumors in 2008. She blames it on her supporters, and says she had nothing to do with it, but a politician should assume responsibility over what their campaign does or encourages. So it's a pity the media is covering her again. What Trump did wrong is that he didn't apologize for continually making a big deal out of the birther rumors and insisting for too long that Obama wasn't US born.
Trump has had no gaffes. It's all intentional and his supporters like his politically incorrect shooting from the hip style. The pundits have been ridiculing him since he announced his candidacy and have declared him deader than Banno many times.
Come to terms with the following two words: President Trump. The sooner you accept it, the better you'll deal with it.
That time when you peacefully watch a youtube philosophy presentation, and then look at the comments to discover that one of the TPF members is out there dishing punishment lol (@darthbarracuda) :D
I don't think the presidency is a done deal either way. I'd say President Clinton has odds slightly in her favor, but President Trump is a very real possibility.
Reply to Baden Representative democarcy is nothing but theatre ;).
But I don't know where you derive your certainty from either.
The last election I was active in the polls had our candidate winning from beginning to end. We lost. The pollsters, in spite of trying to be objective, were biased, and the opposition ran a better ground game.
That experience, coupled with the thought that Trump does indeed appeal to a darker side of the American electorate, makes me uncertain.
But I don't know where you derive your certainty from either
Clinton just had her worst week of the campaign and she's still up about 1.5 points on the RCP average, and has a 60% chance of winning according to fivethirtyeight.com. After Donald Trump's worst week, he was down 8+ points on RCP and at a less than 20% chance of winning. Plus, debates to come where he can't rely on a teleprompter to stop him saying more self-destructive stuff. As it stands now, the way the polls are oscillating, the average is a five point Clinton lead over the period since June. Barring any further Clinton disasters, like a massive leak of incriminating information, she'll win (by between 3 and 4 points, I'd predict).
Edward Albee -- most well known for the play "Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" -- died yesterday. His plays even in their textual format drew me in and hooked me.
To be fair to him, I think he's trying to point out the hypocrisy in arguing in favour of gun control but wanting to be protected by guns.
Although, to be fair to her, he certainly is exaggerating the extent to which she wants to control gun ownership.
That's not, in itself, hypocritical, and I doubt that it's hypocritical in her case. It would be hypocritical if she argued against gun [i]ownership[/I], without exception, but she hasn't done that. She's just argued in favour of tighter gun control. I doubt she has anything radical in mind, and it almost certainly allows for armed security of that kind, which, I suspect, is consistent with her position, and has been from the start.
Reply to darthbarracuda I disagree :) I am an Aristotelian when it comes to ethics, although I do disagree with a few of Feser's interpretations. For example, he admits, like me, that sex has two purposes, one biological (reproduction), and another spiritual (union - or as I call it, intimacy). I see no problems if the biological purpose is sacrificed in order to fulfil the spiritual one - as the spiritual is higher in the hierarchy of values. Furthermore, if X has two purposes, than satisfying either one is a fulfilment of X. Only actions which frustrate the fulfilment of both purposes are immoral. And so I necessarily agree with Feser that fornication, promiscuity, and adultery are immoral (they also frustrate some other important goods - family stability, etc.). I'm uncertain about homosexuality (as they may be able to fulfil the 'intimacy' part) and also uncertain about masturbation, although I lean quite heavily towards considering it immoral (though less immoral than the certain vices mentioned above - at least masturbation only harms one's own mind at most, but harms no one else). Masturbation is after all, for most people, still aimed towards another - only that the other is not present. For example would it be immoral for a husband who is away from his wife to masturbate thinking about her? I think it still aims at the fulfilment of the intimacy purpose, albeit the fulfilment is quite limited and inadequate - but given his circumstances nothing better is possible. But for a husband who is with his wife to masturbate - that I think is definitely immoral as it does frustrate both purposes, most definitely. And for someone to masturbate without the intention of ever getting married - that I also think is most certainly immoral. That's why overall I think he is right about masturbation too. So my conflicts with it are relatively minor. Oh, and pornography - that is definitely immoral, because it caters to a market which encourages people towards immoral behaviour - and thus its harm extends not only to the self, but to others as well.
As for it defending bigotry - I don't think so. Some things are just not moral - and the people who engage in them are immoral. Sure, some have attenuating circumstances - but that doesn't change that their actions are immoral. And of course them being immoral in no way justifies you being immoral towards them, mistreating them, isolating them, etc.
Reply to Agustino The problem with this view of ethics in my opinion is that it fundamentally misconstrues what ethics is all about: people. The welfare of people. People matter. Penises don't.
The problem with this view of ethics in my opinion is that it fundamentally misconstrues what ethics is all about: people. The welfare of people. People matter. Penises don't.
Well I think most people's penises are part of them, and in-so-far as this is true, they certainly do matter. If you want to go so-far as to think that penises are irrelevant to "the welfare of the people" that's up to you.
TheWillowOfDarknessSeptember 18, 2016 at 22:02#219570 likes
People's actions with their penises are most certainly relevant. The issue with "natural law" is it mistake things for ethics. For a penis just to exist means nothing. It's always a question of the ethics of using them. A question of how a penis ought to be, not merely that one is present.
ArguingWAristotleTiffSeptember 18, 2016 at 22:11#219590 likes
OMG People! The world is on fire and you guys are talking about the existence of penises???
People's actions with their penises are most certainly relevant. The issue with "natural law" is it mistake things for ethics. For a penis just to exist means nothing. It's always a question of the ethics of using them. A question of how a penis ought to be, not merely that one is present.
I think natural law does erect a response to this quandary of yours... namely a penis should be used such that it fulfils its telos.
Our reaction to any incident is being watched and studied. Is it possible to reign in what the news covers?
No doubt it is. But...
It isn't so much what the news media cover as how. Explosions in the wrong place are inherently worthy of coverage. We all need to know what is happening, whether the explosion was caused by a gas leak or a bomb. If a plane carrying 200 people disappears, when planes almost never get lost, disappear, or crash, that's worthy of coverage.
What is wrong with the coverage is the loving embrace of the spectacle, the obscene attention of the camera, the endless looped repeat of the juiciest footage, the way the presenters speak, the speculation--all that stuff. The style approaches indecency, and it's nothing new. For decades, TV cameras and moron "reporters" from local stations have been showing up on people's doorsteps to ask how the nearest relation feels about their husband/wife/child being burned to death in the tragic fire.
Each event tends to be presented as an out-of-context "this sort of thing has never happened before". I came across the report of an event in the 1920s, where a resident of a town (in Ohio, as I recollect) blew up a school because his taxes were too high, he thought, and he felt the school was costing the town too much. One night he loaded the school basement with dynamite and then set it off once school was in session the next morning. 30+ children were killed, more injured. Over a hundred would have been killed had all the dynamite gone off.
There were school shootings long before Columbine -- just not well covered. There have been violent attacks on the public for a long time, quite apart from war. Large buildings were blown up in the 20th century -- not as big as the World Trade Center and not by planes, but big for the time and none-the-less totally wrecked. Various grievances, rational and not, motivates these kinds of events.
Bad things happen. There is always a background drip of people going haywire and deciding to wipe out a few people on their way out. There have long been unpopular causes seen worth dying for. That nothing is new under the sun doesn't excuse terrorism or demented acts, but it helps put things in context. Context is boring and makes for dull TV.
No matter who wins, a white presidential penis will be in the White House--and one of them already knows its way around the place,
Indeed either way we'll have quite an event. Either it's the first time a former President returns as a spouse, or it is the first time a white billionaire will move into a public home vacated by a black family... The latter seems more interesting - perhaps he'll run a TV show from there about the experience!
Oh give me a break! Nowhere in there is there a hint about Clinton's assassination, that is just crazy from the media. I've listened to his speeches yesterday, no such thing. The comment is aimed to show that if Clinton wants gun control for the general population, she should accept it for herself and her security as well. As for Trump doing something less than adequate yes he actually did yesterday. Although he is right - Clinton was indeed involved with the birther rumors in 2008. She blames it on her supporters, and says she had nothing to do with it, but a politician should assume responsibility over what their campaign does or encourages. So it's a pity the media is covering her again. What Trump did wrong is that he didn't apologize for continually making a big deal out of the birther rumors and insisting for too long that Obama wasn't US born.
Could easily be interpreted that way. So much for his rhetorical skill. Seems clumsy and ill-considered.
This is not a false statement. Clinton's supporters did get involved and peddle it. She should at least assume responsability for it.
Yes it is. He said that she started it. She didn't. She is not her supporters, and neither is Trump his supporters. I bet you wouldn't hesitate to make the distinction in the latter case. Has Trump assumed responsibility for all the idiotic things that his supporters have said and done? I bet not.
For a penis just to exist means nothing. It's always a question of the ethics of using them. A question of how a penis ought to be, not merely that one is present.
Terrapin StationSeptember 19, 2016 at 13:45#221400 likes
Reply to Sapientia It would probably do everyone better if you tried to explain it, not to mention that that would much more easily take us to philosophical territory. But maybe there's no explanation. I don't know.
Reply to Sir2uReply to Michael
Gentlemen, gentlemen, quarrel not. On the intricacies of my witticism shall I now expound, and in the process regretfully admit that sharp though my arrow was, it did veer somewhat from its target. The reference to "spunk" was indeed a play on the double entendre of "vitality" and "semen" to which Sir2U was no doubt alluding, and which, though it relies on the recognition of a peculiarly British vulgarity, I hope did not evade the more educated of our international readers (even as it seemed to have evaded Michael who I now suspect of being of a rather different national origin than I have heretofore been led to believe). However, as penises generally - except immediately prior to the moment of ejaculation - do not actually contain "spunk" - in anything but very trace amounts- but rather are the mere conduit of said bodily fluid under very transient circumstances, which I feel safe to assume none of us are unaware, the weight of the metaphor was rather misplaced, and so, instead of substituting the word "Philosophy" for "Joy", it would have been more befitting to instead replace the word "Penis" with "Testicle", which being the proper receptacle of such liquid would function to reharmonise the full sense of the quip as employed. Thus amended, said jollity would read:
"I preferred his earlier work, The Philosophy of Testicle. Had a bit more spunk."
And thus would justice have been done both to the biological realities of semen storage and to the gods of humour that deign to bless us with their gifts.
though it relies on the recognition of a peculiarly British vulgarity, I hope did not evade the more educated of our international readers (even as it seemed to have evaded Michael who I now suspect of being of a rather different national origin than I have heretofore been led to believe).
Oh, I am indeed British, and I did indeed understand the real reference. I just thought it funny to turn it around. ;)
Reply to Michael And I did indeed understand your understanding, but I just thought it funny to turn around your turn around. (In the style of Henry James...maybe). ;)
It would probably do everyone better if you tried to explain it, not to mention that that would much more easily take us to philosophical territory. But maybe there's no explanation. I don't know.
1. There is an explanation.
2. Everyone doesn't need it to be explained to them.
3. Most people don't need it to be explained to them.
4. You possibly don't need it to be explained to you.
5. I have nevertheless provided a brief explanation.
6. This is the Shoutbox.
Also, I think the picture makes my point quite well.
In todays news, Drumpf Jr. repeated a [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/19/donald-trump-jr-inadvertantly-encourages-america-to-scoop-up-refugees-by-the-handful/?=jsdl;kdl;asd%27]false analogy[/URL], which has been liked by over 15,000 morons.
Obama explains to the UN what we should be doing to avoid global conflict bred of despair. Most of the projects he recommends would require the existence of a global government.
That obviously isn't possible right now. But who knows what's around the corner?
I was pondering exploitation via capital flows to "emerging" markets.... but yea... Skittles. There's a disease you can get from eating nothing but apples called the skitters. People in the Great Depression would get it if they were working in apple harvesting and couldn't afford food.
In Australia, spunk is 70s and 80s slang for a 'hot' person (to use the 201* slang term) - as in 'Cor, ain't she a spunk!'. Associated with the adjective 'spunky'.
Pierre-NormandSeptember 21, 2016 at 19:01#226100 likes
It looks like the old PhilosophyForums finally went paws up. It's not possible to view threads anymore. I had saved all my posts in one single text file a couple weeks ago. I wonder if anyone else saved more complete archives or, at least, their own posts. Only the homepage and shoutbox still work.
Pierre-NormandSeptember 21, 2016 at 19:14#226120 likes
Donald Trump is talking in Toledo, OH, right now. I just caught a couple minutes. He said that he will make America great again. He proposed a detailed three points plan. (1) He will appoint judges to the supreme court who will save the second amendment. (2) He will rebuild the totality of America's crumbling infrastructure, including all the schools and hospitals (and make North Korea pay for it ?), and (3) he will repeal all the "bad policies" enacted by politicians, at home and abroad, over the last four or five decades and replace them with "good policies". The crowd went completely nuts.
Reply to Pierre-Normand Politics is never meant to be philosophy though - it's meant to be rhetorics - persuasion of something. The thing people are persuaded of doesn't necessarily have to be an intelligent thing, or even a good thing, for someone to be a skilled politician. So it doesn't surprise me.
Pierre-NormandSeptember 21, 2016 at 20:24#226320 likes
Politics is never meant to be philosophy though - it's meant to be rhetorics - persuasion of something. The thing people are persuaded of doesn't necessarily have to be an intelligent thing, or even a good thing, for someone to be a skilled politician. So it doesn't surprise me.
Yes, I agree that there is such a categorical difference between philosophical and political discourse and this can be accounted for as a difference in function. But Trump is sometimes portrayed as not being a typical politician; rather being an outsider of the political class who tells it like it is. However, he seems to have rather increased the chasm between politically motivated rhetorics and rational discourse a thousandfold. Far from being an outsider, he is a grotesque caricature of a power hungry politician. I am not surprised at seeing him acting like this either; but I am surprised and saddened at seeing how successful he is.
Reply to Terrapin Station To be frank, if you still profess not to understand, then that is not my problem, and I can think of better ways to spend my time than to attempt to explain in detail to you what is obvious to everyone else without having to go to such lengths, and should be likewise for you too. Perhaps you have some sort of mental handicap or are an alien species akin to the fictional Vulcan, but I find that hard to believe. And now, based on your last reply, you apparently can't even keep track of our relatively brief conversation, given this:
You have to remember that not everyone thinks the same thing you do.
Of course not, but I lack the inclination to waste too much time on people who profess not to grasp such simple things. I doubt anyone else who saw it missed the point. If so, do speak up. It is an incredibly familiar and recognisable cultural symbol. Its meaning should be clear to anyone that hasn't been living under a rock or who isn't a simpleton. Do I really need to spell it out?
I think I might refrain from replying to you on this henceforward, because it feels a bit like I'm being trolled.
but I am surprised and saddened at seeing how successful he is.
Stop feeling bad about being trumped. All politicians make promises they will not be able to fulfill. Most politicians are, or will be soon enough, servants of the ruling class (even Obama). Trump is merely franker about displaying his ruling class belligerence than most candidates are. No president is in a position to save or destroy the Second -- or any other Amendment - because 2/3s of the House and Senate must agree, along with 2/3s of the state legislatures. It's a very high barrier to get over. The Supreme Court can not rule the Second Amendment unconstitutional because it is... the constitution.
Trump's rhetoric is what you get whenever politicians speak to the hostilities of the people in the vernacular tongue. Most politicians prefer to take the high road in lying to the people, and it is only the professional standards for misrepresentation and untruth that keeps them from taking the low road of getting down and dirty. George Wallace and David Duke also took the low road.
Is there something wrong with the fact that The People have embarrassing and politically incorrect hostilities? Not really. There's nothing in the Constitution that says people have to prefer diversity-oriented policies, observe politically correct and sensitive speech codes, vote liberal, welcome the stranger, and so on and so forth. If Trump wants to locate and expel every illegal immigrant, he should probably observe due process, but there is nothing in the constitution that says he can't at least try and clear the US of undocumented aliens.
Most presidents have taken the high road on illegal immigration. Obama spoke softly and he used a reasonably big stick to deport more illegals than previous presidents. (Or so the advocates for undocumented aliens say.) It could be said that if illegal aliens should feel humped and trumped, they have nobody but themselves to blame.
Hilary is also a ruling class candidate. She and Bill have become fairly wealthy since leaving the White House, and anyone who intends to win the presidency has to at least not repel the Ruling class. She doesn't repel, and has been showered with good sized chunks of cash. Jill Stein (Green Party) is not a ruling class candidate. She won't get elected.
Its meaning should be clear to anyone that hasn't been living under a rock or who isn't a simpleton.
Meaning is subjective, by the way.
At any rate, the issue isn't whether the commercial was referencing 9-11. We agree that it was. The issue is why it should be offensive that they were referencing 9-11.
I'm not - I said from the very beginning he would win. He at least is skilled as a politician - he knows how to convince people. The others aren't. They're just politically correct, but they are weak characters. Really, in the Western world we haven't had strong leaders for a long time - since Churchill almost! I personally think Trump will be a good change - if anything, at least he will destroy political correctness (a good thing) and he will take a few shots at the progressives/liberals, which is also good, as the progressive/liberal dominance over the Western world is becoming quite insufferable - to the point it's almost an unquestioned dogma.
Furthermore the qualities of the person are very important in rhetorics. It's not about what is said. It's about the way it's said. Trump is clearly a person of boundless energy and determination - someone his age typically can't even be bothered to get out of bed, much less travel the whole country, day after day, speak to hundreds of people, etc. Even someone half his age probably doesn't have such energy! Just look at Clinton - she's so slow - so slow in everything she does. You can't lead from bed. So whatever he does to have such energy - it's amazing, and many are inspired even to see such a person, that's why they go vote for him. It's probably what years upon years of Norman Vincent Peale does to you >:O
What, like, that the image of Spock could evoke in you the meaning of someone who has high emotional intelligence, or it could evoke in someone else the meaning of a frying pan? Sure, whatever.
Still, the relevant meaning will nevertheless be clearly grasped by most.
Pierre-NormandSeptember 21, 2016 at 22:44#226530 likes
Is there something wrong with the fact that The People have embarrassing and politically incorrect hostilities? Not really. There's nothing in the Constitution that says people have to prefer diversity-oriented policies, observe politically correct and sensitive speech codes, vote liberal, welcome the stranger, and so on and so forth.
I am not an American and I don't hold the Constitution of be a sacred text. It doesn't define right and wrong, anyway. That some opinion, or some policy, accords with the Constitution doesn't make it right. One can be saddened by the fact of Trump's popularity even if the process through which he is being propped up is constitutional. It so happens that fewer conservatives than liberals are willing to denounce him but that seems to be because they don't see themselves to have a palatable alternative right now, and so they blind themselves to his egregious faults. Many conservatives nevertheless find enough courage in them to repudiate Trump in unequivocal terms, and that's not merely because they want to uphold politically correct speech. They seem to genuinely find him to be lacking in point of integrity, competence and morality, to a degree that finds no equivalency in Obama or Hillary.
It so happens that fewer conservatives than liberals are willing to denounce him but that seems to be because they don't see themselves to have a palatable alternative right now, and so they blind themselves to his egregious faults. Many conservatives nevertheless find enough courage in them to repudiate Trump in unequivocal terms, and that's not merely because they want to uphold politically correct speech. They seem to genuinely find him to be lacking in point of integrity, competence and morality, to a degree that finds no equivalency in Obama or Hillary.
I do too - but at this point combatting progressives/liberals is much more important than electing a conservative candidate. If he does the dirty work, conservatives can take on after.
Terrapin StationSeptember 21, 2016 at 22:48#226570 likes
Reply to Terrapin Station I have to say - honestly - despite my hatred of political correctness, and my many disagreements with Sapientia - that he does have a point... but don't tell him >:O
The issue is why it should be offensive that they were referencing 9-11.
No, the issue is actually your confusion between the issue of what is the case, what should be the case, and what we can do about it. Last time, you asked why [i]would[/I] referencing 9-11 as that commercial does be offensive to anyone, which is a different question with an obvious answer if you know the least bit about human nature.
It is going to cause offence regardless, so I don't see much point in discussing whether it should or shouldn't cause offence.
Terrapin StationSeptember 21, 2016 at 22:59#226630 likes
I'm not using would/should in some technical way here. I'm saying the same thing if we substitute them for each other re why would/why should it. And re "the issue is," I'm talking about what I was bringing up. Not what anyone else might understand the issue to be.
For example this. This is textbook domination of an opponent in rhetorics - regardless of the content. Look how he is (1) not afraid to be who he is (or unpopular), (2) turns his opponent's advantages into disadvantages (by criticizing the audience formed of special interests/donors), (3) radiates confidence and certainty, (4) turns his disadvantages into successes. Regardless of what else we think about Trump - he certainly has the qualities of a leader. Obama, Bush, Merckel, Cameron, etc. none of them even approach him in this matter. He will wipe the floor with Clinton in the upcoming debates.
I'm not using would/should in some technical way here. I'm saying the same thing if we substitute them for each other re why would/why should it.
But they don't mean the same thing, so which one do you mean?
Nevermind, I'll address both questions fairly succinctly:
Why would it cause offence? Because we are human, and humans are emotionally sensitive, and it's a sensitive subject, and it was crudely trivialised in that advert, and that would probably cause some offence. It would be ridiculous to, like Spock, be all like "Why are you upset? You shouldn't be. That is highly illogical.". Spock has the excuse of being a fictional character who is not human, and has difficulty in understanding human reactions. What's your excuse?
Why should it cause offence? The question is redundant and makes little sense. Why should the Earth spin?
Terrapin StationSeptember 21, 2016 at 23:18#226670 likes
Yeah, you're the first person I've ever run into to respond that way.
And if you believe that, boy do I have a bridge to sell to you.
You're probably not the first person I've run into to refuse to clarify a problematic ambiguity and yet nevertheless expect me to guess your meaning. Which was the point of my reply, in case you missed it.
This would be a better analogy to illustrate how daft you're being:
Do turn off the light.
[I]Turns off the light[/I].
Why did you turn off the light?
[I]You told me to[/I].
I use "do" and "don't" interchangeably to mean the same thing. Now, do turn of the light.
Why would feeling that something is "crudely trivialized" in a commercial make someone upset, though?
I'm guessing you mean what you ask here, and not something else. I'm guessing you mean would as in would, and not would as in should, or would as in frying pan - all of which are possible.
I'm going to reply to your question with another question: why would you not already know? Why wouldn't you know something very basic about human nature which the rest of us know? Namely that we are all prone to involuntary emotional reactions triggered by various things, such as that video: some relatable, others not so relatable.
I think that you do already know that, which would mean that you could have answered your own question; but I think that you're confused, possibly by mixing up how people naturally react with how you think they should react. (Or you're just trolling). But that is a fallacy similar to the informal fallacy of appealing to the consequences, since you seem to expect reality to conform to the outcomes you find desirable or ideal, even if that is evidently not the case, nor even possible, realistically. There are people that do and will be offended by that sort of thing, regardless of whether you think they should or should not, and regardless of whether you can relate to it or can think of a rational explanation - and there is nothing that can realistically be done about that. So your reasoning is not only fallacious, but impractical.
Rather than feigning ignorance, why not just be clear about it and say what you really mean? It's not that you don't know why people do or would react that way, it's just that you think they should react differently or not at all - which is a rather thoughtless, pie in the sky way to think about it if applied indiscriminately.
None of this is to suggest that I'm arguing against stoicism; just this unsophisticated, stereotype, parody, nonsensical version of it.
Reply to Agustino Oh yeah, the Libertarian candidate who didn't know what or where Aleppo was...
He isn't a ruling class candidate either. No doubt (literally) some conservatives are on board with hard core libertarian thinking. Libertarians articulate some of what conservatives want. Where conservatives might not be so enthusiastic about libertarianism is reducing the government's capacity to manage the marketplace. As Marx put it, (I've quoted this before) "The government is a committee for organizing the affairs of the ruling class." The ruling class is so involved in lobbying and manipulating regulation because it benefits them. Without a strong and meddlesome central government, businesses would have to square off and settle who is the most competent the old fashioned way--vicious competition.
"For example this. This is textbook domination of an opponent in rhetorics - regardless of the content. Look how he is (1) not afraid to be who he is (or unpopular), (2) turns his opponent's advantages into disadvantages (by criticizing the audience formed of special interests/donors), (3) radiates confidence and certainty, (4) turns his disadvantages into successes. Regardless of what else we think about Trump - he certainly has the qualities of a leader. Obama, Bush, Merckel, Cameron, etc. none of them even approach him in this matter. He will wipe the floor with Clinton in the upcoming debates." Reply to Agustino
Hmmm I guess there are different leadership styles that appeal to different sorts of people. I found this clip of him to be rude and condescending and completely lacking in empathy. Are those traits of great leaders? It's at least debatable. Now I wouldn't question his charisma or confidence or even command over business/economic issues (I lack the knowledge to judge properly), but there are other aspects of leadership that, to me at least, he does not seem to embody. He's prone to exaggeration, to simplification, and just a general inability to inspire others with a vision of the future that - excepting his base of angry white folk - can cause them to reflect and possibly rally behind. He also seems to fit the caricature of the shameless salesman who will say or do anything to 'close the deal'; it's like he's played the game for so long that he's lost the ability to even see through his own BS.
I have more specific problems with him though: he's exploited racial and religious antagonisms while being oblivious to the deeper (perhaps more cultural/philosophical) issue of what this country stands for and where it's heading. There's no going back to some imagined past, and as it stands right now we're immersed in an obsessively consumerist culture in which every aspect of life is subordinated to economic interests. This fixation betrays IMO a narrow and constricted vision which is unbecoming of the far-sighted one characteristic of genuine leadership. It may not be realistic at the moment, but we're going to need a strong leader to use his/her credibility and rhetorical skills in the service of subordinating those economic interests to the higher (non-market) values of the community which they should serve.
Trump just doesn't strike me as the type of guy who can shift peoples' perspectives to some larger and more inspiring long-term goals. What he's good at is pandering to their short-term economic interests and personal biases by scapegoating. So while he definitely knows how to sell himself through his passionate and (probably feigned) sincere delivery, he doesn't direct the energies of his supporters in ways that are going to benefit this country generations ahead. Again, I think a shift in our values and ideals is what we need more than reactionary nostalgia, and very quickly, if we're going to maintain a global leadership position and prevent the physical, moral and spiritual destruction of the inhabitants of this planet.
Just my opinion of course, taken with a grain of salt since I'm sitting here typing away at my computer while he's on the verge of winning a presidential election. I don't necessarily think there's a strong correlation between the ability to win elections and gather widespread support with (good) leadership though; examples abound of charismatic leaders who came to power and did not serve the long-term interests of their countries. It takes more than personal charm and the ability to speak in a convincing fashion -- it takes broad vision and, once again, the ability to align the individual's interest with that of the collective. Not to sound redundant, but I don't see a visionary at all in Trump, or even a pragmatic reconciler of conflicting interests in the service of some greater good. More like a narcissist in the mold of Charlie Kane.
Reply to Erik Oh but I agree. But being an effective leader has little to do with being a good leader. One could be an evil leader and still be highly skilled in rhetorics and persuasion - just look at Hitler for example. The other thing is that an effective leader simply has to be divisive to a certain extent - he can't please everyone. If a leader has no enemies it simply means he has no convictions that he's willing to fight for. Our politicians have tended to be like that, simply because liberalism and progressivism has made them puppets of their economic masters. Now they no longer have convictions - indeed it is "bad" for a politician to have convictions. Rather they need to listen to the people - which is codename for fulfilling economic interests. In-so-far as Trump is going to break away from this - this is good. That's why so much of the big money - hedge fund interests, oil money, etc. is heavily favouring Clinton.
Also capital is interested in finding a way to get people satisfied with being slaves in different corporations - hence the focus on literarily useless worker social events, etc. All that these promote is superficial and forced relationships between people, which are based on pure selfishness - not to mention how highly destructive these are to real sources of community. If we analyse the life of the regular, unthinking middle to lower class person we will see that all their aspirations, all their dreams - are purely and wholly conditioned by the ideology of liberalism. They may express a dislike for money, they may express a desire for traveling the world, experiencing different cultures, going to exotic places, holding a good and prestigious job with a large company (the larger the better) having easy access to socialization (which is codename for sex, drugs, drinking and fun). Really this is nothing other than what capitalism needs to fuel its own growth. Liberalism and progressivism is nothing but the fulfilment of the biggest desires of big money - making people satisfied in being slaves - and giving them the necessary drugs to accept their condition. Their so called freedom is nothing but the pill they're given to hold their chains. So progressivism/liberalism has become the middle class philosophy, while neo-conservatism (Newt Gingrich, George Bush (both of them), McCain, Romney etc.) is the upper class equivalent - but they both serve the same end. The more liberal and progressive we become, the happier people will be with their chains - the more they will willingly ask for them. So I'm not interested in such things - I like someone who is threatening to destroy all this, even with his recklessness, like Trump. I think such a someone is ideal in this situation. Someone like Sanders or Clinton would merely be the fulfilment of the above - not its end. That's why both Republican and Democrat parties are really against Trump. Why do you think the Bushes are voting Clinton?
Well I'm in perfect agreement with you on almost everything it seems. My next question is: which party or person represents this position we share? Or is this something that will have to begin in a more organic, grassroots fashion? And how to realistically work to translate these values into viable political action somewhere down the line (admittedly waaaaay down the line)? Another fear is being co-opted by those same financial powers that need to be checked. It does take money to spread the message and ultimately reach the 'hearts and minds' of the masses. It's something that would make for a worthy life, though, and small battles could be waged in a variety of areas (education, healthcare, culture, etc.) that could ultimately, at the very least, represent a genuinely new voice in the ongoing political and economic discourse. Just brainstorming here...
With the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the financial crisis of 2008, the continuation of global terrorism through ISIS and other radical Islamic groups, the continued erosion of family and community bonds, growing racial hostilities in the US, etc. etc. etc. the time seems ripe for some sort of collective existential crisis. That (hypothetical) event could conceivably precipitate widespread reflection on the 'big' questions about meaning and values that may frame a new narrative for future generations. Seriously, what more will need to happen in order for people to wake up from the alienating and destructive tendencies of this current world/economic system?
Or is this something that will have to begin in a more organic, grassroots fashion?
Well I think the most important is for people to organise themselves in communities which share those values. Thus their group of friends, the people they spend their free time with, etc. are people who hold those values. Then these communities need to seek to grow - which can be achieved by (1) developing the intellectual material necessary (because let's be fair, there are not many intellectual resources describing this position out there - this is something I have started to do), (2) organising events (lectures and such) to spread the message, (3) organising its own capacity to generate money, (4) finding allies in the marginalia of society, and bringing them together - uniting all the opposition. Who is the marginalia? All those rejected by the dominant culture, such as religious people. I think the future is in this periphery vs centre conflict.
Another fear is being co-opted by those same financial powers that need to be checked
Indeed. However, I think the desire for making money isn't necessarily evil. Money is as you note necessary. But it all depends what goals one has for making money. Most people want to make money so they can buy a big house and go on the beach, buy themselves yachts, and other such liberal dreams. On the other hand, one can desire to make money in order to finance social change, which I think is a very good reason for seeking to make money, provided one doesn't cause harm in doing it.
Seriously, what more will need to happen in order for people to wake up from the alienating and destructive tendencies of this current world/economic system?
They are becoming comfortable with the alienation. That's why the progressive governments are there - to make them comfortable. Now their families are breaking up - but they say that's normal - that's how life sometimes can be. So they're told they haven't found the right person, better that they broke up. There's an entire industry of psychologists and psychiatrists catering to making people feel comfortable with the destructiveness of global capitalism. Marx was right in his analysis - capitalism has mobilised even the so called forces which are against it for its own purposes. You can go to your shrink and cry about the alienation of society - he will smile, comfort you, say that life can be tough - sooner or later he will placate you, as he has placated many others. He will encourage you towards the same "normal" desires that everyone else has - the liberal and progressive ideals, which of course will never be fulfilled, but it will take some time to realise this.
What is needed is political agitation - it is primarily combatting the mechanisms global capitalism has put in place in order to cover its own destructiveness and make it seem necessary. People are starting to think this destructiveness is normal. They don't know about any other kind of life. Combatting the mechanisms that global capitalism uses to mask itself - unmasking it - that is the requirement - which is why I seek to be so anti-liberal/progressive.
But as you note, we're not on the way to change - we're quite the contrary, we're on the way to being drugged and forced to accept reality. Hence all the popularity of New Age, Buddhism, etc. Let go... Nothing is permanent. Everything is changing, etc. These are nothing but mantras to placate and hide capitalism's destructiveness - to make it normal, to give it legitimacy and right to exist. Capitalism and liberalism/progressivism - one is the guy coming in the middle of the night and breaking your windows, the other is the one coming in daylight to fix them! The task is to show them to be one and the same.
Terrapin StationSeptember 22, 2016 at 14:20#227760 likes
I'm going to reply to your question with another question: why would you not already know? Why wouldn't you know something very basic about human nature which the rest of us know? Namely that we are all prone to involuntary emotional reactions triggered by various things, such as that video: some relatable, others not so relatable.
It's not that I don't know that some people are acting emotionally to referencing 9-11 in a "crudely trivializing" way in commercial or that they're offended, etc. So reiterating that that's what they doing doesn't explain why they're reacting that way. It makes zero sense to me that some people (certainly not all of them) react that way. It just seems completely arbitrary--which is what I noted earlier.
Your responses are basically amounting to answering "why" people are offended at such things as "they just are," though you're not quite to the point of literally saying "they just are," you're rather rewording "people are offended by this."
It's not that I don't know that some people are acting emotionally to referencing 9-11 in a "crudely trivializing" way in commercial or that they're offended, etc. So reiterating that that's what they doing doesn't explain why they're reacting that way. It makes zero sense to me that some people (certainly not all of them) react that way. It just seems completely arbitrary--which is what I noted earlier.
Your responses are basically amounting to answering "why" people are offended at such things as "they just are," though you're not quite to the point of literally saying "they just are," you're rather rewording "people are offended by this."
Well, it's not random or unpredictable, nor is it by choice or whim, so in that sense it isn't arbitrary. In this case, it is largely involuntary, and very predicable. There are clear connections that can quite easily be discovered. But it would be naive to expect it to 'make sense' in the sense of expecting there to be a process of reasoning which can stand up to scrutiny. We're talking about an emotional reaction here. It is understandable, because we've all been in that sort of situation before - and yes, that includes you, in spite of your denial. But understandable isn't the same as reasonable. It does make sense that people react that way, in that it is part of our nature, and there is a psychological and scientific explanation for why we react that way. You're just applying the wrong tool or method in your search for an answer, and then expressing dumbfoundedness at not finding anything to your satisfaction.
Terrapin StationSeptember 22, 2016 at 18:44#228080 likes
Well, it's not random or unpredictable, nor is it by choice or whim, so in that sense it isn't arbitrary.
I said that it seems arbitrary, and of course, that's to me. Something seeming arbitrary to me isn't about whether there's a "process of reasoning that can stand up to scrutiny" behind it.
How about trying to be more arrogant in your future responses? That's really helping.
I said that it seems arbitrary, and of course, that's to me. Something seeming arbitrary to me isn't about whether there's a "process of reasoning that can stand up to scrutiny" behind it. How about trying to be more arrogant in your future responses? That's really helping.
I know what you said. So it [I]seems[/I] arbitrary [i]to you, personally[/I]. Good for you. But things aren't always what they seem. And I'm arguing that it isn't arbitrary according to one common understanding of what that word means. I'm not going to qualify [i]everything[/I] I say in subjective terms, and I don't care whether or not you think that makes me arrogant.
You have misrepresented my position by taking that quote out of context. I was not referring to your comment about arbitrariness, but rather to your comment that it doesn't make sense. My response is basically, well, what did you expect?
Terrapin StationSeptember 22, 2016 at 18:58#228100 likes
What I'd expect is that if an offended response to something like that makes sense to you, you try to explain it to someone for whom it doesn't make sense, rather than getting pissy about the idea that it doesn't make sense to the person it doesn't make sense to.
Re getting pissy about not understanding it (as well as a couple other things--the stuff that's coming across as arrogant), It seems like maybe you're uncomfortable with the idea of difference, so you refuse to admit that it's possible.
What I'd expect is that if an offended response to something like that makes sense to you, you try to explain it to someone for whom it doesn't make sense, rather than getting pissy about the idea that it doesn't make sense to the person it doesn't make sense to.
It seems to me like you're the one getting pissy.
I have tried to explain it to you, although I didn't think it would be necessary to provide an in depth explanation of human nature or psychology, or why it would be a category error to seek reason in raw emotional reaction. What more do you want? The term "make sense" is ambiguous. If you don't mean "to find a process of reasoning that can stand up to scrutiny" then what do you mean? Or do you expect me to keep guessing? How exactly am I supposed to explain why it doesn't make sense to you? You tell me.
You say it seems arbitrary to you, but it doesn't seem arbitrary to me, and, more than that, I don't think it [I]is[/I] arbitrary, as I defined that term.
Terrapin StationSeptember 22, 2016 at 19:12#228120 likes
he term "make sense" is ambiguous. If you don't mean "to find a process of reasoning that can stand up to scrutiny" then what do you mean?
I mean "so that it doesn't seem like a completely random reaction." Knowing that it's an emotional reaction some people have doesn't help it not seem completely random to me. I can't at all experientially understand why they'd have that sort of emotional reaction to the content in question. Maybe someone who actually has the reaction in question can't help explain it.
And I mean literally random. Like we might as well have a random number generator correlated with possible responses, and we "spin" it to get the reaction in question.
I mean "so that it doesn't seem like a completely random reaction." Knowing that it's an emotional reaction some people have doesn't help it not seem completely random to me. I can't at all experientially understand why they'd have that sort of emotional reaction to the content in question.
And I mean literally random. Like we might as well have a random number generator correlated with possible responses, and we "spin" it to get the reaction in question.
Well, I think that that's patently absurd, but I'm going to watch a film and eat pizza, rather than explain the clear connections to which you are apparently oblivious.
Was that arrogant of me? Oh well, you claim not to be offended by comments, so it should be water off a ducks back for you, right?
Terrapin StationSeptember 22, 2016 at 19:32#228150 likes
Well, I think that that's patently absurd, but I'm going to watch a film and eat pizza, rather than explain the clear connections to which you are apparently oblivious.
Right. Again, it seems as if you're not comfortable accepting difference. Interestingly, you're not quite explicitly denying that difference is possible here and insisting that your experience and understanding are universal, but you're brushing it aside nonetheless.
Yeah, I'm definitely not offended by your comments. Have fun re the film and pizza. I'm sure this topic will come up again and we can talk about it more then. ;-)
unenlightenedSeptember 23, 2016 at 14:10#229960 likes
Not wanting to disrupt the reading group, but here is an old-fashioned analysis of the highly ambiguous word "meaning". Probably don't bother to read the whole book, but this handy crib-sheet might be useful in various disambiguations. Every philosophy forum should have this posted somewhere as an awful warning to avoid the word at almost all costs.
[quote=C.K.Ogden&I.A.Richards]
The Meaning of Meaning (1936) p. 186
The following is a representative list of the main
definitions which reputable students of Meaning have
favoured. Meaning is—
A. I An Intrinsic property.
II A unique unanalysable Relation to other things.
B. All The other words annexed to a word in the
Dictionary.
IV The Connotation of a word.
V An Essence.
VI An activity Projected into an object.
VII (a) An event Intended.
(b) A Volition.
VIII The Place of anything in a system.
IX The Practical Consequences of a thing in our
future experience.
X The Theoretical consequences involved in or
implied by a statement.
XI Emotion aroused by anything.
C. XII That which is Actually related to a sign by
a chosen relation.
XIII (a) The Mnemic effects of a stimulus. Associations acquired.
(b) Some other occurrence to which the
mnemic effects of any occurrence are
Appropriate.
(? That which a sign is Interpreted as
being of,
(d) What anything Suggests.
In the case of Symbols.
That to which the User of a Symbol actually refers.
XIV That to which the user of a symbol Ought
to be referring.
XV That to which the user of a symbol Believes
himself to be referring.
XVI That to which the Interpreter of-a symbol
(a) Refers.
(b) Believes himself to be referring.
(c) Believes the User to be referring. [/quote]
The fish is a symbol of fertility to some Jews. At some Jewish weddings the bride steps over a tray of fish. So Jesus causes fish to magically multiply at a wedding. Am I the only person who didn't get the significance of that?
He isn't a ruling class candidate either. No doubt (literally) some conservatives are on board with hard core libertarian thinking. Libertarians articulate some of what conservatives want. Where conservatives might not be so enthusiastic about libertarianism is reducing the government's capacity to manage the marketplace. As Marx put it, (I've quoted this before) "The government is a committee for organizing the affairs of the ruling class." The ruling class is so involved in lobbying and manipulating regulation because it benefits them. Without a strong and meddlesome central government, businesses would have to square off and settle who is the most competent the old fashioned way--vicious competition.
How did I not see this reply... my apologies, anyways.
It's strange you say so. Conservatives generally are for quite limited government, and conservative economics can actually be either left or right wing - it depends on the particular conservative. G.K. Chesterton for example favored a system of distributism, involving lots of small-sized producers, and therefore giving financial independence to very many people. I do too actually. Such conservatives would be against multi-national corporations, which are effectively owned by pirates - because no one "owns" them - they just have 5%, 10%, etc. which they sell whenever they see fit. If the boat were to sink, they wouldn't care.
So I'm not sure that all conservatives are "ruling class". Russell Kirk was clearly a poor, working class man growing up for example. I will however say that conservatives do have a tendency to accumulate wealth - but this is merely because of their pursuits and ideals. A conservative probably doesn't pursue liberal dreams - such as travelling to Hawaii, going to expensive parties, etc. So their money accumulates - it being spent only on the requirements of living.
I was more inclined towards saying that conservatives generally don't like libertarians because libertarians often emphasise personal freedom over community bonds, whereas conservatives take a more "equal" approach between the two, emphasising both community and individuality arising out of that community.
Wow, the Witcher 3 is really over-rated. Lovely graphics and voice acting but the gameplay is meh. Basically boils down to spamming my mouse button and spacebar. Nothing special tbh.
...and insisting that your experience and understanding are universal...
No, that isn't what I did. But I did make comments to the effect that my experience and understanding, in the relevant context, is shared by most others. Most others will very quickly realise that it is going to cause a lot of offence and understand the reasons why: the relationships between what people hold dear, the events of 9/11, that video, and basic human behaviour, emotion and psychology. It's not random at all. It is very predicable. You just want it to 'make sense' in some narrowly conceived of way which you haven't elucidated, and have left me to pretty much guess. Good luck with that.
And I did have fun watching that film and eating pizza.
I'm looking forward to Resident Evil VII. The trailer looks great, and there's a free demo available from the PS Store which I'll get around to playing at some point.
Also, Final Fantasy XV and Battlefield 1 stand out for me.
In other news, the very predicable result of the Labour Leadership election will be announced in about 25 minutes. Well done, Jeremy Corbyn.
This related article made me laugh: [URL=https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-owen-smith-result-soon-over-mark-steel-a7322801.html%3famp?client=ms-android-alcatel]The Labour leadership battle between Jeremy Corbyn and his critics will soon be over – for three minutes[/URL]
It seems like maybe you're uncomfortable with the idea of difference, so you refuse to admit that it's possible.
That's funny and completely wrong. I will readily acknowledge that it is possible, and I have implicitly and explicitly done so multiple times throughout our discussion.
It's just that, as I've said, I find some of your comments hard to belief. You profess ignorance of things that I'd expect you to know, and deny things I find evident.
I don't want to be a party pooper but I just want to ask people to spare a thought and a prayer for the people of Aleppo who are experiencing a living hell right now. The reports are that the water supply has been cut off now so there are 2 million people trying to survive in a desert without water today, while being barrel bombed.
I don't want to be a party pooper but I just want to ask people to spare a thought and a prayer for the people of Aleppo who are experiencing a living hell right now. The reports are that the water supply has been cut off now so there are 2 million people trying to survive in a desert without water today, while being barrel bombed.
So, after calling Trump a pathological liar, a narcissist, a rat, a coward, and a train wreck; and after telling voters to vote with their conscience; Ted Cruz has endorsed Trump.
So, after calling Trump a pathological liar, a narcissist, a rat, a coward, and a train wreck; and after telling voters to vote with their conscience; Ted Cruz has endorsed Trump.
That's good! Who could he have endorsed? Crooked? >:O And he didn't endorse - he just said he will personally vote Trump.
Endorsing no one is better than endorsing Trump. He could have done that. And if he didn't endorse him, blame the BBC.
He said he will vote for Donald Trump. This isn't exactly an endorsement. But obviously Ted Cruz will be closer to DJT given that Mike Pence is the VP, and Mike Pence is a very strong social conservative - just like Ted. In the opposition, Crooked is completely NOT social conservative. So why would he vote with her? Same with all the other candidates apart from possibly Trump (due to his VP pick)
Reply to Agustino
You're trying to sugar coat the fact that this so-called principled conservative dropped all his principles for political expediency. Cruz said go vote for the walking hairdo. That's an endorsement, which is why everyone is calling it that. He did not simply just say that he would vote for Trump.
Anyway, the whole thing is as disgusting as it is predictable. Trump insulted Cruz's wife, accused his father of being involved in assassinating JFK, and walked all over him in every way possible, never even considering an apology because he won and didn't give a damn about his opponent. He even rubbed the humiliation in by saying he didn't want Cruz's endorsement. And yet now the servile little puppy dog has come crawling back to lick his master's boots with a public show of "loyalty" because he knows if he doesn't he will be partly blamed for Trump's impending narrow loss and may not be allowed to run again for President by the RNC, or worse, may be primaried and have his political career ended in his forties. Even the right wingers at RedState realize how pathetic all this all is. The guy got reamed and now has gone back and asked for more in the hope he'll be granted some crumbs from the winner's table.
[He is] "a narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen...The man is utterly amoral, morality does not exist for him...Donald is a bully...Donald is cynically exploiting...anger and he is lying to his supporters."
Agree totally, Ted! But what's that you said now? Go vote for him because it will save your political career? :-}
Anyway, the whole thing is as disgusting as it is predictable. Trump insulted Cruz's wife, accused his father of being involved in assassinating JFK, and walked all over him in every way possible, never even considering an apology because he won and didn't give a damn about his opponent. He even rubbed the humiliation in by saying he didn't want Cruz's endorsement. And yet now the servile little puppy dog has come crawling back to lick his master's boots with a public show of "loyalty" because he knows if he doesn't he will be partly blamed for Trump's impending narrow loss and may not be allowed to run again for President by the RNC, or worse, may be primaried and have his political career ended in his forties. Even the right wingers at RedState realize how pathetic all this all is. The guy got reamed and now has gone back and asked for more in the hope he'll be granted some crumbs from the winner's table.
All this is true - but still one must make a choice, which is the better candidate. Cruz decided to vote for Trump and encourage his supporters to vote for Trump - unlike the Bush family, many of whom are voting Hillary, even though Jeb quite possibly still does have interest in the Presidency. I am totally aware of the conflict between the two, and have followed it, even during the Republican Convention and afterwards. I think Cruz made the right choice - disconsidering now political reasons he had for making it, and personal reasons that he had for not making it - as a social conservative he made the right choice. His choice isn't against social conservative principles.
Reply to Agustino OK, so the better candidate is the utterly amoral exploitative narcissistic pathological liar, Donald Trump. So, I guess Hillary, being worse, tortures puppies for fun in her spare time. Got it. Thanks.
Reply to Baden From a social conservative point of view, Donald Trump's policies are more likely to lean this way than Hillary's. Hillary we already know she's not a social conservative, nor will she promote socially conservative policies. That's a given. Donald Trump may possibly not promote social conservative policies - that's true. Even though Mike Pence is VP, he may overpower him, or use him for his ends, etc. That's possible. But it's only possible. For Hillary it's a certainty. So what shall a social conservative do?
Terrapin StationSeptember 24, 2016 at 15:51#231960 likes
Sapientia, have you ever been diagnosed as an Aspie?
He said he will vote for Donald Trump. This isn't exactly an endorsement. But obviously Ted Cruz will be closer to DJT given that Mike Pence is the VP, and Mike Pence is a very strong social conservative - just like Ted. In the opposition, Crooked is completely NOT social conservative. So why would he vote with her? Same with all the other candidates apart from possibly Trump (due to his VP pick)
Are you asking me why Cruz would vote for Hilary Clinton? I never suggested that Cruz, nor any other Republican candidate - especially Trump - would vote for Clinton. That's obviously not the only possible alternative.
I don't want to be a party pooper but I just want to ask people to spare a thought and a prayer for the people of Aleppo who are experiencing a living hell right now.
Reply to Baden Yes! What do you want me to do if the other choices are even worse? It's not like there is much choice is there? Either take a gamble with Trump, or definitely lose with anyone else.
Sapientia, have you ever been diagnosed as an Aspie?
It's weird that you would ask [I]me[/I] that question. No, I have not. Have you? I did suspect that you might be somewhere on the autism spectrum. That's why I made sure to ask you whether there was any reason for your difficulty in understanding this typical kind of emotional reaction that we've been talking about.
Reply to Agustino The choice is to retain moral credibility by not voting for a scumbag or just flush it down the toilet by doing so. Other conservatives like Mike Lee, Glenn Beck, Rick Tyler and so on know this. These are people I disagree with vehemently on just about everything but I can at least respect them. And if I were an American there is no way I would put my name to either of those candidates. I'm not going to lend matches to someone who wants to burn the house down slowly just because their opponent has a flamethrower and can do it quicker.
Reply to Baden That is a reasonable position as well - not vote for anyone. But social conservatives have been stuck in this position for quite a long time - people are getting sick of this. I am not a US citizen, so obviously I would not vote. But if I was - I would seriously consider voting for Trump - because it's the only plausible alternative there.
For social conservatives it is. Neither of the other three candidates would promote social conservative policies for certain.
No it isn't. There is always the choice to endorse or vote for either this one, one of the others, or not to endorse or vote at all. How bad does a Republican candidate have to be for a fellow Republican candidate to refuse to endorse or vote for them? He got it right the first time. That he has come crawling back is pretty pathetic.
Reply to Agustino I think at some level, you know what you are advocating is wrong. Honestly. For someone who spends so much time morally introspecting, you must. If you are to say you would lend your vote to anyone who opposes a non-conservative candidate, you are saying that you are willing to facilitate an evil person for ideological reasons. If that is the case, it makes you an unprincipled ideologue. I don't see any way out of that.
Be prepared to thoroughly explain how looking in the mirror makes sense and is not just a completely random act. And be careful not to arrogantly assume that he already knows.
No it isn't. There is always the choice to endorse or vote for either this one, one of the others, or not to endorse or vote at all. How bad does a Republican candidate have to be for a fellow Republican candidate to refuse to endorse or vote for them? He got it right the first time. That he has come crawling back is pretty pathetic.
I understand how you feel, nothing wrong with adopting that position. As I said, I think in such situations either voting for the only possible choice or not voting at all are both rational solutions. Which is morally superior that is a different discussion, and I'm not quite sure myself.
I think at some level, you know what you are advocating is wrong. Honestly. For someone who spends so much time morally introspecting, you must. If you are to say you will lend your vote to anyone who opposes the non-conservative candidate, you are saying that you are willing to facilitate an evil person for ideological reasons. If that is the case, it makes you an unprincipled ideologue. I don't see a way out of that.
Not to anyone, certainly. I am honestly telling you that I wouldn't be certain what to do in this case. I think Trump can be sufficiently disruptive to the dominance that the progressives have had over politics in the last 50 years or so. This could potentially inspire conservatives. At the same time I don't think Trump is dangerous in the sense that he is going to lead to the death and suffering of people (like George Bush was for example). So weighing those two I could see myself casting a vote for Trump. Although the position of not voting is also good - as a way of protesting. But social conservatives have been protesting for so long, and nothing is changing. So I am definitely not advocating this as a principle - regardless who the candidate is, so long as he is opposed to progressivism, one should vote for him. I'm not saying that. It's something particular to this situation.
Reply to Sapientia What poet sings the praises of love if it's not eternal huh? :-*
TheWillowOfDarknessSeptember 24, 2016 at 23:47#233030 likes
Reply to Agustino Ones concerned with relationships between people (finite beings) rather than ownership and an imagined value of a possession. The honest ones. An eternal expressed in a moment, rather than the finite extended into the eternal.
Ones concerned with relationships between people (finite beings) rather than ownership and an imagined value of a possession. The honest ones. An eternal expressed in a moment, rather than the finite extended into the eternal.
>:O Most poets wouldn't agree with you. Neither would Kierkegaard, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. You just have no guts to hope for something grander - you just love sitting in the mud. Nothing I can do for you - enjoy your mud bath ;)
TheWillowOfDarknessSeptember 25, 2016 at 00:01#233070 likes
Far more than no guts to think otherwise: doing so is unethical. An image of another regardless of themselves, to a point where they are considered ours without any reference to themselves-- an obligation to love and be our property. There's nothing grand about. Just our own selfishness and desire put before the people we claim to care about it. "You are mine, regardless of what you think or feel." You aren't avoiding the mud. You are counting money.
Don't misunderstand me, life-long love is fantastic. It is not "eternal" though, for it is the expression of another person, not an infinite that stands outside what happens in the world.
The other forum is still dead. Mr. Porat is a terrible businessman - just wasted 20K. I wonder how he gets access to throw away such money - clearly must be rich parents. Paul found the best kind of loser to sell to for a lot more than the website was worth. I can't believe that he sold a website which had been plagued by serious technical/security difficulties, which wasn't earning anything except donations for 20K. And he sold it all without being tied by contract for any period of time in case difficulties appeared, and issues surfaced. He should try selling bridges next!
Reply to Agustino What are you trying to say? That because poets talk about their admiration for some supposed "eternal love" then it follows that there is such a thing and that any love that isn't eternal isn't really love?
That because poets talk about their admiration for some supposed "eternal love" then it follows that there is such a thing and that any love that isn't eternal isn't really love?
That there is such a thing or there isn't such a thing is up for each individual to investigate and discover for themselves - I have my answer.
As for love which isn't eternal not being love - yes. I don't see why one would confuse a shadow for the object itself. Non-eternal "love" is merely a shadow. It's a sign of something greater. It's not a stopping point.
As for love which isn't eternal not being love - yes. I don't see why one would confuse a shadow for the object itself. Non-eternal "love" is merely a shadow. It's a sign of something greater. It's not a stopping point.
So, what, pain that isn't eternal isn't really pain? Pleasure that isn't eternal isn't really pleasure? Happiness that isn't eternal isn't really happiness? That's just plain wrong. Pain and pleasure and happiness are those things which we have on a regular, temporary, basis. Those are the things referred to by the words "pain", "pleasure", and "happiness" – and love is the thing referred to by the word "love"; the thing that we have on a regular, temporary, basis.
All this talk of "eternal" love and temporary love being a "shadow" is just poetic nonsense.
So, what, pain that isn't eternal isn't really pain? Pleasure that isn't eternal isn't really pleasure? Happiness that isn't eternal isn't really happiness? That's just plain wrong. Pain and pleasure and happiness are those things which we have on a regular, temporary basis. Those are the things referred to by the words "pain", "pleasure", and "happiness" – and so is the case with love.
False analogies. What makes you think pain, pleasure, etc. are like love? In what sense is pain and pleasure for example a relationship and intermingling of two different beings?
You said it. Love is meant to be eternal-- defined and true regardless of what's happening in the world. A story of ownership, where people considered the property of another, to a point where they are entitled to romantic and sexual attention. Here I do not mean divorce is impossible, but rather that you understand love as an image separate to the people involved.
For you it's a question of saying: "We are together eternally" rather than a question of individual feeling and interaction. You are in love with the idea of a lifelong partnership rather than any person. To you it is the marriage contract which makes a relationship-- "Now that we and society have said we are together forever, we will be. Our love is eternal."
Counting money. Sitting in your room retelling what has been said about your value, rather understanding what is valuable and how it is used. A useless self-aggrandising act. All it does is talk about how important you have been said to be. Chasing an image of perfection rather than understanding what's around you (whether it be perfect or not).
The British government pretends to find a conscience while continuing to sell arms to a Saudi regime it knows is using them to kill civilians (+Iraq + Gaza etc etc). Funny how morality rears its beautiful head only when it costs nothing. (This is no defense of Russia who are almost certainly guilty here.)
Britain always pretended to find a conscience - even while enslaving the whole of Africa, brutally destroying the lives of villagers while pillaging the entire continent of resources. Nothing changed.
Reply to TheWillowOfDarkness Oooh you said something interesting now! It sometimes happens with you that your statements are a strange mixture of truth and falsity, such that it becomes difficult to say this is true and that is false - because they are so intertwined. Nevertheless you seem to catch glimpses of truths which are not evidently stated - are you a psychologist?
The truth that you caught is that yes - my love is grounded in something other than myself or the beloved - into a third. I would not be the first to catch this psychological necessity though - Kierkegaard was there ahead of me in understanding the need for it. The love of A and B requires a C to which both are devoted - this alone makes their love possible. A common goal is always more binding than any mere and transitory feelings - and if the common goal is God, then it is most binding as God is eternal, and hence the love of A and B earns eternity by grounding itself in C which is already eternal.
Also - real love probably requires self-mastery and morality from both people - they can't be slaves to their lusts and desires, or to their sexuality or to anything of this sort. The two lovers have to be free - and freely choose to ground themselves in the eternal.
defined and true regardless of what's happening in the world.
In a peculiar way this is true, but only because love is grounded in that which is eternal. But certainly in common parlance I do not mean that love is true regardless of what's happening in the world.
To you it is the marriage contract which makes a relationship-- "Now that we and society have said we are together forever, we will be. Our love is eternal."
This is false. Society would be completely irrelevant if the two lovers didn't live in it. It's not the marriage contract that makes the relationship - but the mutual grounding of both in the eternal. As Kierkegaard says, that it becomes a freely chosen duty to love the other - "you shall love". If the two live in society as opposed to a mountain, then the marriage contract will merely become an outward reflection of this inward truth.
Chasing an image of perfection rather than understanding what's around you (whether it be perfect or not).
This is sometimes true - though funnily enough not about love, but rather about many other things in life (including as you said money :P ). Many times I get carried away in thinking how I should do X, or how Y will play out, etc. This is in part because of my imaginative nature, something I had ever since I remember myself - that I get lost in thought very easily, forgetting about the things around, and rather focus on possible trains of thought - possible scenarios. This makes me much slower to act than most others I have met - many don't see as many potential difficulties as I do because they think very practically, and very close at hand. So this is both a curse and a gift: a curse because I'm slow to get things started, and a gift because when I do, things actually go well.
Terrapin StationSeptember 26, 2016 at 17:30#235180 likes
Couldn't shake the feeling that Clinton legitimately can't believe she has to actually debate a guy like Trump for presidency. I'm no big Clinton supporter but she at least has experience in politics and government and I thought it was clear that she found the entire situation ironic and absurd.
Meanwhile Trump kept gish-galloping random examples of job theft and depended on this for his entire reason why he should be elected. Let's not forget that in fact illegal immigrants often aren't stealing jobs as much as they are filling jobs that nobody else wants to do, like agricultural field work and factory jobs.
Reply to Michael That was more of a comment on the debate, which just confirmed to Trump's detractors that he's a dumbass and to his supporters that he's a genius. So, no change. Anyway, the Republicans could put forward a cardboard box as their nominee and it would only lose by 3 or 4 points to Hillary. And, actually, in terms of intellect, that's essentially what's happening (only a cardboard box would score a higher fact to bulshit ratio than the Don). Sure, Trump could win, but he's the one who needs a game-changer. Didn't happen last night.
Donald lost the debate. But he will win the elections. He was too weak on Clinton. He should have trashed the place with her - no weaker opponent is even possible. Instead he let Clinton generate the flippant liberal-progressive atmosphere and laugh at him. Total disaster due to the bad, politically correct advisors Trump has surrounded himself with. If he had better intelligence, he would have already won the election by now.
I'm curious as to what non-politically correct things you would have had him say to "trash the place with her".
The e-mails, the pay-for-play schemes, the Benghazi, the lying, the unfair earnings, Bill Clinton's rape of other women, her fainting and weak health, her lack of moral character.
The e-mails, the pay-for-play schemes, the Benghazi, the lying, the unfair earnings, Bill Clinton's rape of other women, her fainting and weak health, her lack of moral character.
Just framing her as the establishment-candidate would have resonated with a lot of people. He either thinks he can't attack her because of her gender or he secretly respects her. Maybe both.
Compared to what? His? I don't know if you've noticed but he's pretending to be a conservative to get votes from the gullible Republican masses because he's a power-loving narcissist. Nothing in his past suggests any hint of moral character unless grabbing as much money as possible from everywhere possible is considered laudable in your book.
The Raj was far from perfect, or fair. But what Russia is doing in Syria today, this week is far more destructive. It's going to top the atrocities in Grozny, we may never hear how bad that was.
They are dropping considerable numbers of cluster bombs into Aleppo as we speak.
As I see it trump just needs to stay on his feet to win a good vote, but I doubt it will be enough, or that he can swing enough undecided voters over. I just heard on the radio that he claims his microphone wasn't working properly.
He'd get creamed if he brought up those allegations. And he knows it. Americans, in general, do have some sense of decorum.
I don't think so at all - I think they'd just say he's telling the truth, even if others don't like it, like he built a reputation for doing. Fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton raped other women - and these women are out there claiming that this is so. This is something that is a serious offence. It ought to be discussed, especially when the candidate's wife did nothing to help those women or to stop her husband.
Fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton raped other women - and these women are out there claiming that this is so.
You know it's a fact or you want to believe it's a fact because you hate the Clinton's? I mean, maybe he did (I wouldn't at all be surprised) but how do you know he did. What's your proof?
You know it's a fact or you want to believe it's a fact because you hate the Clinton's? I mean, maybe he did (I wouldn't at all be surprised) but how do you know he did. What's your proof?
It doesn't matter if he did. Fact of the matter is that there are several women who claim to have been raped by him. That alone is a sufficiently big problem that should be brought up.
It doesn't matter if he did. Fact of the matter is that there are several women who claim to have been raped by him. That alone is a sufficiently big problem that should be brought up.
So, it doesn't matter if he's innocent as long as Trump can score some political points. What kind of moral standard are you promoting here? Again, it looks like ideology über alles. And ironically, you're rooting for a guy who is not even remotely a social conservative and probably laughs at the fools who are stupid enough to think he is.
(This is why the folks at real conservative websites like RedState.com by and large despise him.)
So, it doesn't matter if he's innocent as long as Trump can score some political points. What kind of moral standard are you promoting here? Again, it looks like ideology über alles. And ironically, you're rooting for a guy who is not even remotely a social conservative and probably laughs at the fools who are stupid enough to think he is.
I didn't claim he is socially conservative, but he will be destructive to the liberal-progressive mindset. That's the important bit in this case.
It should be brought up with regards to his wife's presidential candidacy? WTF?
Yes - why didn't she do anything about it? Why didn't she take attitude? Why didn't she divorce him? Why didn't she help those women who were abused? Let me tell you why - because she was a snitch who wanted to use her husband's position and help to get power for herself.
OK, and you want to replace that with the mindset that anything goes if you're not on the same team as me, which is what, morally superior? Again, what you are promoting here is a simple amoral ideological war. That's OK, but don't pretend it's anything else.
OK, so let's replace that with the mindset that anything goes if you're not on the same team as me, which is what, morally superior? Again, what you are promoting here is a simple amoral ideological war. That's OK, but don't pretend it's anything else.
Nope. Not anything goes. Hitler doesn't go for example. Killing millions of people doesn't go. And so forth. Many things don't go. But Trump does go, yes.
Yes - why didn't she do anything about it? Why didn't she take attitude? Why didn't she divorce him? Why didn't she help those women who were abused?
So.. what you're saying is that if the USA is raped in the next 8 years (see what I did there?) H. Clinton is likely to fail to take attitude, divorce the attacker, and help us rape victims.
So.. what you're saying is that if the USA is raped in the next 8 years (see what I did there?) H. Clinton is likely to fail to take attitude, divorce the attacker, and help us rape victims.
Look I talked about people. Not about countries. It's very simple - if your husband or wife rapes someone, you need to take some attitude. Most people would divorce them. If you don't, like Clinton, it means that you have interests not to - in her case to use her husband to get power, money and influence for herself.
Reply to Agustino That's all fine Agustino, but it doesn't sit very well with your usual holier-than-thou act. If anyone has one foot in hell, a Trump supporter does.
That's all fine Agustino but it doesn't sit very well with your usual holier than thou act. If anyone has one foot in hell, a Trump supporter does.
Look I'm pragmatic. We can't sit with a finger up our bums waiting for something that may never happen. We have to play the cards we are given, and play them well, if we are to ever make a reality of any moral or political plan.
in her case to use her husband to get power, money and influence for herself.
I don't know how old you are. I remember the days when people referred to her as "Lady Macbeth," because she was perceived to be the power behind the throne.
I don't know how old you are. I remember the days when people referred to her as "Lady Macbeth," because she was perceived to be the power behind the throne.
Beware the circular firing squad.
Yes I am aware of this. It is very in tune with the rest of her character.
Reply to Agustino I'm a pragmatist too. But I thought you being Christian and promoting Christian values there were certain lines you weren't supposed to cross like accusing a potentially innocent person of a heinous crime for political gain.
But I thought you being Christian and promoting Christian values, there were certain lines you weren't supposed to cross like accusing a potentially innocent person of a heinous crime for political gain.
You wouldn't be accusing them - you'd merely bring up the fact that there is a problem, since several women are in fact accusing him. A problem which has to be resolved, and which people have to consider. Why would these women falsely accuse him - why wouldn't there also be women falsely accusing of rape, for example, Donald Trump? Merely the fact that you are accused of rape is already significant.
Why would these women falsely accuse him - why wouldn't there also be women falsely accusing of rape, for example, Donald Trump? Merely the fact that you are accused of rape is already significant.
Reply to Michael And Trump's ex-wife also once accused him of rape. So, I guess we should make future debates about rape. Sorry, Agustino, but you are shredding your moral credibility here. Trump is not worth it.
Reply to Michael In a political campaign such a court case was filed - if it was true, why wasn't it filed earlier?. That may very well have been filed for political reasons. As for former accusations - one from his former wife, after they had divorced. The other someone who claims "attempted rape" - why didn't he succeed if he really wanted to rape her? And regardless of all this - this should be publicly discussed. Clinton should bring it up. If I were Trump I would bring it up, and encourage her to bring mine out as well - people should know about the moral character of their future President.
The establishment only sees what it wants to see. Snap polls taken immediately after the debate suggest the Trump won by a landslide: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809204/Most-snap-polls-Trump-winning-debate-landslide.html
Trump was himself, he didn't prepare, he said what he felt.
Clinton came off as a very well studied politician (i.e., a fake)
Reply to Michael Look it's very important what it means attempted rape. What did he do? Did he ask her to come to his bedroom? Did he grab her hand and tried to pull her in the bathroom and she ran away? What is this "attempted rape"? It could refer to a variety of activities, not all which I would consider as rape. Maybe he tried to kiss her and she pulled away - is that rape now? That may be harassment, but certainly not "attempted rape". Bill Clinton isn't just accused of "attempted rape" he is accused of actual rape, including using physical force, which the women themselves described in video. That is a lot different than "attempted rape".
Reply to Cavacava Snap polls like those done by...The Drudge Report. By the way, please never use the Daily Mail as a reference if you want to be taken seriously. It's a low class right wing rag.
In her lawsuit, Harth describes a scene in which Trump took her into one of his children’s bedrooms at his Florida estate Mar-a-Lago, threw her against the wall, began touching her all over, and lifted up her dress.
In a recent interview with The Guardian, Harth says she had to physically prevent him from advancing and shouted out: "What are you doing? Stop it."
In her lawsuit, Harth describes a scene in which Trump took her into one of his children’s bedrooms at his Florida estate Mar-a-Lago, threw her against the wall, began touching her all over, and lifted up her dress.
In a recent interview with The Guardian, Harth says she had to physically prevent him from advancing and shouted out: "What are you doing? Stop it."
Okay my bad I didn't read that, as I just skimmed your article. Now after reading this:
Trump forcefully removed (Harth) from public areas of Mar-A-Lago in Florida and forced (her) into a bedroom belonging to defendant’s daughter Ivanka, wherein (Trump) forcibly kissed, fondled, and restrained (her) from leaving, against (her) will and despite her protests.” In the court document, she said that Trump bragged that he ”would be the best lover you ever have.”
That sounds like at least harassment and attempted rape, yes. Granted of course that the forcibly restrained her, etc. are valid.
Again I never claimed Trump to be a saint. Obviously I don't approve of such behaviour - which I find highly immoral. But Bill Clinton's affairs with women seem to be a lot more extensive - and quite a few actual rape accusations - not just attempted rape or anything of that sort. One has to make a decision between Clinton and Trump. I pick Trump, because the Clinton family is a lot more corrupt and not only this - but will maintain the dominance of progressivism and liberalism over politics much moreso than Trump. This final point is much more important since we're picking between two options which are both immoral to different degrees.
Reply to Mongrel Define what "normal man" means. Is that the average man?
Probably Clinton is at a 4. Others would have done what he did had they had the power. But note that the scale is not fair. 0 should be a saint. 10 should be the psychopath. In that case Clinton would land a 7-8, easily. 5 would obviously be your average man. Someone like me would be in the 1-3 range.
Yes, the Drudge Report and umpteen others, maybe cheery picking, I don't know. The Daily Mail appears to me to be a morass of news but it appears to have more of it than any other source I have come across.
Define what "normal man" means. Is that the average man?
For an extended period, I did a private survey. When appropriate (or not... I'm a lunatic myself) I would ask men for their opinion on this question: "Are all men potential rapists?"
I eventually concluded the survey when a man told me that rapists are men who don't love themselves. A man who has love for himself is not a potential rapist.
For an extended period, I did a private survey. When appropriate (or not... I'm a lunatic myself) I would ask men for their opinion on this question: "Are all men potential rapists?"
I eventually concluded the survey when a man told me that rapists are men who don't love themselves. A man who has love for himself is not a potential rapist.
Well that depends - rapists do tend to be narcissists in many cases, having an excessive love for themselves.
Well definitely not but again that's not the main issue. The main issue since both candidates are not social conservatives is which one will ready the way for social conservatism best: Clinton or Trump? Elect Clinton and you can say bye bye to social conservatism. Elect Trump, and maybe there's a chance!
But Bill Clinton's affairs with women seem to be a lot more extensive - and quite a few actual rape accusations - not just attempted rape or anything of that sort.
Sure, but we're not comparing Trump to Bill. We're comparing Trump to Hillary.
Also, Trump has at least one actual rape accusation of his own – of a 13 year old, no less.
Good if Trump has a rape accusation, then they should discuss it. Both those of him, and those of the Clinton family. The electorate deserves to know the moral character of people who run for President. Very simple.
And I have stated it before but I will say it again: voting for Trump or not voting at all are all acceptable positions for social conservatives. One can decide not to vote for anyone due to their lacking moral character. Or one can do like me and vote Trump because he's harmful to the progressive-liberal dominance of politics. It's a strategic vote - not a vote of support.
Whenever I watch these videos I am reminded there really is no comparison between the Clintons and Trump. Trump may be an immoral man - at least though he's a man, and not a devil as the Clintons are. The Clintons should long ago have been in prison for what they have done.
Agreed. Clinton did so much better. I was actually a little surprised and quite impressed by her answers and the way she conducted herself. Trump should also probably get some credit for reining it in a bit.
Reply to Sapientia Read it in context. I hadn't read his article - I just skimmed it and saw the underlined bits. I didn't know what "attempted rape" referred to, hence the remark. Because we live in a politically correct world lots of things start to be considered rape - we need to differentiate between mere political correctness ("omg he touched my cheek with his hand") vs actual attempted rape ("he forcefully grabbed me, and tried to force me against my will to X"). I thought maybe he just tried to approach her very directly - until I read the rest of the article.
Look it's very important what it means attempted rape. What did he do? Did he ask her to come to his bedroom? Did he grab her hand and tried to pull her in the bathroom and she ran away? What is this "attempted rape"? It could refer to a variety of activities, not all which I would consider as rape. Maybe he tried to kiss her and she pulled away - is that rape now? That may be harassment, but certainly not "attempted rape". Bill Clinton isn't just accused of "attempted rape" he is accused of actual rape, including using physical force, which the women themselves described in video. That is a lot different than "attempted rape".
That sounds like at least harassment and attempted rape, yes. Granted of course that the forcibly restrained her, etc. are valid.
Again I never claimed Trump to be a saint. Obviously I don't approve of such behaviour - which I find highly immoral. But Bill Clinton's affairs with women seem to be a lot more extensive - and quite a few actual rape accusations - not just attempted rape or anything of that sort. One has to make a decision between Clinton and Trump. I pick Trump, because the Clinton family is a lot more corrupt and not only this - but will maintain the dominance of progressivism and liberalism over politics much moreso than Trump. This final point is much more important since we're picking between two options which are both immoral to different degrees.
Reply to Sapientia What's funny? >:O Social conservatives would be in that range - at least lay ones. Those who have had like one partner their whole life (the one they're married to) - 1. Those who had multiple partners by accident/bad luck - 2 (like me). Those who have originally been socially liberal and became conservatives - 3 (like me). And so forth.
Maybe. You've certainly got a point. He can't beat Clinton at her own game, so his only chance might be to resort to the notorious behaviour that he's known for. But that sort of behaviour is nothing to be proud of, so he gets credit in my book for reining it in. Either way, Clinton would've won the intellectual and moral high ground, even if Trump had've won in terms of popular appeal.
What's funny? >:O Social conservatives would be in that range - at least lay ones. Those who have had like one partner their whole life (the one they're married to) - 1. Those who had multiple partners by accident/bad luck - 2 (like me). Those who have originally been socially liberal and became conservatives - 3 (like me). And so forth.
0 is celibate!
This is a joke, right? Please tell me you're joking.
It's a joke! >:O But I didn't talk about sex there, but rather multiple partners. It's accidental because you never intended to have multiple partners - but alas circumstances so conspired.
"Bourgeois society is ruled by equivalence. It makes dissimilar things comparable by reducing them to abstract quantities. For the Enlightenment, anything which cannot be resolved into numbers, and ultimately into one, is illusion; modern positivism consigns it to poetry. Unity remains the watchword from Parmenides to Russell. All gods and qualities must be destroyed.
No wonder you say that, this is your 666th post. I knew something was going on, you won't trick me little devil ;) :P
For the record, the number 666 is associated with the Antichrist, not the Devil.
My Ask the Antichrist advice column is presently retired and appropriately falling into oblivion as the other forum falls into the bit bucket. But feel free to ask me any pressing personal questions you may have.
My Ask the Antichrist advice column is presently retired and appropriately falling into oblivion as the other forum falls into the bit bucket. But feel free to ask me any pressing personal questions you may have.
Okay, let me take my chance then. Will St. Peter grant me the keys to the kingdom when I meet him at the Pearly Gates? :-$
According to an article in the NYT, ants--once opiates were revealed to them--engage in drug seeking behavior. some of the ants escaped from the lab, and now just horrible things are happening to drug dealers out on the streets. Addicts who doze off awake to find all sorts of insectoids feeding on them. Cocaine / meth addicted killer bees are on the way, I understand.
Epic rant by Pete Willett in National Club Golfer
http://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/2016/09/27/pete-willett-i-aint-partisan-hes-my-brother/
Team USA have only won five of the last 16 Ryder Cups. Four of those five victories have come on home soil. For the Americans to stand a chance of winning, they need their baying mob of imbeciles to caress their egos every step of the way. Like one of those brainless bastards from your childhood, the one that pulled down your shorts during the school’s Christmas assembly (f**k you, Paul Jennings), they only have the courage to keg you if they’re backed up by a giggling group of reprobates. Team Europe needs to shut those groupies up.
They need to silence the pudgy, basement-dwelling, irritants, stuffed on cookie dough and pissy beer, pausing between mouthfuls of hotdog so they can scream ‘Baba booey’ until their jelly faces turn red.
They need to stun the angry, unwashed, Make America Great Again swarm, desperately gripping their concealed-carry compensators and belting out a mini-erection inducing ‘mashed potato,’ hoping to impress their cousin.
They need to smash the obnoxious dads, with their shiny teeth, Lego man hair, medicated ex-wives, and resentful children. Squeezed into their cargo shorts and boating shoes, they’ll bellow ‘get in the hole’ whilst high-fiving all the other members of the Dentists’ Big Game Hunt Society.
They need to stun the angry, unwashed, Make America Great Again
Hey, watch what you repost, Cavacava, the Rider Cup is being held in Democratic Liberal Minnesota this year. Well, don't know about Chaska -- the Minneapolis suburb where the Hazeltine course is located -- they might all be Strumpets out there, 20 miles from Your's Truly.
"Baba booey"? I've never heard anybody in Minnesota say "baba booey", unless they were talking to their infant or maybe if they were from the deep fried south. Ask Hanover. And even then... What you're more likely to hear here is "oofta" or "it could be worse."
And yes, the Europeans should feel free to stun the angry, unwashed, Make America Great Again bird brains. A golf iron makes an excellent stunning tool. Even a putter.
The guy in the background of the Youtube video ( with all the teeth) is Baba Booey. He works for Howard Stern who nicknamed him and has made his nickname into a meme almost like 'Kilroy was here'.
A couple from Excelsior (a suburb out Rider Cup way) expressed their dissatisfaction with the whole thing during the coffee hour after church today. Too many people, they said. Now it's over. Who won, by the way? Not that I could conceivably care less...
My indifference aside, it is remarkable that one can hit a small ball a long ways and have it end up, occasionally, in a small hole--much more often than by chance.
I see some new faces here. And it hasn't been all that long since I last posted.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 04, 2016 at 20:38#247010 likes
Reply to Thorongil Care for some Hot and Hard Apple Cider? 8-)
Apple cider,Tuaca Brandy and whip cream atop if you like!
The ranch smells awesome~~~ Fall is in the air at 85* O:)
So, Clinton is ahead, and has been so consistently since June. Also noticeable are the three periods in which Trump's rating dramatically dropped - much more so than Clinton's in the same period; and in early August, Clinton's rating actually shot up in stark contrast, likely due to Trump's blunders, I reckon.
With impetuous recoil and jarring sound
Th’ infernal doors, and on their hinges grate
Harsh thunder, that the lowest bottom shook
Of Erebus. She opened, but to shut
Excelled her power; the gates wide open stood
Reply to Mongrel
No I'm about 3 miles off the coast. House withstood three direct hits back in 2005, now all shuttered up, feels like a cave. I am in a pretty tight neighborhood, all remainers. Cell, wifi, power in general will probably shut down tonight and might not be back on for awhile. After the three direct hits the local grocery & gas station all installed big emergency generators so hopefully they'll be back up and running.
Knocking on wood
(in the worst of times Pascal's wager has legs)
Reply to Question I didn't prove it, but look at any analytic philosophy department and you'll find profs and classes devoted to Witty. And he's obviously still read by people outside of academia.
Reply to John :) I learned that saying when I was working at AT&T. There was a sort of military climate. If one person screws up, we all screwed up. So it was you and me.
That makes sense in the context. I first heard it from one of the tradesmen I employed to help me in my landscaping business. He expressed in exactly the form you have. "To assume makes an ass out of you and me". I remember thinking at the time 'if you assume it makes an ass out of you, if I assume it makes an ass out of me. (Iff the assumptions are wrong of course).
:)
I think I might start delving into Kripke soon after I get solid on understanding Wittgenstein.
I saw Kripke at a conference earlier in the year. He was physically weak but enjoyably difficult to understand.
There's lots of life left in Wittgenstein. I for one have a thesis about him inside me somewhere, if the brain cells and the rest of the cells last long enough. Analytic philosophy of language needs work on it!
An affecting story I read lately was about one of his 'passionate friendships', for a young Englishman called David Pinsent. They were divided by the First World War, enlisted on opposite sides, and had lost touch. But at the end of the war Pinsent's family took great steps to ensure Wittgenstein found out from them about, sadly, Pinsent's death (in a flying accident, I think) and how much their son had still felt for Ludwig.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 07, 2016 at 15:01#250500 likes
Reply to John A portion of your reply has been posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!
Lucked out, Matthew passed about 150 miles of my location, others in Florida not so lucky, around 600,000 without power and storm is still packing 120 mile per hour winds. It may turn around for a second try. :(
unenlightenedOctober 07, 2016 at 15:43#250540 likes
And here's an exercise for your homework. Prove without assumptions: "To assume makes and ass out of you and me".
Accordion styled aluminum shutters for most part, took me half hour to open set them up about 10 minutes to to put back into position. Most of my neighbors with fixed styled shutters are waiting until we see if Matthew will return...putting and and taking down fixed shutters takes a lot of time and effort.
Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.[/quote]
Donald Trump. Hero of ignorant conservatives everywhere. Of course, it doesn't matter how many times you say "Look, he's just an opportunistic narcissist playing you for votes" nor how much evidence there is to demonstrate that, they will continue to kiss his ring.
Reply to SapientiaReply to Baden And did I say anyone should vote for Trump for his sexual morality? Absolutely not. As I said, for social conservatives it's a strategic vote. Hillary and Bill are much worse, and more likely to pass legislation that will degrade sexual morality by appointing progressive judges to the Supreme Court.
Trump has some qualities of a leader that Clinton doesn't - courage, strength, confidence. This of course isn't an excuse for his lack of sexual morality - he grew up in such a culture. In fact, I think probably 50-70% of men would have said it even worse than he did. In such an environment you can't really have high expectations to find the right candidate. Fact is most men in today's culture think exactly like Trump - he's just a reflection of this. Why is the media getting so up about it? They're getting so up that Trump says it, but they're not upset about the fact that millions of men brag about their sexual exploits by the daylight. That's the real hypocrisy. They - the media and Hollywood - encourage this attitude of sexual objectification of women (and men) and then they complain that Trump does it - of course - he grew up with them! He learned from the best!
You know this is actually a great political moment to speculate for Trump. If I were him I would say "yes I did do and say all those wrong things and I feel very ashamed about it and want to apologise to everyone, including my family. But please remember that they - the media, the Clintons, Hollywood - they were my teachers! I grew up amongst them, it's only very late that I learned that there's other ways of life" - and if Trump did this, he would suddenly be freed to expose them all - and gosh there's a lot of exposing to do!
Fact is most men in today's culture think exactly like Trump - he's just a reflection of this. In such an environment you can't really have high expectations to find the right candidate.
Most men think that if you have enough money, you should sexually assault women, so therefore it doesn't really matter if the president thinks like that? (Note, observers, how far the rot has set in to both reason and morality here.)
That's the real hypocrisy. They - the media and Hollywood - encourage this attitude of sexual objectification of women (and men) and then they complain that Trump does it - of course - he grew up with them!
Of course. It's not his fault. Hollywood did it. Hollywood turned him into a sexual predator. Poor Donald... As for the real hypocrisy, it's more like someone who pretends to be a moral beacon for society while defending a public figure who not only condones, but boasts about sexual assault and adultery.
Of course. It's not his fault. Hollywood did it. Hollywood turned him into a sexual predator. Poor Donald... As for the real hypocrisy, it's more like someone who pretends to be a moral beacon for society while defending a public figure who not only condones but boasts about sexual assault and adultery.
Have I "defended him"? No. I just said why social conservatives should vote for him, while condemning his actions, pure and simple.
Most men think that if you have enough money, you CAN sexually assault women
Yes - actually they do (in the way I have edited your quote). Lack of wealth is a blessing for some. And no - it has nothing to do with what they think the President should do.
Of course. It's not his fault. Hollywood did it. Hollywood turned him into a sexual predator. Poor Donald... As for the real hypocrisy, it's more like someone who pretends to be a moral beacon for society while defending a public figure who not only condones but boasts about sexual assault and adultery.
No, just like in a murder, it's still the murderer's fault, even if others encouraged him. But those that encouraged him also share in the responsibility.
And how are you going to take responsibility then for supporting an admitted sexual abuser of woman in his run for the White House?
I am not supporting him, I am voting for social conservatism, which in this case implies picking the least evil out of two bad choices. There's a big difference between supporting someone, and voting for them for strategical reasons.
I am not supporting him, I am voting for social conservatism
You are supporting him, strategic reasons or no. To vote for someone or to encourage others to do so just is to support them. In fact, for a presidential candidate, it is obviously the most important form of support. And in so voting, you are voting for the personification of many of the very social evils you elsewhere claim to be most opposed to. That cannot fairly be called a vote for social conservatism or a vote of any moral consistency.
Yeah it is a little odd that you, Agustino, can continue to support this clown when he embodies almost everything you (rightfully IMO) hate about modern liberal 'progressive' society--specifically its excessive individualism, materialism and lax sexuality. Maybe that's the point? His position as the possible president should give us pause to reflect on the social consequences of those values? I understand your 'lesser of two evils' argument, but there must come a point when you reconsider if that is actually so and if he would be superior in any way (for a genuine social conservative) to Hillary.
I read an interesting article recently comparing him to Thrasymachus from Plato's Republic. Bragging about being smart for evading taxes, for getting out of contractual obligations, for attempting to sleep with married women, etc. seem to show that he's not guided by any sense of virtue. He apparently looks at those who are constrained by such considerations as stupid and weak. He's a blatant liar, he's unable to take responsibility for his actions, he has no sense of moral obligation towards anyone but himself, he has zero respect for women, and on and on and on. In short, he's about as far from a social conservative as possible, and is more like the poster boy for all that's wrong with America and the modern world generally.
You are supporting him, strategic reasons or no. To vote for someone or to encourage others to do so just is to support them. In fact, for a presidential candidate, it is obviously the most important form of support. And in so voting, you are voting for the personification of many of the very social evils you elsewhere claim to be most opposed to. That cannot fairly be called a vote for social conservatism or a vote of any moral consistency.
Okay so you suppose then a social conservative should vote for Crooked so that the progressive culture Obama has created is continued and made even stronger - new progressive Supreme Court Justices, Bill Clinton probably going to whiten the White House once again, and so forth. Furthermore, you suppose that not taking an attitude about illegal immigration, possibly starting a conflict with Russia, being unable to deal with ISIS - you suppose all these things are also good no? Or do you suppose that a social conservative should stay home - like they frequently have - so that nothing gets changed?
I understand your 'lesser of two evils' argument, but there must come a point where you reconsider if that is actually so and if he would be superior in any way (for a genuine social conservative) to Hillary.
When I'm talking about lesser of two evils I'm referring about the effect their policies will have. As far as it looks, it doesn't seem that Trump's policies will continue the liberal progressive way of Obama, whereas it seems that Clinton's will most definitely do exactly that.
I read an interesting article recently comparing him to Thrasymachus from Plato's Republic. Bragging about being smart for evading taxes, for getting out of contractual obligations, for attempting to sleep with married women, etc. seem to show that he's not guided by any sense of virtue. He apparently looks at those who are constrained by such considerations as stupid and weak. He's a blatant liar, he's unable to take responsibility for his actions, he has no sense of moral obligation towards anyone but himself, he has zero respect for women, and on and on and on. In short, he's about as far from a social conservative as possible, and is more like the poster boy for all that's wrong with America and the modern world generally.
I agree but the question in voting is not that. The real question is will we give the country over to liberal progressives for possibly another 4 years - or will we elect someone who isn't a social conservative, but who is quite possibly going to be destructive towards the liberal progressives, thus preparing the ground for a social conservative candidate?
So then it is principled to sell your country down the drain is it?
It's principled to only vote for a candidate who stands for your principles; and it is certainly unprincipled to vote for a candidate who stands in absolute opposition to many of them, as Trump so obviously does in your case.
Or to fold your arms and see it go down the drain anyway?
You have a very enlarged sense of your own importance as an individual voter. You refuse to even contemplate voting for other candidates presumably because you think they have no chance of winning (and they only have such little chance because people like you take the attitude they do - back to responsibility again) yet at the same time you don't seem to realize that your vote also has almost no chance of affecting the outcome of the election. In other words, you are selling your principles down the drain for no greater chance of benefit in one scenario than if you upheld them in the other.That illustrates rather neatly how much they must mean to you.
Well, Trump may actually strengthen liberal progressives by discrediting conservatives of whatever sort entirely. I think social conservatives should distance themselves immediately from both liberal progressives like Clinton and economic conservatives like Trump (populist rhetoric notwithstanding), and begin working independently to create a lively grassroots movement based on new vision of America. What does America stand for? Let's start there and reflect for a bit. Maybe there's an answer that could inspire people out of their cynicism and indifference and get them working towards some 'higher' long-term goals that transcend typical party platforms.
It's obvious that a significant percentage of Americans feel alienated from both major parties, but no one seems to be seizing the initiative. Well, Trump and Sanders tried I guess. But I feel that by combining some progressive economic positions with some socially conservative ones, an interesting coalition has the potential to arise and develop. The specific details would have to be worked out, of course, but there are some possible points of convergence amongst the discontented on both the Left and the Right that - at the very least - are worth exploring.
The specific details would have to be worked out, of course, but there are some possible points of convergence amongst the discontented on both the Left and the Right that - at the very least - are worth exploring.
I'd agree with this. It could only work of course if both sides could overcome their ideological biases in favour of reasoning out novel political positions. That kind of effort and openness will always be too much for some.
It's principled to only vote for a candidate who stands for your principles
Really? Could you defend this please? I don't happen to agree. It's principled to vote for someone who is helpful for your principles succeeding. Trump is more helpful than Clinton.
You refuse to even contemplate voting for other candidates presumably because you think they have no chance of winning
Which other candidates? I don't agree with most of the principles of the Aleppo guy - the libertarian party is, as far as I'm concerned, even worse than the Democrats in their principles. Jill Stein on the other hand, I agree with some of her policies, and not others, and I still think she's going to be more helpful for the progressive agenda than otherwise. So really Trump is the only candidate whom I can hope isn't favorable to the progressive agenda.
Well, Trump may actually strengthen liberal progressives by discrediting conservatives of whatever sort entirely. I think social conservatives should distance themselves immediately from both liberal progressives like Clinton and economic conservatives like Trump (populist rhetoric notwithstanding), and begin working independently to create a lively grassroots movement based on new vision of America.
I totally agree - but this has little to do with which way to cast the vote. It's a strategic vote - not a vote for support.
But I feel that by combining some progressive economic positions with some socially conservative ones, an interesting coalition has the potential to arise and develop. The specific details would have to be worked out, of course, but there are some possible points of convergence amongst the discontented on both the Left and the Right that - at the very least - are worth exploring.
Yes, I agree with this, but that's for the future, there's nothing we can do about it now, except vote to ensure that this still remains a viable position for the future.
Reply to Heister Eggcart I'm not defending Trump - I'm a social conservative, I'm defending voting Trump as a strategic social conservative vote, even though Trump himself doesn't stand for social conservative principles.
Reply to Agustino
From what I read it would not work that way. The heads of the Republican Party would have to choose another candidate. It could be anyone such as Paul Ryan.
http://www.vox.com/2016/10/8/13211050/what-happens-trump-dropout
And did I say anyone should vote for Trump for his sexual morality? Absolutely not. As I said, for social conservatives it's a strategic vote.
Sure, sure. It just seemed as though you thought that sexual morality was more important than that. I guess not. You set the bar really low when it comes to Trump, and your willingness to make special exceptions is... interesting.
Reply to Sapientia Ok - make Clinton support tougher regulations on abortion, make her appoint conservative Judges, make her adopt a tougher stance on illegal immigration and terrorism, and I'll vote for her, no problem.
Contrast that highly unlikely possibility under a Clinton presidency with the likely possibility under a Trump presidency of Trump supporting Putin's dubious actions, and inflaming relations between the US and China and other important nations.
Ok - make Clinton support tougher regulations on abortion, make her appoint conservative Judges, make her adopt a tougher stance on illegal immigration and terrorism, and I'll vote for her, no problem.
Not voting for Trump doesn't mean voting for Clinton. If I was a Republican, I wouldn't vote for Trump.
Reply to Sapientia Oh yes, I know, you'd vote for that guy who is qualified to be President: Gary Johnson! He must remind you a bit about your very own Boris Johnson no? :P
Oh yes, I know, you'd vote for that guy who is qualified to be President: Gary Johnson! He must remind you a bit about your very own Boris Johnson no? :P
Boris has made plenty of gaffes, and comes across as quite the buffoon. And of course they share the same surname. But I don't think he has made a gaffe as bad as Gary's. Boris is clearly intelligent, despite the buffoonery, and seems far more sophisticated than this Gary Johnson guy, or Trump for that matter.
Reply to Agustino What's so funny? It's true! I mean, for example, when you watch Boris on Question Time, as opposed to, for example, that clip of him stuck on a zip wire.
Reply to Agustino Me personally? Or in general? Because, if the latter, then I think I get what you mean. I mean, just mentioning Boris brings to mind some of the ridiculous situations he has been in.
There's bad things about Putin I agree, but certainly none as terrible as Western (progressive) media inflates them to be.
Yeah, I wish those progressives would stop inflating Putin's murdering of journalists and political opponents. Nothing wrong with a bit of murder here and there as long as you own the law. But these evil progressives just can't shut up about it!
Got any more lessons in social conservative morality? It's kind of fun (in a perverse way) to try to understand it.
Christ, last night's debate was a literal shitstorm. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how either Trump or Clinton have made it this far. It feels like I'm voting against a candidate instead of voting for a candidate. Minimize the damage. What the fuck.
Part of me wants to see Trump elected, just to see the world burn. Maybe then we'll finally wake the fuck up and start voting rationally, assuming he doesn't go trigger happy and get us into a war.
ArguingWAristotleTiffOctober 10, 2016 at 21:07#256290 likes
Maybe the USA is in need of an exorcism. I have tried Smudging my part of the world, are you all doing your part as well? :s
Satan is the one who really wants Hillary to win, only because of his fear in job security. >:)
But who will do the Exorcism.? Father Guido Scarducci lifted The Curse of the Bambino from Fenway, but that was many years ago but I think someone newer is needed. Maybe Glenn Beck? He did wonders for Ted Cruze. He is like the weird family member we all have.
Lol, yeah. My little sister gave me a poster of him for thanksgiving yesterday, she said that I should dress up like him for Holloween, just as she thought I should have for the anime convention... I know that there are few bald characters... but there has to be more options...
Saphsin got me onto the manga, and then I watched the anime. Haven't been following the manga, so the new anime should have stuff I haven't seen.
British FM Johnson calls for protests outside the Russian Embassy to stop the war....but the very people he is calling upon, the Stop the War collation say Boris is " “in efforts to push for more war & presumably to try and undermine Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-war Labour leadership"
Christ, last night's debate was a literal shitstorm. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how either Trump or Clinton have made it this far. It feels like I'm voting against a candidate instead of voting for a candidate. Minimize the damage. What the fuck.
That has basically been the argument of both campaigns. "Look at the other candidate! You don't want them. Vote for me!"
Part of me wants to see Trump elected, just to see the world burn. Maybe then we'll finally wake the fuck up and start voting rationally, assuming he doesn't go trigger happy and get us into a war.
People said the same thing of Richard Nixon -- that if he was elected people would wake up. I don't put much stock in accelerationist theories of social change.
If the court concludes that Parliament must approve Article 50, that could be a game-changer.
The majority of MPs campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU. They could, in theory, vote against the activation of Article 50.
But would they risk enormous political and social ructions by rejecting the referendum result?
Most members of the House of Lords are also opposed to Brexit. That raises the possibility of another extraordinary scenario - an unelected Lords voting against the wishes of 17.4 million people.
If the government loses its case in the British courts, they could eventually go to the European Court of Justice.
It raises the possibility of a truly strange scenario - Brexit ministers asking European judges to overturn the decision of the British courts.
Reply to Barry Etheridge In recent news, as predicted many months ago, before the vote, the pound has fallen and retail prices are to increase. And we haven't even left yet.
Sturgeon's bringing back a Scottish independence referendum. I wonder how long till Cornwall push to leave. Maybe even a return of the Kingdom of Wessex?
Many people in Yorkshire would like Home Rule. After all, we - Yorkshire folk - are consistently highly-placed in the Olympics medals tables. An alternative would be to join Scotland, like a British Kaliningrad.
And how are you going to take responsibility then for supporting an admitted sexual abuser of woman in his run for the White House?
He admitted to having said it (saying it was just words), but hasn't acknowledged doing the fine things he suggested. I will say that his comments pale in comparison to what his opponents' husband did in fact do, which was to take a young intern under his charge and penetrate her with a cigar. A lovely gesture really, which I'm sure made her parents even prouder of their daughter's accomplishment of becoming a Congressional page.
A bit of hypocrisy I'd say in Hillary's condemnation of Donald, but not of Bill.
So, whatever, this is all so very stupid really. The question isn't whether Trump is a boorish buffoon, but it's whether he's really qualified for the position he's seeking. I don't really think he is, nor do I think Hillary is ethically qualified for many more very serious reasons. But all this moral outrage among the morally incompetent is a bit much to take.
I know almost nothing about the American election, I haven't even been keeping up with Jon Oliver, whom would have been my only source had I been. I knew of Trump and Hilary mostly through past scandals, tv and such. I don't think that it's possible for anyone to rule without being corrupted. I'm far from immune to the corrosive forces of power, prestige, and attention. I risk being used by saying anything. Telling monsters true things doesn't change them, it just gives them more powerful weapons.
Personally I both think that I could, and I desire to subjugate the world (all I'd have to do is say true things until I'm powerful enough, and then I could say whatever the fuck I wanted, and everyone would believe me. Literally whatever the fuck I wanted. That's what they all did.) I'd never trust me if I were you. No one can lead you, the throne needs to be burnt to the ground.
Reply to Hanover I'm not going to get into an argument over who is the biggest scumbag, Donald or Bill Clinton. Both have been accused of rape and sexual assault. If they are guilty, they should be in jail not on the national stage. As for Trump vs. Hillary, the ethical issues are of very different types, and though we may agree that neither of them is qualified in terms of ethical character, we would probably disagree on the reasons.
Did you really have to add a smiley? Do you realize how horribly offensive that is to Thais, the vast majority of whom absolutely revered and loved the man? I mean there are times when you don't need to publicly dance on someone's grave.
As for Trump vs. Hillary, the ethical issues are of very different types, and though we may agree that neither of them is qualified in terms of ethical character, we would probably disagree on the reasons.
Trump's disqualification is based upon temperament and not his misogyny. Clinton's is based upon her general disregard for the truth and the American public. It's clear though that most care little about qualification and most are concerned about ideology and are willing to support whatever candidate will generally advance what they perceive to be their interests. If it weren't as I say, we'd have very different candidates right now.
Trump's disqualification is based upon temperament and not his misogyny. Clinton's is based upon her general disregard for the truth and the American public
It's the nature of politicians to disregard the truth and put their own interests before the public. If that was all that were wrong with Hillary Clinton's character then she would hardly be more disqualified than any other politician including Trump. I would say there is more to it than that for both of them, and not just in terms of temperament in Trump's case. However, I've more or less given up discussing it because as you say:
It's clear though that most care little about qualification and most are concerned about ideology and are willing to support whatever candidate will generally advance what they perceive to be their interests.
Even here on a philosophy forum, it seems impossible to get much past this.
Reply to Baden I'm just stating a basic truth about politics, which is that it is a pragmatic tool for advancing one's interests as opposed to it being an academic exercise.
Reply to Hanover
That is a basic truth about politics. But an ethical analysis (even an informal one) of political positions and politicians' respective characters, in order to have any worth, has to be of a different complexion.
Jim Hightower, Liberal Democrat, TX, says there is nothing in the middle of the road except yellow lines and dead armadillos.
Is that true?
Here in the UK that would be white lines and hedgehogs (good line for a lyric btw), but the same principle holds. It does seem to me that people who are sometimes advanced as 'centrists' or 'technocrats', like the Italian prime minister, for instance, turn out to have an agenda all of their own. Sometimes that's 'power at any price'.
Jim Hightower, Liberal Democrat, TX, says there is nothing in the middle of the road except yellow lines and dead armadillos.
I've not read his book. Is centralism dead in America? I guess that's its meaning. But an interesting choice of words. Maybe "yellow lines" could also be read as political cowards, implied in cautionary nature of yellow lines and how careful some politician are at keeping to the party side of things. Dead rodents, failed politicians litter the political landscape as cautionary tales.
Reply to Cavacava I don't know whether Hightower's quote was from a book or a speech; I just thought it sounded provocative.
Centrism is a moot concept in America. Centrism is dead. There was a big earthquake, 12 on the Rictus Scale. Centrism just disappeared.
The land mass that provided a meaningful center between political liberals (e.g., socially liberal but fiscal conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats) and political conservatives (e.g., fiscally liberal but socially conservative Democrats and conservative Republicans) fell off the political continent into the ocean. Gone. The socialists who once camped on the tails of Democrats as a reminder of their former ideals, are now isolated on a distant island far, far to the left. The old liberal/conservative continuum has been shoved into a twisted heap of old constituencies. The Goldwater and cryptofascist reactionaries are cultivating what used to be a wasteland far to the right. Hopefully their desert will never bloom.
Rodents (lying, thieving, knavish, and scoundrel rats in particular) have pretty much taken over. (But armadillos are classed with anteaters and sloths--not rodents--just in case you have to make the distinction some day.)
The result of this political Krakatoa has had real and unfortunate consequences. The legislative constipation that afflicts the House and Senate is a consequence. The failure to consider Obama's SCOTUS nominee is a result. The Republicans' and Democrats' inability to find and nominate a distinguished candidate is fallout. The mad extremists and opportunists like Trump are able to make the old party structures kneel.
It may not even make that much difference (at least in some significant areas) which party wins, because they are no longer well differentiated. (Sort of like cancer -- the more undifferentiated cancer cells are, the worse the likely outcome).
The most grievous consequence, though, is that professional politicians can't even conceive of a way forward. They could at various times in the past, before the present debacle. We are stuck--not in the middle--but in the heap of debris.
Reply to Sapientia Oh give me a break Sapientia - give me a break. You should reference Fox News, not BBC - I expect BBC to give Trump as the loser anyway! >:O
Maybe this will surprise you, but Fox News is actually one of the harshest polls on Trump (not THE harshest, but one of the harshest). The most lenient, quite surprisingly, is this one: http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
They give Trump as winner - and have been doing so for quite some time.
Reply to Sapientia I've been following which polls are which historically with regards to the candidates. FOX actually isn't very biased, and is very close to the average ratings of all the polls put together. LA Times [s]seems[/s] is biased for Trump. And NBC News my God - that's Crooked's favorite channel, she must watch them the whole day sitting in bed for them to be so nice about her ratings >:O
When all polls were giving Trump as the winner those Crooks at NBC News still gave Crooked as the winner - they're worse than Crooked News Network (CNN - which to be honest isn't that Crooked in the polls at all)! >:O
That's even funnier than my comment that Boris Johnson is sophisticated!
I've actually started to enjoy watching them - they are indeed saying a lot of similar things to what I'm saying >:O - although I don't agree with them on everything, and I don't like all their shows. But they're not as bad as the Left makes them out to be. I dislike Sean Hannity >:O but I like Bill O'Reilly. It's funny how Bill treats Trump... it's like he's trying to tame and educate a dangerous gorilla >:O If only Trump listened...
Comments (61561)
I think you guys should join the USAU (USA Union). You'd adopt the US dollar, we could fly back and forth and work in each other's countries, and all the decisions would be made in Washington DC.
Wait, I have a stupider idea. Instead of leaving it to the US to decide your future, leave it to Brussels.
Interesting how these metonyms of place or indeed of entire peoples come to stand for a government. I used to get brassed off by the way the country's name had been appropriated by government: 'The British view is...' 'Britain has decided to wage another futile bombing campaign on a distant land on a wave of earnest belief that you can do good by killing people,' sort of thing. These abstractions often justify the powerful to themselves: Brits r Us. So We don't need to worry about all the little people except when it comes to a vote or conscripting them in a war.
In that sense I think the Euro-referendum vote has been a heartening kick in the teeth for such high-ups. Britain has spoken, and most of the We people don't like it, but they feel they have to lump it.
In reading and listening to both, I get the impression that US conservatives are far to the right of the main stream UK conservatives?
Some of us from here and old PF are over there as well.
It doesn't even make sense to make that comparison. If you can't afford to pay staff the minimum wage, then you don't get to run a business. I don't know the law about pay for self-employed people: whether minimum wage is applicable or not. But if not, that would be understandable, since there's only a single person in the business. As for benefits, again, it doesn't make much sense. Unfair dismissal for someone who works for themselves obviously shouldn't be an issue. If you want to take time off work because you've just had a baby, no one's stopping you.
Sure. I didn't say otherwise. They can nevertheless be predicted by economic authorities, who aren't perfect, but warrant being listened to.
I think "long term effects" is to frame the economic future in the wrong way, in the habitual way that managerial politics does, as beyond political control. What are the long term effects of leaving home? It depends what you do about it.
You can hear my voice from all the way over there? Is that your super power?
Quoting Hanover
This sort of thing already exists in both of our countries, which obviously aren't USSR-like totalitarian communist Marxist states, and there's nothing nonsensical about it. Not only does it make sense, it is the right thing to do.
The government sets taxes, and, over here, it's the responsibility of HMRC to control and administer taxes. That is one way of determining what people make, and it isn't, nor should it be, determined by the market. (Although it can be influenced by the market, and by macroeconomic factors).
Another way is by having a minimum wage, which has been increasing in recent years, and, over here, the Conservative government even introduced something called the National Living Wage, which is a higher minimum wage for those who are 25 or over. Now, it's pretty clear why they called it that: to make it appear as though they're ensuring that these people are paid a living wage, when in fact that isn't the case. The idea of the living wage comes closer to Marxist ideas, but it would be ridiculous to claim that the Conservative government of the United Kingdom is, or is attempting to imitate, USSR totalitarian communist Marxist nonsense.
Quoting Hanover
I might have misinterpreted your comments. Never mind.
I'm not sure, to be honest. But many important and intelligent people listen to them, and consider them credible and authoritative. The only incorrect predictions that I'm aware of are two big ones that were mentioned during the debate, which are the Euro and the 2008 finical crisis. I assumed that besides those, they must have a pretty decent track record, which would explain my second sentence above.
It will be interesting to see what happens, and then we can better judge the accuracy of their prediction.
Nope.
https://mises.org/library/truth-about-economic-forecasting
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/varoufakis030111.html
I'm sure Hanover is aware of the law. What he's questioning is the sensibility of the law.
It's not about unfair dismissal. It's about whether or not a company is obliged to offer certain benefits. Hanover's point is that people are free to either apply or to not apply for jobs that don't offer the benefits they need. If you plan to have a baby then don't work for a company that doesn't offer parental leave. If you don't plan to have a baby then it's pointless to be guaranteed that benefit.
If you have to choose between unemployment or employment at a new company that can't afford certain benefits, many would choose the latter. Some money is better than no money.
And I'm therefore questioning [I]his[/I] sensibility.
Quoting Michael
But if we gave companies free reign, that would allow abuses to occur, and it would have a knock-on effect. What if my wages go down as a result? What if [i]your[/I] wages go down as a result? What if countless people who already struggle on less than a living wage suffer as a result? What if they can no longer afford to pay the rent?
As for parental leave, I don't think it would be a good thing to limit peoples career opportunities and life choices, which is what would happen as a result. Countless people already in work would no longer have that safety net, and might be forced out of a job or to make a terrible life choice which they'd come to deeply regret.
I don't think he's suggesting that all companies should have free reign. Already there are different legal requirements depending on whether you're a sole trader or a PLC. I assume he's suggesting that the small, independently-owned businesses shouldn't have to offer the wages and benefits which, as a small company, they simply cannot afford.
It's better for them to be in business and for their employees to have a job than for them to go out of business and for their ex-employees to be unemployed.
An employment contract, like any contract, should be whatever the signees agree on (assuming that neither is being forced into it).
The logic is indeed twisted enough to be Hanoverian. Funnily enough, when you work for yourself, you are entitled to all the profits of your business. The right not to share any of those with the employees is counterbalanced by the right of employees to decent conditions including a minimum wage. Capitalist cake and eat it doesn't fly here.
The good ones can at least afford to pay minimum wage. Entrepreneurs that come up with a business plan that doesn't provide the resources to do that simply aren't good enough and should either innovate or give up. It's not the government's job to hold their hands so they can more easily exploit the most desperate in the workforce.
My counterargument still applies, only on a relatively smaller scale. Your "some money vs. no money" dichotomy is false, since a better option would be to get a job which meets the minimum wage. If you want to start a business but can't afford to pay employees the minimum wage, or you can, but are unwilling to do so, then tough shit. The economy can cope without these small businesses, and wages won't go down as a result, and there will be better job opportunities in terms of quality, and we're doing better in terms of quantity than we have been for a long time.
An employment contract, like any contract, to be valid, must be legitimate, i.e. conform with the law. And the law should contain fundamental workers rights, which, fortunately, it does.
Yes, yes it is.Quoting Sapientia
There are objections to the minimum wage law, but that pales in comparison to what you're suggesting, which is the setting of all wages by a fairness committee. That is pretty openly Marxist in that it sets salaries based upon need. The government control required to implement such policies goes far beyond just setting wages, but it results in the crushing of the individual spirit.
The logic isn't twisted. It's just your failure to recognize that most small business are barely keeping afloat and the entitlement to keep all your profits may not mean a whole lot. Small businesses fail every day. The logic simply allows that those who take the considerable risk of starting a business, including investing all they have for the dream of achieving self-sufficiency, to receive the benefits of their risk, which may be large, small, or non-existent. You make out the businessman to be some sort of villain sucking up the labor of others and piling up his money like Ebenezer Scrooge. They are the lifeblood of the economy, and it's the very reason that immigrants constantly flock to the US. Your rejection of the American dream isn't based upon some profound insight that it doesn't really exist. It's based upon Euro-pseudointellectual pessimism that looks near and far to find new victims who didn't even know they were victims.
Brilliant. I can only pay $5 per hour, some guy is willing to accept it, but I'm required to pay $6, so the government has helped us all out by shutting down my business so that neither gets paid anything.
At least recognize your anti-business bias. Why blame the businessman for not making enough money to pay higher wages instead of blaming the worker for having so few skills that he must earn minimum wage? If you find yourself unable to earn anything more than minimum wage, why are you excused from coming up with a better business plan, yet the businessman is condemned for not being more innovative?
Marx did not advocate the setting of all wages by a fairness committee, and he did not advocate for "to each according to his need" as a practical policy to be implemented by a revolutionary socialist government. The formula, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", is part of a picture of a future society of superabundance in which the individual spirit is given free rein. Any "crushing of the individual spirit" was anathema to Marx.
To be fair, that doesn't necessarily apply to self-professed Marxists, and it doesn't mean that his road to freedom was not doomed to catastrophe and the very "crushing of the individual spirit" that he despised.
*Do not forget to include that when you work for yourself, you are entitled to all of the loss that the business might/will endure. Additionally, when you work for yourself, there is no such thing as 'paid time off' or 'unemployment' checks. When you work for yourself, you have to endure the times of famine/no profits, as well as the times of feast/profits. It ALL depends on YOUR efforts and reality.
One would hope that even if they work for me, they understand that they are truly working for themselves.
Probably not your intention, but that sounds more than a bit sinister. :D
OR just understand that that some of the best Entrepreneurs small or large, depend on contracted employees, because they cannot guarantee themselves (let alone other peoples lives) where and if there is another contract coming, for there to be work.
[quote=Baden] It's not the government's job to hold their hands so they can more easily exploit the most desperate in the workforce.[/quote]
I agree.
I am a firm believer in unexpected rewards. ;)
OMG Someone who truly understands what we are striving for everyday.
Cleansing exhales...Thank God
Nothing, not one damn thing is promised when you are a small business, other than it is YOU that the business depends on.
Yes, if I or Honeywell KNOW what our NEXT contract is, where it is coming from, how long it will take and blah, blah, blah. So much of our work force is fragmented that it is hard to find anyone promising, anything anymore.
How is anything I've actually suggested much different from the current system? It isn't. You speak of a "fairness committee" (your words, not mine) to make it sound silly, but that is already a function of the state - at least that is what statesmen tell us, and that is what we tend to expect of them: to pass fair laws. Where we likely differ is the extent to which the state regulates, and which direction we should be heading towards. For example, I think that not only was the cut to the top rate of tax by former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osbourne, unfair, it cost the country £2.4 billion (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/george-osborne-claims-cutting-the-top-rate-of-tax-raised-8bn-it-cost-the-country-24bn-and-heres-how-a6905836.html), and was therefore wrong. Nor do I think that it's a good thing that the UK now has one of the lowest corporation tax rates of the major global economies. (Thanks again, brexiteers! Since this was a reaction to the anticipated economic consequences of brexit).
Yes, it does indeed relate to Marxism, in that it sets a minimum wage based upon need, but we're talking about a [i]bare minimum[/I] here, which is something which is [i]part of[/I] a typical capitalist pay system - based on notions of merit - as opposed to an [i]alternative to[/I] it.
The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 took effect on 1 April 1999, and remains in place today. It's a good thing, and it's absolute nonsense to say that it results in the crushing of individual spirit.
If your position is simply that there should be a minimum wage, then there's not much to argue, considering there already is one. Whether that ought to be the case for businesses over a certain size (which is the current law, although the size requirement is being argued to be changed), I didn't think was the point of the discussion.
I took your position to be that everyone ought to get something fair in return for their labor, which is different from a minimum wage law that I take as a law that will assure that there be a certain bare bones minimum that a worker should get for working any job. If I misunderstood your position, then maybe we're in agreement, but I thought you were saying that if work as an auto mechanic (for example), I should be paid something based upon how hard I work and how much I contribute to the business etc. etc, with each factor being a criterion of fairness. So, if the minimum wage law is $7/hour and I'm getting paid $20/hour as a mechanic, but the owner of my auto shop is getting paid $100/hour and I'm doing all the work, I took your position as being that I should be legally entitled to more money. Is that not what you were saying? My position would be that I would be entitled to $7/hour and anything above that is what I have been able to negotiate.
But the original topic of discussion was, specifically, the minimum wage and workers rights as reflected in current legislation, and whether or not small businesses should be exempt from the aforementioned; not my broader position. So you've changed the subject.
But I am more sympathetic to the position you ascribe to me in the quote above, than to your position.
Wow. Another one.
That's not obvious. That's just some economic theory you want to be true so you've asserted it with amazing confidence. http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2014/11/26/the-facts-on-the-minimum-wage-increase/#6740bc7852ad
A spokesman for the advocacy group "Circle of Brotherhood" "Mr Muhammad, said "there was an "inherent fear of black men in this country that allows us to to be gunned down without provocation". This statement needs to be tightened up a bit. If there was an "inherent fear of black men" then many more black men would be getting shot by police and civilians.
Many civilians do fear black men, big young black men in particular, in certain contexts, like walking down a dark street with little foot traffic around; being a clerk in a convenience store in the slum; being a lone female on the street with black (or white) men around, and so forth. These fears may exist, but most civilians typically do not preserve their safety by shooting whoever is nearby. Convenience store clerks don't pull out a gun and shoot potential shoplifters or robbers, and women usually don't shoot men on the street.
We deal with our fears in other ways. We avoid dark streets, we don't go out at night, we walk in groups (if possible) and so forth, or we accept certain risks (and for the most part, get away with it).
The police shoot way too many unarmed or compliant black men who are armed. In some ways, it's surprising that many, many more black men aren't shot, given the mind set with which police are operating.
I don't know about police elsewhere in the world, but police in the United States are not extensively trained. They often receive "police-type training" in the military, and they receive training offered by 2 year community colleges and private training companies. The officer who shot Ferlando Castile in St. Paul a couple of weeks ago had supposedly been through what was called "bullet-proof officer training" which apparently encourages rough-and-tough approaches to police work. Police culture in general develops a skewed view of high crime neighborhoods, discounting the value of any given individual.
The police are a quasi-military operation in many cities (there is nothing that makes them "military" other than the mindset of the chiefs, supervisors, and the cops themselves). They don't feel obligated to "serve and protect" the community as much as "surveil and control". Police don't like being challenged in any way, shape, manner, or form by civilians be they young, old, white, black, respectable, or disreputable. When a cop approaches somebody from a group that is especially distrusted, no benefit of the doubt is extended.
Plus, obviously enough, the cops (in the US, at least) are always armed. Being armed and trained to shoot prepares a cop... to shoot.
It seems like, when it comes to certain police and black suspects, they are prepped to shoot. There is a disconnect between the preparation to use the gun and the perhaps glaringly obvious signs from the civilian that he is not resisting in any way.
If cops had to rely on Tasers only, there would be more cases of unnecessary Taser use, too -- which most people would survive.
The black community isn't the only group of people, by any means, to take the brunt of police bias, which of course is no excuse for police behavior.
And then there is race hatred, as if the other crap wasn't enough.
That fear is supposed to have been a factor in the development of the Civil War (per Stephen Oates), but it was localized in the Southeast as an apocalyptic image of a massive slave revolt. Some connect that folklore to the topic of the first full-length movie, Birth of a Nation.
Post Muddy Waters, Jimi Hendrix, Mike Tyson, and Barack Obama, I find it hard to believe that this "white man's fear" of strong black men is what drives contemporary racism. But I don't have x-ray vision into anybody's soul.
Anyway.. Pastor Burns... wtf?
Charles said he asked the officer why he shot him and the officer replied, according to Charles, "I don't know" as he and another officer rolled Charles over and double handcuffed him.
Fear, lack of training, feed on each other.
The British upper class and bourgeoisie in the 16th and 17th century loathed their poor people who were as white as they were (though that wasn't a big issue at that time). They were lazy, parasites, useless, wicked, dirty, etc. They were offensive. Garbage, Junk. A waste.
After the Civil War a great deal of effort went into oppressing the recently freed black slaves on new terms. Former slave owners were profoundly resentful that they were forced to give up not only tremendously valuable assets, but abandon an entire social order based on slavery. The planter enmity toward the former slave was close to infinite.
Both poor whites and poor blacks attempted to ameliorate their circumstances. The south didn't offer much opportunity, but the north offered more, especially in the burgeoning auto industry, and then in all industry during WWII. Many whites were able to surge ahead in the new industrial front and actually hold on to their gains, and pass their gains on to the next generation.
Blacks wanted to do the same thing, but ran into barriers: segregation in education and housing, and systematic bias in lending and employment. Whites exhibited a lot of solidarity in excluding blacks from their neighborhoods, schools, better job categories, churches, social clubs, etc.
It isn't that blacks posed any sort of material threat to working white people. The problem was that the whites (formerly white trash) felt that only through solidarity and black exclusion could their economic and social gains be maintained.
It always helps to define people you don't like as being decidedly inferior. Blackness became a heavily freighted condition. They were or are hyper sexual, physically violent, lazy, parasites, useless, wicked, dirty, etc.
So, if black people are considered more killable than white people, it shouldn't come as a big surprise.
10k for the upkeep that turns out looking like his? It might be a little on the high side but a necessary expense. I am just saying, as far as thinning hair goes, his is pretty good.
Beautifully articulated and absolutely accurate from a civilian's point of view. At the same time, most police here in the desert are mindful of the fact that many people are armed, black, white, Hispanic, old, young, respectable or disreputable so (knock on wood) we don't see the police shootings that others are.
The officer claims he was trying to shoot the autistic guy and missed and hit the black guy. Not sure that that improves things all that much. But wait and see. Videos aren't always the complete picture.
Quoting Hanover
Matched only by your amazing confidence that I would read Forbes for you. Give me something respectable and I'll take a look.
You can just read my posts if you're looking for something respectable.
The problem then isn't guns; it's aim.
Charles, the therapist said the officer told him he didn't know why he shot him and apparently this is the same answer he told other officer with the him.
Go back to telling everyone how we should just die already, and human to human contact is evil or whatever it was you were about, you giant ball of sunshine.
I watch anime. And I don't think people should die. :-|
Surely that was a warranted overreaction...
"unwarranted overreation" is redundant, and the inverse is obviously contradictory.
No, one cannot warrantedly behave unwarrantedly.
No, even more conveniently for me, the dictionary did that.
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=overreact
Wait, are you suggesting that instead of shooting the therapist by accident, had the police aimed properly they would have killed the autistic man with the toy truck? I thought you were daft, but not that much.
I will say, though, that after they resolve the more serious problem related to killing the autistic, they will need to work on the issue of aim. At some point, they may actually encounter a dangerous criminal, and we need to be sure he takes the bullet as opposed to damaging a mailbox or the like.
Actually, the power company has cameras in the area and my understanding is the police now have a full recording of what transpired. I imagine they will release it? Another officer was suspended without pay (unlike the shooter who is being paid) for giving a false statement.
Yea, I guess a properly placed bullet is much more cost effective than jail.
Go figure.
Well, of course autism now presents as a spectrum which makes them much more difficult to hit.
Quoting Cavacava
That's raises another question: Why is a power company monitoring people with cameras?
https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2016/04/22/mysterious-surveillance-cameras-being-installed-on-utility-poles-across-america/
Mysterious surveillance cameras being installed on utility poles across America
That's irony. Sarcasm is the use of irony for mockery, to hurt, to show contempt, or to be charmingly mischievous like your good self.
"Traditionally, shamrock is said to have been used by Saint Patrick to illustrate the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity when Christianising Ireland in the 5th century. The first evidence of a link between St Patrick and the shamrock appears in 1675 on the St Patrick's Coppers or Halpennies. These appear to show a figure of St Patrick preaching to a crowd while holding a shamrock, presumably to explain the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. In pagan Ireland, three was a significant number and the Irish had many triple deities," (Wiki).
The mind as orifice of the soul.
Which one? Left or right?
I closed the page out (about 3 minutes ago) and revisited the landing page. Now your thread on 9/11 had disappeared, whereas it was visible maybe 10 minutes ago.
This is the second time this has happened with a thread (not just yours). First the message, "can't complete your request"... then close page, revisit landing page, thread under discussion has disappeared from list.
Something screwy here.
Thanks for the thought suppression! It seems everyone needs to censor out things they don't believe in themselves or find too outrageous to consider. The struggle is real.
Now that sounds creepy if I ever said so myself. And of all places!
Depressing response to be honest. What's depressing about it is the unwillingness to consider any alternatives other than the official spoon fed narrative. A feature of insecurity or self censorship? Possible.
I view the whole thing as a noble cause, that is, investigating, in my overabundance of free time, as to the real causes of 9/11. I find it therapeutic and satisfying to do so and also patriotic.
I've said too much. I mean, yes, it was totally @jamalrob's decision...
And here at least in the West, people are much more effective at censoring themselves than some central authority suppressing their voices.
Sorry about that Cicero. By all means indulge yourself here in the Shoutbox.
Another thing is the professional photos by Airbnb photographers. I stayed a month in Toulon and had to sleep on a small uncomfortable sofabed that looked, in the photos, like one of the grandest beds I'd ever seen. And the photo was not just accidentally deceptive (owing to the distortion corrections that make everything look bigger), but deliberately so: the bed was made up to look like a full size double bed with the pillows where they could never actually be used when sleeping on it. I blame the photographer though cos the owner was a cool guy.
Another thing is the bad photos, by owners. Worst of all, missing photos. Yeah it says two bedrooms, but where's the photo of the other bedroom?!
Another is having to make it there at a certain time to meet the owner. It's too stressful and they're too unreliable.
Another is the lack of the feeling of public adventure that you get in hotels. It's like the difference between driving and taking the train to a big station in the centre of town.
And yet, I still use the site a lot. I think it's largely because the web site interface and functionality are so good, with a brilliant map search, my primary search method. As far as I know there's nothing for hotels that comes close.
Just because an industry can be disrupted doesn't mean that the disrupters are beneficial in the bigger scheme of things.
Yes there's that too.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I guess you're right. Personally, I'd use hotels more often if there were an equally good web site/app, and if I could trust them when they say they have secure parking (therein lies another story).
We're not all criminals, you know.
I'd say they're much better for leisure travel when you don't really care if everything isn't just so than it is for business travel where everything has to be right. I don't mind that my room smells of cats when all I have planned for the day is haggling with the locals, but if I have work, I'd rather smell of dogs, not cats.
I don't see why there needs to be an I which is the holder of thoughts across time. Concepts are not sitting in the mind waiting to be used, rather you have the ability to recognize the cat or the mat as a 'cat' or 'mat'. In the same way that my ability to drive is not always sitting somewhere stored in my mind.
Then why do we keep calling it the same thing? Or, are you suggesting that the world is completely recreated every millisecond and what was bears no relation to what is?Quoting shmik
Something is sitting in my mind over time or else I wouldn't have the ability to recognize a cat from day to day. I don't understand your driving analogy because I would insist that your ability to drive has to be in your mind somewhere. If you suffered injury to your brain, I could see why you could no longer drive.
Not that it bears no relation but that it is a simplification.
To turn this around a bit, we see the mat on the floor. Sometimes its covered in dirt, sometimes it's rolled up, it's slowly loosing it's color etc. It's always different every time you see it, yet you know it as the same object.
From this I take it that there is some structure in the brain that processes information in such a way that whenever you see the mat, with it's slight changes you still recognize it as the same mat.
What I am asserting is that what's going on here is not recognition of already existing objects but rather something constructive on our part. The world is always in flux, we take some of the flux, the parts that are changing at a slower rate than other parts and view them as objects.
Quoting Hanover
There's a difference between mind and brain which can get a bit fuzzy in these conversations. I agree that there is structure in the brain for all of this, but that isn't to say that the ability to drive is in the brain.
With regards to the mind, there is nothing about driving in the mind.
Edit: So my view would be that you have the ability to drive, you achieve this though some structures in the brain/body. Your cognition is something the brain does, just like digestion is something your stomach does. In this way the mind doesn't store anything in itself as if a container.
I'll acknowledge that the mat is both an external thing and we impose our subjective evaluation on it. The problem though is that you speak of flux, but you also must assert some constant. In your post above, you imply a constant thing which you describe as a subjective evaluative thing that exists through time and it's able to evaluate that fluctuating mat on the floor. If you want to also say there is a fluctuating floor mat and a fluctuating brain substance evaluating that fluctuating floor mat, we're still left with both of these fluctuating things maintaining a certain consistency over time. The mat keeps presenting mat like and the brain keeps perceiving mat like qualities.
In the example I spoke about a mat which is fluctuating but I don't think that is what is actually going on (although it is what we experience as going on). Rather I could try to use another piece of imagery which will also be limited and have it's issues.
You walking down the street and look up at the clouds, its a mess of tiny ice crystals with no distinct shape. Suddenly you notice an area of cloud that resembles a dog and you point this out to your mate. As you guys watch it, the dog's ears grow longer and more spread apart, eventually the whole shape changes and it's no longer a cloud dog just back to an amorphous mess.
In this example we speak about the dog as if it's ears grew and spread apart. But in reality there wasn't a cloud dog that this was happening to, it's not as if there was a stable object that was undergoing change. It's the same with the mat, the temptation is to think of the mat as changing, or something vague and mat-like changing. But actually there was always just this chaotic flux to which we have picked out what we consider objects. Before we do that, they are no separate from their surroundings, but in a way immersed in them. Like the cloud dog is not really separate from the rest of the cloud.
I'm not arguing that this is the only way to think of objects or the the common sense view of the mat undergoing change is necessarily wrong. I just find this way more appealing and it removes some of the philosophical issue around stable objects. (Ship to Theseus, problems about identity, problems about vagueness etc).
Quoting Hanover
I'd say it as something like, this area of the flux keeps presenting itself as mat like, and this other area presents itself as being an object with perceptual properties.
Wash yourself of yourself
-Rumi
Raising martyred plants from their shrouds
-Rumi
Wallace Stevens
— Hal Borland
Thinking of the gorgeous Winter weather while living inside for the last 90 days. Either our summers our getting hotter or I am getting older. :s
edit: and don't tell me I am getting both
Pondering....
I walked past this in the local bookstore and thought of you.
Maybe for your next birthday...
Heidegger even looks like a Nazi in that photo. Usually he just looks soft, and complacent. Rather like Himmler, now that I think of it.
Watch out for the shadow of your mother in what you do :) Hey, Tiff, good luck when you take the existential leap. Me I'm too old for all that now, so I'm aiming for my last but one destination...philosopher...:)
I also must say that I rather enjoy speaking this way, although I don't precisely know what you would call this tone. I'd suggest it be called "pleasant concern," but I would consider another name if I find there to be another common preference.
Et voila: http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/15327
recently on twitter, by Donald J Drumpf
An interview with Simone de Beauvoir translated into English.
today in Mirror UK
What sound does a catbird make?
Hmm. This talk of the early days reminds me: we're only a couple of months away from the first anniversary of this forum, which had its first members join on the 20th October 2015.
Good point. (Y)
Just for you.
1. Putin uses the "n" word.
2. Putin doesn't like Obama.
3. When I'm president, I'll get along fine with Putin.
I'm sure he does regret that it sounds like he's either racist or he's an idiot.
If "nothing goes", then apparently that doesn't go either.
Hrmph.
I conclude that only just something goes.
So, what might that be anyway? :D
"The more than three decades-long civil war in Guatemala claimed at least 200,000 lives before ending in 1996, with the U.S.-backed army responsible for most of the deaths, according to findings of an independent truth commission set up to investigate the bloodshed."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/11/massacre-survivor-soldier-who-raised-him-must-face-justice.html
Maybe the editor missed it.
Isn't the healthcare industry already well over a billion dollars and primarily women work in that field?
Either/or... the real problem is when what come isn't what you want or need and it simply won't go away.
In short... I've had a cold for 10 days now with super weather outside. >:o
Meow!
GREG
Gah. 10 days. Hate it when that happens. Get better man.
It's like that flick The Matrix. Emotional investment makes the forum more fun but potentially more stressful. Unfortunately, when things get bitter, the mind hardens. Extension of the self (assimilation) becomes secondary to defending the self against humiliation. I like the stoics especially guarding against crippling emotion. The brain shrinks and expands with the heart? Exceptions to every rule, etc. War urges adaptation, too, no doubt.
Did video really kill the radio star?
[hide]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwuy4hHO3YQ
[/hide]
And if so does that mean the internet killed the video star?
No, it just means that it turned them into youtubers, commonly know as video twits. 8-)
Quoting jamalrob
Quoting jamalrob
I appear to have shifted into Banno mode. What's going on?
Is it me, or is that just a tad contradictory?
I agree with Trump that it's time for the US to back out of NATO and let western Europe take care of itself. I didn't see it at first, but I also agree that an alliance with Russia makes a lot more sense than allegiance to any country in western Europe. I think the majority of Americans who think about such things would agree with that.
If Trump wasn't such a fascist, I'd probably vote for him.
Really?
That is not economically viable I don't think.
The US and Europe are very heavily entangled with one another at a macroeconomic scale.
Even if we did withdraw from NATO it would only be a symbolic gesture and probably would have little influence in terms of collaboration of policy.
America's in NATO because it's in its interest to be in it. It's not going to pull out. And Trump is a narcissistic blowhard who doesn't believe in anything except being the centre of attention. If he gets elected, all he'll do is give some tax cuts to his rich friends then go play golf.
There's a global economy and a global market for goods. The US and Europe are competitors. How would backing out of NATO change anything?
[quote=m-theory]Even if we did withdraw from NATO it would only be a symbolic gesture and probably would have little influence in terms of collaboration of policy.[/quote]
It would be a cost saving symbol. I was thinking long range. Toward the end of this century, petroleum and natural gas will be gone from the world's markets. The last hydrocarbons will be huge coal reserves in the US and Russia. There's no reason for the US and Russia to be at odds there. We should join together to protect one another. Alaska becomes a hub. :)
I'm pretty sure the US will back out eventually. There's no good reason to provide defense for Europe.
We are heavily invested in European markets and European markets are heavily invested in ours.
Our major banks would be really difficult to untangle.
Quoting Mongrel
A better long range strategy would be to become less dependent upon fossil fuels in my opinion.
Quoting Mongrel
Ideologically the US and Europe are more in agreement than the US and Russia when it comes to governing.
We share similar interests and values.
Our ideological similarities is what unites us in a willingness to defend those values.
I don't think backing out of NATO would have anything to do with that, but since you bring it up... The US national debt is around $19 trillion. I don't see that as a stable situation long-term.
Quoting m-theory
Good luck with that.
Quoting m-theory
Russian culture was profoundly mangled by the USSR. That was actually the goal of the Communists.. to just tear up Russian culture. They did a pretty good job. There's not much that's deeply rooted about Russia now.. except the ways of their medieval countryside.
I think American interests will take priority over any ideological issues. I think previously the tie between the US and Europe was frankly some racist shit. Europeans look like white people... at least they used to.
I got pneumonia in June. I was out of work until the middle of July. It sucked. I started watching the news everyday (I didn't used to). That's how I got hip to the Trump-view and how many Americans find it appealing. It's just how politics works. Having demonstrated that you can get votes by preaching isolation, another Trump will come along... probably a smarter one next time.
I don't like Benkei because he's never been anything but an asshole toward me. I imagine most Dutch people are just normal people.
Counting private sector debt the US is more like 700 trillion underwater.
I don't see why we can't just keep laundering private sector debt into public sector debt and have the middle class pay for it like we always do.
Quoting Mongrel
Typically when we expect people in the west to wage war we must evoke our ideology in order to inspire interest in violence.
Our desire to defend and even impose our ideology is what motivates our cultures to go to war.
I know I would not risk my life to defend Russian ideology simply because our nations had made some political arrangement.
But if you don't care about what western cultures values represent more power to you.
The national debt is partly the Cold War and attitudes formed during that time. Some portion of it is a recent effort to prop up the global economy after ((choke)) 2008-2009
.Quoting m-theory
What do you think Russian ideology is? What has shaped your thoughts about that?
[quote=m-theory]But if you don't care about what western cultures values represent more power to you.[/quote]
LOL. The west holds no monopoly on values. In some fundamental ways, people are the same everywhere.
It also doesn't help if you try to use supply side economics and Keynesian economics at the same time.
Each are appropriate in different economic situations but both at the same time just balloons public sector debt.
Quoting Mongrel
Well they don't value things like freedom of speech and freedom of press for example.
These are ideals worth dying for in my opinion.
Quoting Mongrel
Sounds good to me.
Too bad people everywhere don't express this by holding the same governing policies.
A Saudi can be executed for blasphemy. Do you think we should withdraw from alliance with Saudi?
I would not risk my life to defend Suadi ideals either.
Sorry to interject, but fuck yes. And the UK should stop selling this disgusting regime weapons.
Trust me. Nobody messes with Saudi. Who blew up the world trade center? Who took the fall for it? How about that?
You bring up an interesting issue. There are variations in values that can seem huge.
I see your point that the US will make alliances that serves strategic purposes irrespective of ideology.
That makes me think of a question.
Is the US media still reporting anything about Turkey other than that Turkey serves a strategic purpose in the fight against ISIS?
I'm not in the US, so I haven't had a chance to take note of this issue.
Meow!
GREG
I am not a news bug but what little I do tune into I have not heard any mention of Turkey.
Perhaps someone that watches more frequently would better be able to answer this question though.
Where the non-American media was concerned with the people of Turkey and what type of politcal actions Erdo?an was beginning to set into motion, the American only viewed the events in terms of "what does that mean to the USA in it's fight against ISIS".
Now that Erdo?an is starting to (or better said "has") set up a dictatorship, I was wondering if the US mainstream media reports anything beyond it's typical navel gazing obsessive compulsive ISIS is the only game in town media storm.
Meow!
GREG
There are far greater threats... like the NRA or the Tobacco Lobby.
Seriously... Scientology is a greater threat.
ISIS just shoots people and makes a lot of threats in videos. Scientology has bought lots of lobbists and votes in Congress. Which of them is really a threat?
Meow!
GREG
Holy crap.
Now that is scary.
I wish I had access to a recent documentary I saw as to how Scientology has direct conncetions in the CIA and FBI, as well as access to political policy in the USA. The evidence was seriously strong. Problem is that it's in German.
OH... and in Europe... Scientology is considered a cult and not a religion.
Check out Clearwater, Florida. They have taken over the entire city. It's worth a bit of research. Talk about some seriously scary shit! WOW!
Meow!
GREG
Everything I have read suggests that Gulen's movement is secular and Erdogan wants Turkey to be more a Theocracy.
Britain's Boris Johnson, poem to The Spectator won the most offensive poem contest back in the Spring with the following ditty:
There was a young fellow from Ankara
Who was a terrific wankerer
Till he sowed his wild oats
With the help of a goat
But he didn’t even stop to thankera.
I'm a bit shocked at Mongrel's views about Russian culture earlier. Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tchaikovsky, Eisenstein, ballet - to be frank I think of this culture as more deep-rooted and profound than U.S. culture.
I'm shocked that you left out Tolstoy. Dude.
My list only has the following people on it to whom I have been an asshole at some point in time:
Hanover
Gassendi1
Endomorphian
peter rabbit
Neither Mongrel nor Kelvin can claim getting under my skin to such an extent that I went out of my way being an asshole to them. Didn't you fall over the word "hate" and "US" being in the same sentence when discussing Syria at some point? Is that what this is about?
Sorry.. don't know what you're talking about. Let's drop it, shall we?
Sure. There might be an apology forthcoming if I knew what it was about though.
3000 bottles, all sold-out.
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/22/12552940/assisted-suicide-california
Americans aren't pissed off by the Dutch. They don't even know where Dutchland is.
Ah, at least we're safe from being bombed then. :P
Doesn't follow, I'm afraid.
At the very least they'll miss, right? Unless we're collateral damage... hmmm. Damn, you're right.
They were like Laurel and Hardy, except that one of them had a really big moustache, and they were from different parts of the world, and they lived hundreds of years apart.
Who and who?
Agreed.
Quoting Michael
Rhyme alert.
Quoting Michael
Who and Who?
Quoting schopenhauer1
What about if they go about exclaiming "Life's greatness retroactively!"?
They were like you and Hanover.
By the way.
As I suspected...
Damn Europeans...
I'm a big fan of Frankie Boyle, despite my alleged thin skin. Stewart Lee has been my best discovery in years, though.
Don't lie, Baden. You thought God created the heavens and the earth and then He created the United States of America to defend Eastern Europe from the Russians and that's why the US is bound to NATO.
You made my day, dude.
Thanks for being the inspiration behind my new bio on my profile. 8-)
Good point. At least I can still bask in the glory of being superior to someone with a mere 514 posts.
Every cloud...
Yay! At least you heard what I was saying enough to repeat it correctly! 8-)
Thank you for the wishes of good luck! My love for helping others and being there for them in the hardest of times is not something I look forward to but I do feel a degree of ease/ satisfaction when doing it. The people who I have helped so far were very grateful. So in a perfect world, if I can be half the woman my Mother is, we are Golden my friend. O:)
btw: you have already reached the "thinker" status ;)
I don't like the idea of 'Health care" being an "industry" but that is just my own favor of terminology. Yes, there are many women and men in Health Care but it takes a special kind of person to work Hospice. The desired outcome between a regular counselor and a Hospice counselor are polar opposites. I enjoy engaging/interacting with souls that are troubled and what better place than to be privileged to help another person transition over to the 'other side' of living. We as "thinkers" ponder what happens after we cease living and much like the validity of God, no one really knows. I don't know and you don't know either. So wouldn't you rather have someone available to you, who can help you navigate the road when you or a loved one are actively leaving life as we know it?
I want to offer that relationship to others.
Not a concern of mine for many reasons. Drinking age was 19 in New Brunswick, though it's 18 in Alberta. I dropped out at 16 to work, and didn't go back to get my remaining credits until I was like 21. When I was 16 I used to just call cabs to pick me up cigarrettes and booze. Do they do that in England or wherever you were?
Never tried that. The thought never crossed my mind or was ever suggested by anyone I associated with around that time, to my recollection.
[b]Common Sense 1
Political Correctness 0[/b]
France is right to ban the burkini
So you know how things go down in the US of A:
The drinking age is 21 in all states ever since Reagan said he'd withhold highway funds if a State didn't raise their drinking age. Before that, it was 18, but all the Asian owned convenience stores would sell you beer as long as you were 11. Now they're real strict and they card you even if you're 50. I get carded all the time, but I have the face of baby Jesus. If you drop out of school at 16, you can't get a drivers license until you're 17. That's because you learn so much in high school that you make a smarter driver. If a cabbie buys you cigarettes and booze, by law, he is raped to death by a guy named Freight Train. That happened to me once, but some guy in a wheel chair gave me the Heimlich and brought me back to life.
I particularly liked the randomness of that last sentence. It's the shit of Pulitzers.
[quote=Sarkozy]If we do not put an end to this, there is a risk that in 10 years, young Muslim girls who do not want to wear the veil or burkini will be stigmatised and peer-pressured.[/quote]
The solution? Make it so that Muslim girls who do want to wear the burkini are stigmatised, peer-pressured, and arrested.
Can we use the same logic to promote public nudity? I wonder where the line is between too little and too much clothing?
Bah! Humbug.
Quoting Michael
It isn't specifically a question of what is too much clothing and what is too little, aside from personal preference. It is about cultural values. Traditional (probably conservative) muslims have a set of cultural values which includes a rather rigid idea of "modesty" for women. Secular French have a set of cultural values which includes women exposing much of the body (face, neck, arms, legs, cleavage) or more.
Why shouldn't the French enforce their cultural norms in their homeland? Granted, the Republic will not fall because some women waddled in the water wearing more cloth than would seem reasonable. Secularism is a core value for the French, as is a positive attitude towards exposed skin on beaches. It's part of their culture.
As well it should have padding, since the guys who would wear such a thing likely need all the help they can get.
If it were simply about the cultural values of women exposing flesh, they'd be forcing nuns to strip at the beach. But it's not. It's about Islamophobia. Just like prison terms for homosexuality in some countries are not so much about cultural values but homophobia. And even if it were about cultural values in either case, any secularist should be against the oppression of rights involved.
Yeah, I know, it sucks in America, come to Canada!
The point with the cabbie is that they are put into a difficult position, they can either keep it, try to take it back, or just take the money. Sure. dick move on your part, and they don't always give it to you, but it's just more difficult for them not to, and they usually would.
Didn't drive till I was 28. Only been four years. My writing is way more smeared with Pulitzer shit than yours!
Quoting Baden
Hanover has very specialized tastes -- he'd want lesbian nuns.
I think men should be required to wear bikini swim trunks -- at least, nothing having more cloth in it than a Speedos.
http://www.underwearexpert.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/MARCUSE-Tropical-white-front-930x465.jpg
Exactly. The hypocrisy is breathtaking if not unexpected.
Quoting Bitter Crank
They're already doing it with the burqini issue.
I don't approve of this law, mind you.
Indeed.
Quoting ?????????????
This would be a true statement and not a threat to secularism at all.
Quoting ?????????????
Sarkozy is an idiot, but his remarks don't at all suggest he wants to disestablish secularism (the separation between church and state).
Backwater Minnesota became home to a large group of Somalians about 35 years ago. How long does cultural integration or assimilation take? Even for European immigrants, it takes 1 or 2 generations. New arrivals generally don't learn English well or at all; their children do. Clothing usually changes quickly, but not always -- especially when clothing is central -- like with Hasidic Jews or Somalian Moslems.
Acceptance of new cultural differences by natives also takes time, more than a generation, sometimes. None of the European immigrant-groups in the United States found ready acceptance. Not the Irish, not the Germans, not the Norwegians, not the Dutch, not the Jews (earlier arrived German Jews were not happy about later arriving Ukrainian Jews), not the Poles, not the Russians, not the French, not the Greeks, not the Italians, etc.
The current conflict over the burkina seems pretty predictable. I've heard there is conflict over French school menus -- which often include pork. Predictable and not a crisis.
Cultural adjustment isn't guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it's not friction-free, and people are going to be unhappy about it at particular moments. Give it time (maybe 40 years, maybe longer) and it will have resolved itself.
The Roman conquest of Europe will tell you: between 50 to 100 years.
That's because homosexuals are not "a people". Gays do not beget gays. Instead, we are created and grow up in heterosexual families -- and keep up the good work, by the way.
There are "cultural habits" which gay men tend to share, though. For one, many gay men share the cultural habit of soliciting sex in public places -- not McDonalds, but in parks, highway rest stops--places that are lightly policed. The gay culture which produced the Gay Liberation Movement was largely put together through networks of sexual contacts. It works.
The larger, heterosexual culture has generally reacted very negatively to public sex venues, once they discover that such things exist. Considerable efforts have been undertaken to eliminate such venues by re-designing parks, for instance. Arrests still occur. (Liberalization of marriage laws do not apply to public parks.)
Cultural friction again, and as with all cultural friction, it is gradually ground down. Fewer gays hang out in parks and heterosexuals become more tolerant.
Is it all to the good? Not really. Some good, some bad.
That seems about right. Figuring 20 years to a generation (off the cuff average), that's 2.5 to 5 generations. If one's great great grand parents were introduced to the Via Romana, it would seem totally native. And unlike the evil French, the Romans weren't trying to annihilate adaptive swimwear.
The Romans could have been more careful, though. Their garum (fish sauce) they loved so much and traded distributed the European fish/human parasite, whipworm, throughout the empire. And the Roman toilets -- which were scooped out and used to fertilize crops -- made things worse. And the Roman baths were more of a public health nightmare than you might suppose. (Like, the water wasn't changed very often.) Lice, fleas, worms, bacteria, etc. used the warm slop for pubic public transit.
We know all this because parasite eggs survive in fossilized feces which we can't help but study.
2.3 GPA? Really? I am surprised by that. I would have expected at least a 3.0 but then again you did become an attorney so in the end I guess it all worked out. 8-)
Maybe it is because I was raised in the land of religious freedom that I would respond so abruptly to that 'sneering" man who decided it was his position, to offer up unsolicited advice on how I should live my life, which God I should believe in and the way I should dress.
Or maybe it is because the older I get, the less tolerant I am becoming about other people's unsolicited opinions and how they think they should apply to my life. My response? Go look in the mirror, you have got enough on your hands, without taking me on.
I am not Muslim and I am not someone who would wear a burkini myself, BUT I would defend any woman or man who made such a choice. And for those that applauded when she was shamed? They should be ashamed of themselves and I would let it be known verbally that they need to do with their judgements. Chances are I would need someone to post bail for me but I am willing to take that chance. I no longer feel intimidated about focusing on the absurdity on which PC is founded.
My guess would be 50 to 100 years as well, but then there seems to be a progression full circle, back to self segregation. I always thought that if you give people the choice to integrate, they might play the game of integration at work, at school and some social situations but the place you can clearly see if cultural integration is 'successful' is on Sunday morning and what house of Worship is chosen.
I have no doubt that nuns choose to be nuns and therefore choose to wear the clothes they do. I'm not sure the average Muslim woman has the ability to choose what to wear in the context of her culture.
The Muslim world is in fact hostile to the Western world and vice versa. Fear of another culture can be rational and need not be called a "phobia."
I stopped lusting after nuns once I reached puberty (wait for it..) which was the same time that priests stopped lusting after me (and the drum roll).
No, definitely phobia. First, there are no monolithic cultures. Second, even if I lazily throw together Muslims like this, fact of the matter is that a majority doesn't hate the West (if I lazily want to throw together countries arbitrarily belonging under that denominator). Third, it's hubris on your part (and the extremists) to pretend you can speak for an entire culture along your chosen arbitrary boundaries. So nothing rational about just a lot of post facto rationalisation.
Yet that is done fairly often even on The Philosophy Forum. I've read that the United States is a racist country in its entirety. Hubris just comes naturally to humans: It's what we do. I'm not an anti-natalist; I don't think life is horrible, but I do think we should at least come to terms with our intellectual limitations and moral slovenliness. Our virtues have a short shelf life; our vices we can take to the bank.
Like Benkei, I don't accept this dichotomy. People from Bangladesh are not hostile towards the Irish on the whole, for example, and we Irish are not hostile towards them, or Malaysians, or Turks, or Irish Muslims. It may be fairer to say that the Muslim world is somewhat hostile to the US (mostly in a non-violent way), but so are large parts of the western world outside the US (global polls have identified the US as the country that is the largest threat to world peace, for example). Some practical steps to remedy this situation could include things like not starting pointless wars and not elevating dangerous billionaire nutcases to close to the top of your political power structures.
What about a fear of Jews? What should we call that? I would call it anti-semitism.
And if any politician in any country suggested all Jews should be banned from entering that country, would you have any problem with calling that politician and, by extension, his followers anti-semitic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSPvnFDDQHk
"Clarion Project members are not credible sources to discuss issues [regarding Islam] given their virulent history of Islamophobia. Clarion Project has been widely criticized for producing and spreading Islamophobic material including the movie, Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, a film that depicted Muslims as terrorists seeking world conquest. Think Progress reported that this was only the first installment of “Clarion’s ongoing production of Islamophobic films.”
http://www.loonwatch.com/2014/02/meet-foxs-new-anti-muslim-national-security-analyst-from-the-clarion-project/
In other words, these guys are about as credible as Alex Jones. Nice to know how you inform yourself on these issues in any case. It does help to put some of your views in context.
Also, your quote claims that Clarion is not credible, because... wait for it... (pregnant silence) Islamophobia! I would weep if I were not laughing and may in the end do both.
Here's a question, Baden, is "Loonwatch" a credible source? The video I posted has statistics which you can look up for yourself. Did "Loonwatch" provide any? Did they offer any refutation other than the boogeyman of Islamophobia? Notice that the title of the film it criticizes is a true statement. Radical Islam is and wants to fight the West. That's not Islamophobic. That's simply a fact. Moreover, the presenter in the video I linked, herself a Muslim (though maybe not a True™ Muslim, according to progressives), also distinguishes between Islam and radical Islam, calling the latter and their supporters the threats we need to own up to. That's not Islamophobic.
You don't like them. Fine. There's plenty more.
"The Southern Poverty Law Center described the organization [The Clarion Project] as an anti-Muslim group, and the Muslim advocacy group Council on American–Islamic Relations said the group promotes Islamophobia in America"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarion_Project#Criticism
Well done. You've just summed up that video, and why we shouldn't take it or you seriously on this issue.
I'm going to use your favorite line against you and say that the SPLC and CAIR do not speak for all Muslims. Why don't you let Muslims speak for themselves? They don't need you or CAIR to be outraged for them, or to wield the Islamophobia hammer against those you perceive to be offending them. Some of them might not appreciate this. Raheel Raza doesn't appreciate this.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/26/opinion/bergen-schneider-how-many-jihadists/index.html
By historical standards this is hardly a major threat. At the end of the Cold War, Soviet and other Warsaw Pact countries could muster around 6 million men to fight in a war against the West, a number that is some 60 times greater than the total number of militants estimated to be fighting for jihadist organizations today.
...
The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the threat posed by jihadist organizations around the globe is quite inconsequential when compared with what the West faced in the past century."
Peter Bergen.
I guess this guy who is an award winning journalist, author, documentary producer, professor, think tank executive and CNN's national security analyst is just delusional while you and the Islamophobic Clarion Project have your finger on the pulse.
Quoting Thorongil
Quoting Thorongil
As for this:
Quoting Thorongil
Hello. Look up. You are the one not paying attention. Do you really think most people think that far less than 0.006%* of Muslims are "terrorists"? Do you get out much? It's just the opposite problem: Due to the right wing Kool-Aid passed around in the US in particular, of which this video is a case in point, Americans of all political persuasions are being led to believe that a far higher percentage of Muslims are involved in terrorism than actually are.
*Note that even doubling or trebling this number depending on who you want to count as "terrorists" doesn't affect the point as its such a tiny proportion.
This might be a personal tick, but "homophobia", arachnophobia, and "islamophobia" are not equivalent terms. In Freudian theory (as far as I understand it) homophobia is a fear of homosexuality arising from self-doubt that one's heterosexuality is not as robustly obvious as one thinks it should be. Arachnophobia, agoraphobia, and the long alphabetized list of phobias arise from unpleasant experiences, generally no later than mid-teens.
Islamophobes are not in doubt about the security of their religious credentials.
Many people like to attach "phobia" to ideas, utterances, or behavior they don't like because it makes the accused (they seem to feel) seem sickly, twisted, and defective while making the diagnosers sound healthy, straight, and properly put together. It ain't necessarily so.
Atheists who hate Christians (or any other believer), believers who hate Christian, Moslems, Hindus, and Jews, Democrats who hate Republicans (and visa versa), and so on may be right or wrong, misinformed, well-instructed, or whatever but they aren't "sick". Not being sick, no cure is in order.
I am somewhat arachnophobic, but I dislike many aspects of religion -- Christian as well as Islamic. As far as I can tell, I am entitled to these preferences. Speaking out against Moslems might make me persona non grata in some quarters, but it doesn't make me "islamophobic". Most people who hate homosexuals just hate homosexuals--they are not homophobic. Same with people who hate Jews, vegans, or liberals.
Now that's some rich bs!
It seems like "purely local reasons" is something of a strained euphemism.
"Attacking the west" entails more than a slight difference in cultural emphasis.
Boko Haram (from Wikipedia)
Many of the group were reportedly inspired by Mohammed Marwa... born in Northern Cameroon who condemned the reading of books other than the Quran. In a 2009 BBC interview, Yusuf, described by analysts as being well-educated, reaffirmed his opposition to Western education. He rejected the theory of evolution, said that rain is not "an evaporation caused by the sun", and that the Earth is not a sphere.
The guy is an obvious candidate for loonwatch.
Quoting Baden
Or to put it more simply:
Americans believe that a far higher percentage of Muslims are involved in terrorism than actually are.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/2014-gallup-international-poll-us-1-threat-world-peace.html
"Gallup International’s poll of 68 countries for 2014 found the US as the greatest threat to peace in the world, voted three times more dangerous to world peace than the next country.
Among Americans, we overall voted our own nation as the 4th most dangerous to peace, and with demographics of students and 18-24 year-olds also concluding the US as the world’s greatest threat."
The precise opposite is occurring with alarming frequency and normalcy. The mainstream media, most major politicians in Europe and America, and virtually all self-identified liberals and progressives do all they can to downplay the astounding number of Muslims, even in their midst, whose behavior is abhorrent and whose opinions are vile. I would call support for suicide bombing, stoning, etc as "being involved in terrorism." The people who support terrorists may not themselves be terrorists, but their support is an enabler for such people.
Wait, a second, just now you said:
Quoting Thorongil
And I'm making one here. I asked you specifically about the numbers involved in terrorism meaning, as I think you know, directly involved in terrorist acts not about those who support them or even more nebulously hold opinions in common with terrorists. So, can you answer the question I asked not the one you wanted me to ask?
Quoting Thorongil
Both are possible. The quote is useful anyway I think. Note that most of your young people hold the opinion, in common with the terrorists I presume, that the US is the greatest threat to world peace. This helps to illustrate why judging those who share political views with terrorists as potential supporters or enablers of terrorists is a very blunt instrument with which to analyze the situation.
No, I didn't. I don't know if you're making a statistical claim or just giving your impression. If it's the former, then of course I won't dispute it, but that doesn't refute any of the points I've made, as I think you know.
Quoting Thorongil
I found the Gallup International Poll's about the Western world's opinion of the USA in regards to it's ranking in "Greatest International thread a bit superficial and feel it needs to be narrowed down. But before I did that I was thinking about what could be a common thread for kids that age to have dealt with and I came up with two things.
Quoting Baden
What happened during the years of 1992 and 2016, that would impact both the children of that age, as well as the way in which their parents AND it's society shaped it's young? What would cause such a mass fracture between our United States Armed Forces and the up and coming younger generation, made up of eager to learn kids but opposed to war and definitely not ever being okay with being told that their opinion doesn't matter in the Forces.
Two things came to my mind, one being the baby boomers and 9.11. But I remained open and asked my 17 yr old and my 20 yr old, what country they thought is the largest threat to world peace?
My 20 year old repeated the question so he knew he understood it and shrugged and said that the answer is a no brainer, the USA is the greatest threat to world peace.
My jaw hit the floor.
My 17 yr old who was on a Vive virtual reality game in the living room, who was listening and talking thru his answers and he said "China or Russia are the greatest threat to world peace, then maybe the USA."
The logic of my eldest was that we the USA have enough nukes, WITH military instillations all over the world AND the ability to use them? It's us Mom, the USA.
The logic of my youngest was that even though the USA has the greatest number of nukes, does not matter that we are 'able' to use them. He explained how it takes over 12 people to come together in various ways, to plug in various codes, that allow a disk to download the activations codes, that have to be entered in by two different people, before we can even launch a nuke.
Stunned, I had one more question and asked them both if they think that ending the draft has anything to do with the way they feel today and both said they would never participate in a draft and doubt that there will ever be another generation that allows a draft to be implemented.
What was their first clue? Gigantic globally deployed military and massive nuclear arsenal?
2014
1 United States 10194
2 Russia 5971
3 China 1978
4 France 1200
5 Germany 1110
Also, I think removal of the draft by the US, and it voluntary service, as well as outsourcing to organizations such as Blackwater insulate the general population of the US's from its war like character. I protested against the draft, because while I could not vote, I could have easily died (in a very stupid war) at that time.
The countries that give me the most worries are those which are (among other things) unstable, critically located, capable of offensive military moves, and may perceive that they have not too much to lose. Leading my list would be Pakistan. Most have nukes, they are chronically unstable, and well located to feel threatened and to export conflict. Insurgents might make a move against the central government and gain control of some or all Pakistan's nuclear weapons. From Pakistan, they could be moved anywhere.
North Korea is about as dangerous as Pakistan but for slightly different reasons. 10,000,000 people live in Seoul which is just across the way. A nuke-carrying guided missile would not be necessary. Japan is not very far away.
Saudi Arabia should be high on the list of dangerous countries. Wahhabism, a very conservative brand of Islam, is Saudi Arabia's chief cultural export and this retrograde Islam is the source of a lot of problems in the world.
In terms of economic risks, there are many time-bombs waiting to explode--the US for one, but most other economies as well. If the way the world economy operates is unsustainable, we'll all be gored at the same time. In terms of environmental risks, there are many guilty parties and we will all bake together when we bake; nearly 8 billion hunks of well done steak. There will be no more misery when the world is our rotisserie...
Hello Hoo. Great to see you here!
Wahhabism is named after an eighteenth-century preacher and scholar, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792).
Today Wahhab's teachings are the official, state-sponsored form of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia. With the help of funding from Saudi petroleum exports (and other factors, the movement underwent "explosive growth" beginning in the 1970s and now has worldwide influence.
Estimates of the number of adherents to Wahhabism vary, with one source (Mehrdad Izady) giving a figure of fewer than 5 million Wahhabis in the Persian Gulf region (compared to 28.5 million Sunnis and 89 million Shia).
Wahhabism has been accused of being "a source of global terrorism", inspiring the ideology of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and for causing disunity in Muslim communities by labelling Muslims who disagreed with the Wahhabi definition of monotheism as apostates and justifying their killing. It has also been criticized for the destruction of historic mazaars, mausoleums, and other Muslim and non-Muslim buildings and artifacts. [from Wikipedia]
Damn, I just had a dream Donald Trump was in my house eating shitloads of food. I totally blame this forum for that.
That guy was a total dick. Even his family hated him and banned him for his views. He didn't gain power until he got the support of a famous brigand: ibn Saud.
I'm regurgitating from memory but I'm pretty certain that's correct.
First, an acknowledgement of the role that the US, and the West generally, has played in destabilizing the Middle East, beginning at least after the First World War. And in conjunction with that a shift in our behavior moving forward. I'm referring to Sykes-Picot, the Balfour Declaration, the overthrowing of a democratically-elected Iranian government in place of a stooge serving Western interests, the hypocritical support of an oppressive and non-democratic Saudi royal government, not being an 'honest broker' in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,. etc. etc.
This blatant disconnect between our professed principles - and yes I know that the English and French were the primary culprits initially - and our actions on the ground. These have done much to delegitimize any sense of moral superiority that the exemplary representatives of Western Civilization could have enjoyed in the eyes of Arabs in the twentieth century. This in turn has led to a situation in which a large percentage of 'average' people living in the region probably became more inclined towards Islamic extremism than they otherwise would have been, or at least sympathetic to its cause to defend the culture and people against a hypocritical and self-righteous West.
Second, once that change has taken place, we'll be able to separate the legitimately grieved from the bloodthirsty and barbaric, and by aligning our values and actions we can isolate the latter and dry up much of the support they now receive from more moderately-inclined Arabs and Islamists. Hey, I'll be the first person to admit that if my family or community or nation was disrespected and disgraced by some foreign power I would turn to whatever source promised vengeance and justice. Hate and revenge are not emotions that only inherently 'evil' human beings feel, but IMO are a result of continued antagonisms that even decent people may eventually succumb to in particular contexts.
Finally, a reassessment and internal 'soul-searching' of those of us living in the West about what we truly stand for. Consumerism and environmental degradation and endless distractions and sham-democracy? Or something else? And what is this something else? Things we pay lip service to, perhaps, as outlined by our exceptional philosophers and poets and statesmen over the past 2500 years: things like respecting human dignity; like self-cultivation through education; like acceptance of the limitations of our perspective; like a renewed appreciation of beauty and our stewardship of the natural world. Basically a return to, and re-appropriation of, sources lying latent within our own exceptional tradition. If we can only get the conversation with our heritage off the ground - and the heritage of other, non-Western peoples should obviously also be involved in the dialogue - then we may recognize and act upon those possibilities.
This is obviously a broad overview and extremely hypothetical 'solution' to the matter from my perspective. The details are left murky, but I do believe the overall picture is accurate (perhaps naively). This would involve a radical transformation of Western existence at the core of our historical being, from modern decadence and nihilism to something many of us (who now think otherwise) would feel worthy of fighting and dying for if the necessity arose through the threat of ISIS or any other group. Right now cynicism reigns supreme, and rightfully so IMO. I do think of this as a 'spiritual' battle of sorts - I'm using that word in an unorthodox way - involving a shift in how we interpret ourselves and our world.
Thanks very much, andrewk. I'm glad you're here.
Is this the only thing you blame this forum for? :P
http://qz.com/765902/ubi-wouldnt-mean-everyone-quits-working/?utm_source=qzfbarchive
It is possible that a UBI would benefit those who must remain at work full time in two ways: first, it might reduce the drag on wages that the anxious-for-work unemployed provide for employers, and secondly it would give the dissatisfied worker more confidence to quit if no increase in wages could be extracted from the employer. On the other hand, a UBI might also reduce worker dissatisfaction -- leading to greater workforce stability.
It seems to me that the 1960s-70s theorists supposed that it would raise consumption and thus stimulate the economy. This seems like a no-brainer
One of the differences in society between the last 30 or 40 years, and 40 to 80 years ago is that families have needed at least two earners to maintain their desired standard of living (and this is a working class problem, not a problem of professional and elite classes). There is an economic reason why people are "bowling alone" to borrow that book's title -- there isn't enough leisure time for people to engage in time-consuming social activities.
A UBI should improve the lot of those at the bottom of the economic distribution. There are, it was reported on NPR -- if I remember this correctly from a couple of weeks ago -- 20 million people living in "deep poverty". That is defined as "living" on $2 to $6 a day, depending on where they live. These are people receiving "economic assistance" of not much more than $200 a month (and often less, depending on the state of residence). Above the bottom are gradations of poverty.
UBI would free up creative energy. 99.41% of the people receiving UBI will not come up with life-changing discoveries or creations, but maybe 30% will make significant improvements to others--their family's and community's collective lives. At least another 30% probably will enhance the quality of their own mental lives -- reading more, learning to play more complicated games, work their way through all of Galsworthy's and Trollope's novels (just joking), finding better porn sites (hey, that counts as an enhancement), weeding their gardens more often, and sweeping the dirt off their sidewalk. 40% might not do a damn thing for anybody or themselves, but at least they would have less to bellyache about.
Not sure about your last set of comments though. A pessimist would argue otherwise. : )
Isn't it horrid? Who would think that anyone would accuse those nice Apple people that all my designer friends love of being tax-avoiding oligopolists? They need 200 billion dollars in cash worldwide in case there's a -------, don't they? And the Irish are so charming, even in government, that it's hard to believe there would be any sweetheart low-tax deals with them just so nice Apple would locate a lot of jobs there, so it isn't.
The EU commissioner Margrethe Vestager is married to a teacher of maths and philosophy, so he can help her with the sums and the rationale :) (I mean, rationality)
Ireland is not screaming for the tax, the EU is, which may be one of the reasons why the UK left. What does being a sovereign nation mean?
Ha. Like when Fox News bring on their token black to push their agenda after the aftermath of yet another incompetent racist cop killing.
The problem is not necessarily the accuracy of any statistics (though they are frequently misused and manipulated) or identification of Radical Islam, it's the way the debate is framed, which throws the entire Muslim community into that category. If they not terrorists, then they are definitely support them. If they don't specially supporting them, then they at least secretly hate our values. If by some miracle the don't hate our values, then they are ineffective "moderate muslims" who haven't prevented terrorist attacks with the appropriate level of public condemnation within the Western media.
Islamophobia is the issue itself. Refuting of the presence of radical Islam isn't the point. It's targeting the misrepresentations and excuses used to justify the vilification of all Muslims and any instance of Islam.
The only person I know who's doing that is a Palestinian Christian I know. He absolutely hates both Muslims and Jews. Most of my interest in studying Islam was to refute the stuff he said. It wasn't as easy to refute as I thought it would be. Sunnis actually do accept that the Prophet married a girl when she was 6 and had sex with her when she was 9.
Nobody talks about that stuff, though. And rightly so. If you're not a Sunni Muslim, it's really none of your business how they work it out.
Occasionally things happen in France that make me wonder about the rise of anti-Islamic sentiment there. That's been going on since before Jon Stewart ceased to be my main news source.
I'm referring to the response amongst the Western media and its commentators who suggest Radical Islam is not being taken seriously. It's hardly an occasional occurrence. These arguments are trotted out whenever Radical Islam (and frequently just Islam; often Islam doesn't register as part of our culture and society beyond the threat of Radical Islam) is discussed. It's a deeply embedded aversion to Islam within are cultural and political discourse. We just don't envision as an aspect of our culture as we do, for example, with Christianity. Islam, in any form, is consider "other" in our mainstream discourse.
Many might object to this on the grounds that Islam hasn't been interested in engaging in our society, that it's secluded itself into it's own rather than engaging with the wider community, maybe even because some Muslims feel their values don't fit with Western culture (though this doesn't mean radicalism and terrorism; it might just mean, for example, they don't feel they fit with people who drink alcohol as a hobby). This is true to one extent or another, but it only reinforces with problem with how the West responds to Islam.
If Islam is seen to be a separate culture, something which is not part of our society, we've already dismissed there is any version of Islam which fits with Western society. Everything the West professes to demand of Islam in criticism (to fit with Western society, to "assimilate" to our culture) is precisely what they reject in the very foundation of their criticism. Instead of putting up an Islam which does fit with the West and then challenging people to meet it, they think of Islam as something which doesn't fit until it becomes Western. It destroys any link between Islam and being part of our society. Islam is left scrambling trying to justify how it can become part of our society rather than being understood a pillar of the Western community (with the responsibilities, values and engagement that entails).
The article then proceeds to paint a picture of what countries look like with certain Muslim population percentages.
A multitude of similar stories have played out in the history of the US. Sometimes the experience of a group is affected by world events, Japanese Internment, for instance. Sometimes affliction is an expression of difference plus stress (as with the large migration of Irish after the British failed to murder them.)
Every story has its unique features. The story of American Muslims lacks some the the more colorful aspects of immigrant life such as organized crime as exhibited by Chinese, Latinos, Sicilians, etc. and etc.
Instead, the history of American Muslims is fraught by.. you know what. It'll work out in the end. It always does.
No, it's not. And regardless of the credibility? Are you serious?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Neither the presenter nor myself are doing this. So if you are attempting to throw us into some unwholesome category without justification, then you are the bigot. If, on the other hand, you're referring to other people who throw all Muslims into the category of extremism, then I condemn them just as you do. But then, I wasn't talking about them, so for you to bring them up is a red herring.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
All of which is empirically true and which doesn't malign the majority who do not fit this description.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
The moderate Muslims are by definition ineffective. Just as the moderate Germans during the Nazi dictatorship were ineffective, or the moderate Russians under Stalin were ineffective, or the moderate Japanese under the Emperor were ineffective, or the moderate Christians opposed to slavery in early American history were ineffective, etc. All of these and many other moderate majorities throughout history have been largely useless in the face of injustice. It has mostly taken political action and brute force to root out the scourge of Nazism, slavery, and other similarly wicked groups and institutions. And it will take, to a large degree, brute force to destroy radical Islam.
Even if all the people in the world ceased being Islamophobic according to your standards, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Saudis, the Iranians, etc will still be here, butchering people and denying them their rights according to what they view as the correct interpretation of Islam. How are you going to stop them? Words don't work. They aren't going to go along with your progressive paradise simply because you told them to. This is why I find the constant droning on about the peaceful, moderate Muslim majority to be an utter waste of time. These are the people who are being killed the most by radical Islamists, so if you really cared about them, you would stop pretending, or appearing to pretend, that the main problem is Islamophobia. It isn't.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope. Once again, radical Islam is the issue. Islamophobia is the issue you'd like it to be and prefer to focus on, but it's a red herring. The people you and others here would accuse of Islamophobia do not detonate their bodies in crowded markets or empty the magazines of Kalashnikovs deliberately aimed at civilians whilst screaming "Allahu Akbar." The people you accuse of Islamophobia are mostly poor, uneducated saps who watch Fox News and attend Trump rallies. You may not like them, and I don't really either, but you have completely unequal priorities if they are the primary target of your anger and verbal venom.
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20160831-how-recruiters-are-stalking-you-on-facebook
I do think that if you deal in a laundry list like this that trails over into 'the Iranians etc' you are not discriminating carefully. I live among Muslims in an English town, I find this fiery rhetoric a sad mirror-image of the Islamist rhetoric you're against. Opinionating is all very well: but mainly let's live together, try and work out our differences and have a little humility about whether we have really understood the way the world works. These enormous generalisations about Islamophobia or radical Islam seem like big word-toys to beat each other up with.
Oh, and I'm always wary of etcetera except when used by e e cummings.
Something.
This happened very close to where I live. It's all over the news. I'm absolutely appalled and disgusted.
Why? "Not discriminating carefully" would be to lump all or most Muslims into the the groups I mentioned, which I have repudiated and did not do. That's why I gave very specific examples, like the Iranian regime, which is to discriminate carefully. Or are the Iranians unobjectionable to you? If so, I would love to know why.
Quoting mcdoodle
And I interact with Muslims quite frequently as well. Whoop-de-do.
Quoting mcdoodle
How? Do you realize what you quoted me as saying? I supplied "fiery rhetoric" against indiscriminate murder and the curtailment of human rights. That's not something to be "fiery" about for you?
Quoting mcdoodle
Why on earth do you suppose that I am opposed to living together and humility? Did you honestly think I would reply by saying, "nope, I'm in favor of segregation and egotism?" That makes you sound extremely condescending.
Quoting mcdoodle
This isn't to say anything.
Quoting mcdoodle
Great. I don't care.
So you are putting words into my mouth. Boring.
Apart from the US being complete idiots to invade Iraq, while Russia and China were sitting on the side and loving how stupid the US could be, thinking it would easily win the war, and capture the oil resources, not being able to predict the rise of extremism, and the effect on costs of the war dragging due to guerrilla warfare, they've also created a monster. The US paid 6 trillion for that war. The oil reserves are just 2 trillion. A terrible investment. That's why Obama got out - it would have crippled US's economy to remain. And then he thought he could use the instability that would be created there to keep the Middle East in chaos, as a way to control whatever threats could arise from that region (Iran). But even this backfired, and he created what may soon become a global monster, threatening even the US itself, despite the great geographical distance. Wouldn't it have been wiser to leave Iraq alone, so that Iran and Iraq would keep bickering, as they have through all their history, and the US could avoid losing so many resources for nothing, and earning the hatred of the world? But now it's too late. ISIS has to be destroyed, by force, and the sooner the better.
Yes no wonder after the great stupidity, both strategical and otherwise, that they have displayed, the US is very dangerous. An idiot with a lot of power is indeed very dangerous. That's what happens when Pentagon officials spend government money in strip clubs and casinos (https://www.rt.com/usa/357693-pentagon-employees-casinos-strip-clubs/), and Harvard trained security specialists are beaten by an old Romanian taxi driver who goes by the name of Guccifer who breaks into Clinton's and other high officials servers with NO PROGRAMMING BACKGROUND (they are lucky because of Romanian authorities, otherwise they wouldn't have caught him). This lack of seriousness and morality in the past 2 US administrations is indeed a global threat, and it is in fact a threat to the US itself. This will be especially true if Crooked Hillary is elected (at least Big Ego Trump has a grain of common sense in him).
Luckily, most idiots don't have much power. You probably don't have much power either, which is also probably lucky.
;)
Hehe, I dunno. I think I would like living under a benevolent dictatorship of Agustino.
It does malign the majority because Radical Islam is the only discursive category in which the West places Islam in relation to itself. We don't get-up and say the majority (many who are those "disgusting moderates) are part of Western society. They are always an "Other," consider to be aberrations who have to work or become to fit within the West. Since we reject Islam is part of our culture, we don't even register it as part of what our society is interested in.
Only in terms Radical Islam are Muslims considers relevant to our culture, so that's how our popular discourses read Islam. Muslims, in general, are either understood as a threat who we must admonish (resulting in such nonsense as vilifying moderates for not stoping terrorist attacks with words or burkini bans) or the victims of prejudice (which is true, but doesn't really say anything about Radical Islam or how to deal with it). You say you aren't talking about the majority, but the effect or you language is otherwise. By denying Islam a space within Western culture, you tar the majority with the expectation that the only relevance and meaning of Islam is in the radicals who are out to get us.
Exactly. Which is why the constant droning of your ilk that "Muslims are taking care of their own. The moderates need to do more to stop terrorism" is nothing more than a prejudicial rant for Westerns to feel better about themselves. The words of moderate Muslims have no more power to stop Islamic Radicals than you or I.
"The droning about the peaceful majority" is about protecting our society from Islamophobia. It's not about stopping Radical Islam. We do not, in making this argument, direct our care and attention towards the thousands being killed by Radical Islam around the world. Rather we direct it towards our own, to prevent various scenarios where our society harms or destroys the lives of Muslims under the misguided belief it amounts to fighting Radical Islam.
On the contrary, they are exactly who is worth targeting with our verbal venom. There are words actually have some impact. We can prevent ourselves turning into culture which advocates Muslims being second class citizens or worse. Our words can't do that with condemnations of Radical Islam-- fighting that takes a combination of social, economic, military polices and time, probably more than half a century.
For the most part, we won't. There's nothing we can do to force such an immediate stop. Military action simply won't work on that scale. We'll end up with and Iraq and Syria in more places. We'll probably help the next radical group, as happened with ISIS (and many other groups before that). For most of those issue, there is no solution. Whether we act militarily or not, we are going to have to wait until they work themselves out because we simply can't control everyone and how they act.
Wow, I found this quite insightful and on point. Living in Melbourne (if I remember correctly that was also your location on old pf) when I speaking to someone from a minority, I most the time won't even think anything of it at all. For example, if I'm talking to someone of east Asian descent my thoughts will be pretty much the same as if they were White. There is a sense that if I am interacting with a Muslim, I know they are Muslim. I may be thinking about their culture or their private practices, when I wouldn't be doing the same for someone of another minority.
True. Something along the lines of: "I should be extra careful and sensitive with what I do or say."
I find that awareness and caution about the background of somebody from a different culture can come up not just for Muslims. I work with a really clever and nice guy of Chinese family, who has a local accent, speech, affinities and behavioural patterns indistinguishable from people whose ancestors have lived in Australia for generations. We often talk about current events, including politics. But even though his ethnic background is invisible to me in our daily dealings, I do find myself suddenly getting more cautious if we get onto the topic of the Chinese government, and touchy issues like their attempt to annex the South China Sea. I expect my friend is probably as appalled at the Chinese govt's behaviour as I am. He may be as anti-Chinese govt as many Cuban emigres are anti-Castro, but I just find myself automatically and unconsciously choosing my words more carefully when it comes to a topic like that. Because I don't know for sure and am anxious not to offend someone I like.
Here you are eliding between 'Iranians', 'the Iranians' and 'the Iranian regime'. I'm telling you how it reads to me, as if you are boiling over with indignation.
I find the Iranian regime objectionable, but Iranians in general have struck me as profoundly interesting people. Their history is rich and their culture deep and broad. Persians were the administrative class in much of central Asia before the colonial struggle between Russia from the north and Britain from the south two centuries ago eventually squeezed them out. They still have a level of democracy, and are in stark contrast to the Sunni Saudis, for instance, in the prominent role and good education of women. These are some of the reasons why I think one should make one's distinctions carefully, and why I strongly disagree with a rhetoric that regards 'Iranians' as somehow intrinsically dangerous.
Why would you assume that I meant every individual Iranian? That is the least charitable and the most nonsensical interpretation you could have assumed. The lack of a quantifier does not excuse you, logically, to assume this either.
Quoting mcdoodle
Of course! As they do to me. In fact, there is a popular democracy-supporting contingent among the young in Iran right now, which we should aid by doing whatever is necessary to isolate and topple the regime.
Quoting mcdoodle
That's why you should refrain from easily avoidable misinterpretation, such as this.
It's a two way street, I'm afraid. Many Muslims consider the West an enemy, irrespective of whether the West treats them badly, and so refuse to respect or integrate into Western society. Conceiving of this class of people as entirely benign and innocent is a naive and stupid thing to do.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Radical Islam gets more press, if that's what you're referring to, because it is more dangerous than moderate Islam. It's very simple. The former commits mass murder, the latter does not. Which do you think is more "relevant" to talk about and the more immediate threat to Western culture? The answer is obvious.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Then the fault is with the listener. If he or she is incapable of addressing what I have said, then I am not to blame for misinterpretation.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
But I haven't said this, so you've merely presented a straw man.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
This is rare, compared to the harm and destruction of life caused by the latter, hence my claim that your priorities are misplaced. To speak only about the speck in your brother's eye while ignoring your other siblings who are being tortured and murdered is moral cowardice. The burkini ban, for example, is not in any way on a par with the attacks in nearby Nice. Do I repudiate both of them? Yes. But which is more important and deserving of greater attention? Clearly the latter.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Oh, how interesting! So words can't defeat Radical Islam, but they can defeat "Islamophobia?" And that's done how exactly? By ridiculing people and calling them ignorant bigots and Islamophobes? By shutting down all possible disagreement with and criticism of Islam? By passing laws that prosecute hate speech and thereby limit free speech? Well, if so, then don't be surprised that no one goes along with you. What else do you have in mind, because you've done nothing to endear your position to me.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Defeatist poppycock. Away with that crap. I'm sure radical Islamists would love to hear this, but I for one won't give them the impression of surrender and capitulation, thank you very much.
Yep, wrong interpretation. I could have been clearer, and you could have asked for clarification before making that assumption.
Next time I'll use two words. Maybe even three if I'm feeling generous.
Madness. He's like a mini-Trump at times, with his agreement with the ridiculous claim that Obama is the founder of ISIS and references to "Crooked Hilary".
How sure are you about that? To return to seriousness; I would not wish to live under any dictatorship, whether so-called 'benevolent' or not. Also, I think the most self-righteous people are often the most corruptible; I think power inexorably tends to corrupt in most cases, and so I highly doubt that Agustino's dictatorship would remain "benevolent" for long. Did you read his opinions about "torture for horrendous crimes"?
Somebody named Bob said that.
Well, I guess if "getting more done" is your criteria for the good life, then a "decent" tyrant ( if there is such a thing) might be useful.
I agree the two-party system does seem to be a significant block to 'progress'. But for every con there might be a pro; perhaps if the nature of the system stops the politicians from meddling to much with it; that is if it stops them getting anything much done in the way of imposing their individual and/or collective wills on societal proceedings, it might not be an entirely bad thing. To be honest I think most politicians only see their role as being to implement the 'will of the people' on the odd occasions when the will of the people happens to coincide with their own ambitions and ideological agendas.
It's not as if us people know which projects are better. More of our information comes from the government itself then independent experts. Funny system when the government is supposedly the will of the people, yet it runs add campaigns.
Sure if you are benefiting from the status quo. : )
Implementing projects, if by that you mean projection and development of infrastructure, seems to be mostly a function of state governments in Australia, and I do agree that there must be progress in that regard (at least if that imperative is predicated on the inevitability, if not the desirability, of continual growth). But I don't believe the Federal Government can do what I think is most pressing: to make the corporations and the very rich bear a fair share of the tax burden. I don't believe many (or even any) politicians are even ideologically committed to that these days, and even if they were I'm not convinced they could work effectively enough against plutocratic interests to achieve it. It should be a bilateral imperative regardless of whether left or right politics is favoured; Really, it is simply a matter of fair play.
Yeah, I guess they probably couldn't do more harm than is already being done if they worked against, rather than for, plutocratic interests.
I'd say I'd miss you except those last few posts were pretty horrible because they were totally devoid of any reflection.
Thanks.
Missed me, it went Northwest of me by around 300/400 miles. First Hurricane to land on Florida in 11 years. Category 1.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/slaves-georgetown-university.html?_r=0
Thanks for the kind words! :)
Quoting Sapientia
lol - did you miss me? :D
Quoting John
Well John, are you planning to be a cold-blooded serial killer who brutally and viciously rapes and murders his victims? If you are, then you should be very very afraid of my dictatorship, because unlike today, you will not get to live and be fed on state money after you have committed the most atrocious crimes against justice. + you forget to mention that I no longer support that view - I would just execute the criminal in such horrendous cases, unless they show repentance, in which case life-long prison (as I have in fact stated in that thread, if you had actually read it). If they don't, then straight execution, although they do deserve hell-fire - but God will deal with that.
lol... it doesn't matter who the President is so long as justice gets done my friend. In fact, I would rather not be President - I would rather not be a leader in any community, because it is a mean, difficult and ardous life. It's not a nice life, especially in today's world. I'd rather sit on some farm, taking care of the animals, and sitting by the fireside with my family and children and my God. I would read, study, write and converse with my family and the local community, and promote morality along my fellow citizens. But alas - such has become impossible in today's world, and people no longer have a choice to live a decent life. This has become impossible. So we have to do something about it. We have to restore order to the world,all of us. There's no one left to do it. So we must all play our part - regardless of whether we're businessmen, politicians, thinkers, or anything else. Only a civilisations combined effort, in self-remembrance can stop the advance of decadence.
Today the common man no longer has a right to have a family - a divorce rate higher than 50%, and an infidelity rate around 50% for MARRIED people. Today children no longer have a right to have a family - that's why 40% are born out of wedlock. Intelligence is no longer respected. Art is no longer valued. We have to do something about it, and nobody else is talking about these problems. Terrorism and extremism, whether it is the secular progressive one which destroys culture, or it is the radical islamic one which brings about brutal and rampant violations of justice must be fought. It's as simple as that, otherwise we won't have a society anymore, and the traditions and world we have inherited will be left in ruin.
I don't need a bookmark. All I have to do is type "t" and this website always comes up first.
And welcome, Umbra.
Quoting Sapientia
Exit @Thorongil. Enter @Agustino. Are they the good cop, bad cop of the moral police? Or is it more a case of (the) Superman and Clark Kent? :P
http://nautil.us/issue/6/secret-codes/learning-to-speak-shrub
Might even be worth a thread if, you want to argue the toss about who should have been left out or died. There's a few I've heard of amongst them, and some possibly interesting links
Something fishy is going on.
Edit: Just made the connection. 45 is my house number. Guessing they typed it into the wrong field. Silly people.
Be careful with that. It brings to mind a phrase that chilled me when I read it, and have never forgotten: from Mervyn Peake's Titus Groan:
He gave himself up to the hunger of the owls.
[quote=The Independent]Britain is now the second biggest arms dealer in the world, official government figures show – with most of the weapons fuelling deadly conflicts in the Middle East.
Since 2010 Britain has also sold arms to 39 of the 51 countries ranked “not free” on the Freedom House "Freedom in the world" report, and 22 of the 30 countries on the UK Government’s own human rights watch list.
A full two-thirds of UK weapons over this period were sold to Middle Eastern countries, where instability has fed into increased risk of terror threats to Britain and across the West.[/quote]
Good job we've a thriving armaments industry then, to counter the threats.
rolleyes, banghead, throwuphandsindespair.
There was this guy said something about those that live by the sword dying by the sword, but that must have been subversive nonsense.
But this obscures the fact that the lunatic is also a pathological liar of a kind and quality that we have not seen in recent presidential politics and perhaps ever.
Trump is in a category all his own.[/quote]
Source: [url=http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/opinion/donald-trump-is-lying-in-plain-sight.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&referer=https://t.co/vlXb9w9rq7]Donald Trump Is Lying in Plain Sight[/URL]
This one's good too: [url=http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57d16e09e4b03d2d4598a87f]Donald Trump Keeps Saying Things That Would Destroy Any Other Presidential Candidate[/URL]
The irony is that the media believes it is responsible for the outcome of elections, the very objection Trump supporters make against the media.
The truth is that if Trump wins (or loses), it will have nothing to do with the media. It will have to do with what the public wants, which is far less manipulatable than people think.
That isn't true. All of the candidates that entered the contest have the capacity to be a leader. Hilary Clinton has plenty of experience and easily fits the role. It isn't at all difficult to imagine her as President. Trump has that capacity too, but he gives the impression of incompetence, bombast, and rashness, and he is constantly putting his foot in his mouth. Hilary certainly isn't without her faults either.
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
You appear to be contracting yourself there.
Quoting Agustino
Coo-coo.
Quoting Agustino
Are you joking? This was such a Bush moment:
[video]http://youtu.be/GEOzt7oFCDI[/video]
And there are plenty of other dumb and/or reprehensible Trump quotes.
That sounds like "we're going to win big league" to me.
Maybe. Anyway, it's not like my case rests on that one comment.
Sure but there's no point to dispute over. We both stated our positions, haven't we? :)
Yes, we've both stated our positions. (Although mine is right and yours is wrong). :p
LOL if you wish :D
This is where Donald J. Trump learned the art of the deal...
Yes! Especially this one... :D (this must be who @Sapientia is voting for, him being the cool libertarian, sans-culotte, 'everyone is free' - 'liberté égalité fraternité' and all!)
I wasn't even aware of that guy. I had in mind the candidates from the two main political parties.
I won't be voting for anyone, since I'm not eligible to vote, but it would never have been that guy or anyone from his party. For me, since Bernie Sanders didn't make it far enough, it would be between Hilary Clinton and Jill Stein; and I think I'd have to go for Clinton, at the very least as an anti-Trump strategy, but also because she has some merit and I agree with her on more issues than I agree with Trump, and Trump is the worse candidate. And I'm certainly not alone in that opinion. Trump is very unpopular here as a candidate for President (although he's popular as a clown and has attracted much attention as a cause for concern), both with the general public and with people of political importance, and for good reason.
Ah yes - I thank God for that every night! :D
Quoting Sapientia
Yeah, it's the guy who has about three times the percentage of Jill Stein in the polls :P But you seem to have some keen interest in the fair sex. Let me just remind you though that this is about the Presidency of the United States of America, just so we're clear. One should make the choice based on the rational faculties of the soul, not upon one's passions as in other matters... :-*
No, that was the work of the other guy. The red guy with the horns. You know... he's a bit like Trump, but not as bad.
Right, you forgot who the boss of that guy is...
Hanover is the codename for the FBI and the other hedge fund special interests?
What is Aleppo?
a) The city that is the epicenter of the Syrian civil war that's on the news every day and that everyone knows about.
b) A brand of ice cream.
EDIT: I guess @Agustino had that covered. Serves me right for not spending my day reading through the Shoutbox posts. :(
Ha, good catch! and great photo!
Her apology wasn't far behind. Quote: "We're not hate, we're love. We're miracle mattress. We make miracles happen."
Unfortunately they are not the only ones who have tried to capitalize on this tragedy: Walmart with its twin towers of soda pop (that's Florida), Marriott with its free coffee and mini-muffins, AT&T using a ghost like image of the towers to sell cell phones.
lmao Now that's funny!
http://www.therooster.com/blog/10-brutally-real-reasons-why-millennials-refuse-have-kids#sthash.k5c9LiZN.dpuf
10. They're an interference. It's bad enough that I have to waste my time walking the dog on the weekend.
Oh, and: 11. Sleep.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/09/nose-any-other-name-would-sound-same-study-finds
While I agree that the human "species will survive", the premise used is flawed, I think.
Yes, I also heard that the inclination to have children is a heritable trait. If your parents didn't have any children, then you probably won't have any either.
I don't think anyone here has made that an issue.
Quoting Terrapin Station
What kind of things do people get upset about on your planet?
Quoting Pierre-Normand
Ziiiing... :)
This sounds correct, although Adam and Eve had no parents, so it's not clear where their propensity to have children arose from.
What? How can you even exist if YOUR parents do not have kids?
Is this sarcasm? : )
No, he's totally serious.
I think Eve inherited it from the X chromosomes in Adam's rib; and Adam himself got it from wherever his belly button came from.
Nevermind, the point I'm trying to raise as a reply to Hanover's premise is that ideas rub off to other people even in the absence of parental link.
Or maybe he's arguing that a propensity to procreate is a genetic quality instead of an idea. Not sure if this discussion is serious or not. Haha. Oh well, we're in the lounge anyways. : ))
Your only hope is that the propensity to have children is an atavistic trait. In that case, even though neither your parents nor yourself have had any children, maybe your grandchildren will rescue your lineage.
Ah, the old retro-atavistic backward boomerang. All is not lost!
It is when controlling social pressures are placed on someone for speech/expression.
Quoting Baden
An example would be someone stabbing you out of the blue. I'd say that's something worth getting upset about.
Cool. Let me know how that goes for you.
Trump is looking more & more likely as Clinton sinks into a can of worms of her own making.
I named the fly in my room Walkie, which I thought ironic, sort of like calling Baden "Flash" or something that would make you think he actually had a brain.
This is what happens when you take a day to work from home. I think I might paint a lady's face on the soccer ball on my floor and name it Lucille Ball and start talking to it.
Some online fora have a chat-box on the main page that allows users to chat in real time about random topics and trivia. This is a thread that has a similar function.
Welcome to the forum.
One must wonder how such specimens ever get to run for President.... Just have a look especially at the two girls in the back, on the right side... (N)
There's a very different reason for me being called "Flash", which my lawyer has instructed me not to divulge. (He also write that last bit coz it have big wurds.)
It feels more like they were half asleep through his speech to me (probably being there only because they were paid), and furthermore, asking your audience for applause gives the wrong impression as applause is always something that the speaker must earn, not demand. If his intonation wasn't quite right, it would have been better to continue the speech when they didn't applaud, and come up with a more dramatic ending in order to provoke the applause at a later time. Asking for it is the sign of someone who has no greater inventiveness and imagination and cannot find a way to move past the defects of his performance, except the straight forward "clap please" - this is also offensive to the audience, it's like forcing them to applaud even if they don't feel that it's deserved.
Also, eggs fertilised without sperm
Guess that means we're all expendable.
I believe they solicit them on street corners.
"We must imagine pupper happy."
EDIT: Mystery solved: pupper is alive and there is no hysterical laughter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtIuFToHwUI
Anyone who claims there is no systemic problem with law enforcement in the US is either ignorant or blind. (Also, anyone who claims all cops are pigs, take note. It's not the cops, it's the system.)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-ex-marine-fired-w-va-officer-failing-shoot-article-1.2790284
When other responding officers arrived, Williams reportedly advanced upon the officers and allegedly “waved” his gun towards them in an aggressive manner."
http://lawofficer.com/2016/09/police-officer-fired-for-not-shooting-man-with-gun/
[Quote=BBC News]The four soldiers involved, who were granted anonymity in the report, were acquitted of manslaughter at a court martial in 2006.[/quote]
"Justice".
Is there a reason why you have difficulty with this basic understanding? There's a big difference between understanding why people get upset at that sort of thing - which is obvious - and being of the opinion that it is nothing worth getting upset over.
What is sarcasm?
Mark Train? :D
[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7yHckRTkcZg[/video]
:D
LOL! This makes him seem like a good guy, but without any charisma or really worldly know-how. His brother, George, was much more charismatic than he is. George would have had a chance against Trump - at least he comes off as witty, friendly and funny (although he is stupidly dangerous).
Jeb should have avoided trying to tackle Trump head on. That's very stupid. He should have befriended or ignored Trump, while attacking the other candidates - if Trump said anything bad about him or his brother he shouldn't have said anything. Push himself into the top 3, wait for other candidates to drop out. And only then should he have jumped on Trump. Trump needs another Trump to beat him. His rhetoric is the best I've seen in politics in the past 20 years at least. He comes off as strong, dominant, and overpowering. To beat Trump you need to play his game - bring out paper work confirming or suggesting illegal activities that he has been engaged in. Rub it in his face during a debate - surprise him. Tell him that he deserves to go to prison, etc. The thing is, because the Western world hasn't had real leaders for many many years - they have forgotten what it means to fight. That's why Trump so easily beats them. He's the only one up there who can fight. And he will very likely beat Clinton - Clinton has no energy. Especially the debates will ruin her. Obama would have fared better, but I think Trump would have still beaten Obama - he's far more aggressive. These people think that Trump can be beaten by mocking him, or sneering him, etc. This is false. He can only be beaten by being overpowered. This is the wrong approach to Trump:
That's an amazing statement to make. In terms of effectiveness, yes, it has been effective, but it has also massively backfired. And in terms of substance, credibility, and morality, it is abysmal. But it will of course soon be put to the test, and my hope is that the electorate will see through his rhetoric enough not to vote for him. Here in the U.K., at least, his rhetoric has had the opposite effect. Very few people of importance endorse him. The question here is often phrased along the lines: if Trump became president, how would you react, or handle the situation? You don't get that question about Hilary Clinton, which is telling. The implication is that Trump is a problem.
Quoting Agustino
Very likely?! I don't think so.
Quoting Agustino
Pointing out his massive faults is probably an effective strategy. I don't think that fighting fire with fire would be very successful, unless it was done very subtly - but that can't be done if there is no subtlety in the fire. Clinton would look an even bigger fool, or even more odious, than Trump if she stopped to his level and used his language.
Good question.
Thanks.
I meant "Train" as in "Never the train shall meet".
I don't understand the question...
Because in the UK most people only listen to mass-media snippets of him - not to full speeches. The mass-media is making a caricature of it - they are not honestly portraying what is happening - they only show the most outrageous statements, which also come packed with a negative interpretation. So the UK people, as well as the rest of Europe, is seriously misinformed about Trump. The media can't have the same effect in the US - why? Well for a couple of reasons. First word of mouth from Trump supporters. Second Trump is active very much there, and people see much more of him, whether they like it or not. Thirdly, the US has much more extensive conservative resources than Europe at the current moment.
Quoting Sapientia
I don't think it has backfired. Negative advertising is still advertising (and it's free!), not to mention that a leader to be effective must be polarising. The job of a leader is precisely in creating and enforcing distinctions between good and evil - whether he does so in a way that is moral or immoral is a different story. But if he succeeds to enforce such distinctions, then he is a strong leader. Hitler for example was a strong leader - without a doubt - but we can also agree that without a doubt he was also highly immoral. But a leader can be effective regardless of his morality - hence why we have good leaders (Marcus Aurelius), and evil leaders (Hitler). So to a certain extent if a leader doesn't have enemies, then he isn't really a leader. This is exactly the failing of modern politicians. They want to please everyone. They're not polarising. They have, as Trump says, no strength. That's why Trump gives Putin as an example - he has strength - he is polarising.
Quoting Sapientia
People don't care though. They see that Trump has strength, confidence, that he managed big and complex projects and made most of them work, that he is determined to do something, even forcefully if he must. They see in him a man who is determined to find a way, not a man who is resigned to his fate. Also, they see in him someone determined to stare problems straight in the face and not give up until he solves them. Whereas in Crooked, they see someone who has relatively few achievements, who has always had good political backing due to the influence of her husband, who has made some bad mistakes in government, who has shown definite signs of being paid by big money, and being corrupt, who is physically weak, and who simply isn't willing to admit the very serious problems that the Western world has. Even I would vote for Trump, even though I find some of his behaviour immoral (like cheating on his first wife). At least he has the minimum necessary to be an effective leader, whether for good or for bad.
Instead of doing any evaluation into whether the shooting were necessary and whether Officer Mader failed to act appropriately to the threat by eliminating it, you instead just jumped to the conclusion everyone else has. You consider all US officers trigger happy, and when his superiors learned that Mader wasn't similarly trigger happy, they fired him. He was one of them, not one of us, so to speak.
Since yours is the conspiratorial theory, I think you need the evidence for it as opposed to just jumping on the anti-police bandwagon every time a story appears to support your accepted narrative.
I'm not on the pro-police bandwagon. I don't walk around thinking that cops are always great and make no mistakes. I just think there's this trend where everyone now looks at officers as the enemy. The primary enemy of the police are those who break the law. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are exceptions.Quoting BadenI am making the world a better place than those who think that attacking officers are. The end result is going to be higher crime and a more dangerous society if we continue going down the road of justifying distrust of officers. That's already playing itself out.
If the suggestion is that I'm doing that, you missed a bit.
Quoting Baden
If you want to argue with cop haters, go find some.
One irony was that in addition to the food being horrid, the cafeteria is single handedly keeping the Cardiac floor in business as a result of their menu. Would you like fried chicken strips or chicken nuggets with tater tots or sweet potato tots? Side of Ranch?
The acronym that has me baffled is STAT - which stands for Sooner Than Already There
Now can someone tell me how to satisfy that need? Or would you fail before even starting?
Ah, the American romance with nonsensical hyperbole...I love the smell of pointless paradox in the morning.
It's from the latin word statim which means "immediately". The acronym is a backronym.
You are the cop hater I'm arguing with.
Such a Heavenly scent~~~ (L)
I like the other version better. 8-) Putting my rose colored glasses back on~
They don't exactly have to try hard. He [i]is[/I] like a parody or a caricature. He provides them with all the ammunition they'll ever need. Of course the media will spin it a certain way, but these Trump quotes speak for themselves, and Trump often arrogantly stands by them and even boasts about them. He just keeps digging.
Quoting Agustino
His [url=http://uk.businessinsider.com/polls-donald-trump-khan-2016-8]attack on the Khans[/URL], his [url=http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-polls-20160616-snap-story.html]reaction to the Orlando shooting[/URL]... Surely you're not oblivious.
Quoting Agustino
There are plenty who do, but for those who don't, that's a BIG problem. They should.
Why do you think so? I think regardless of whether he's a good or bad man, he surely isn't a parody. He's got some very difficult construction projects completed, which is not easy at all. I've worked in construction, and it probably is the most complicated out of all businesses, since the expertise and teams that are involved are very diverse (architects, civil/structural/geotechnical/hydraulic engineers, workers, technicians), projects require large financing and typically involve multiple investors and/or financial institutions, there are many uncertainties and risks which can always push projects beyond time/budget, and the sheer details that are involved and their execution is difficult to manage. And I haven't even got into all the bureaucratic problems involved in construction, all the licenses needed, all the approvals, etc. Although I will give you this. It's much simpler if you already own a company with a large revenue, as people come to you and are willing to work for you based on your yearly turnover. But to get into it, even if you have 5 million dollars, but no revenue or connections - almost impossible. It's not like some web-based business that you can start, wing it, and manage it all by yourself from your chair at home giving a few phone calls here and there to a lawyer or accountant. This type of business actually involves a lot of people and is very difficult to manage (and very easy to lose a lot of money in, one might add).
Quoting Sapientia
Maybe. I think his attack on the Trump University Mexican judge was the thing that harmed him most so far. Orlando shooting didn't really harm him - that provided him with a stronger argument for his policies, and a way to appeal to the LGBT community from the Republican side. The attack on Khan - that wasn't an attack, quite honestly. All he said is that "many people have said that the wife had nothing to say, that's why she was sitting silently" - that's not an attack at all. Then he congratulated them for being a gold-star family and said their son wouldn't have died if he had been president. Nothing too serious there - the media just tried to blow it out of proportions. The Mexican judge was serious though - he basically said that someone couldn't be a judge in a court case involving him if he is Mexican. That was outrageous, and it did alienate many people.
Quoting Sapientia
Well maybe - but politics isn't all that rational. Rhetorics are more important than reasoned argument.
Yet it is a predicable cause-effect occurrence. Offensive comments cause offence. People are sensitive and there are sensitive subjects which people are sensitive to. There is no on-off switch to emotion. Some comments are bound to trigger an emotional reaction.
But I suspect you already know this, and that your comments come from a position of willful ignorance. You've chosen to play the stereotype of a stoic, and these facts get in the way. You come across like Spock. But you aren't Vulcan. You're not even half-Vulcan half-human like Spock. You're just human like the rest of us.
Because I've seen him on television. I've heard what he has to say, and I've seen how he behaves. I've picked up on his poor attitude, his arrogance, his ignorance, his boastfulness, his childishness, his prejudice, his divisiveness. I've seen the lies, the bluster, the hyperbole. I know of his outrageous claims: what he has said about Mexicans, Muslims, Obama, Clinton, [url=http://news.sky.com/story/trump-police-fear-for-lives-in-radical-london-10336732]parts of London and our Metropolitan Police[/URL], and other things.
Quoting Agustino
Yes it did. The evidence says otherwise. Did you follow the link?
Quoting Agustino
Sure, whatever you say.
The "evidence" is that his poll numbers were lower after the Orlando attacks? Let me remind you that in that period a lot of other events happened, including the Mexican judge event I mentioned. His polls were sliding from the attacks he was receiving from both the Republican Party (as they were still at war with him) and the Democratic Party. I read the link you have provided. I saw that 25% agreed with his Orlando attacks attitude, and 51% disagreed. It doesn't say much to me though - one needs to see the big picture. In the big picture, I doubt the Orlando attacks were very harmful to him.
Quoting Sapientia
If I was the father I wouldn't have felt insulted. I would have clarified why my wife didn't say anything sure, but I wouldn't have made a big deal out of it. Trump didn't make a big deal out of it either, it was just one interview where he mentioned it. The speech of the Khans during the democratic convention DID however seriously harm Trump. It wasn't Trump's reaction, so much as the event itself.
Quoting Sapientia
Ok sure, but you certainly must realise that there's a lot more about a man than what you see on television. You could very well say he has a nasty character, or he is arrogant, etc. as you in fact did. But that's not to say that he's a parody. Those are not equivalent. He is clearly capable of getting serious things done - and complicated things that many others wouldn't be able to. He also has tremendous determination and energy - qualities that many others don't have. This doesn't sound like a parody to me. Not liking someone from a moral standpoint is different than refusing to recognise that they have some qualities.
savage
Well, both probably contributed. Either way, given your acknowledgement, I take it that you no longer think that his rhetoric hasn't backfired. It obviously has.
Funny that after that, he went from boasting about how he was doing in the polls to decrying them as phony. Sore loser.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, there's more to a person than what you see of them on television. But that doesn't discount my judgement. This is how he acts when he has an audience of millions. This is the message he is sending. It's very important.
His character contributes to his comedic status. I didn't suggest that they're equivalent. His boasting, name calling, and outrageous claims are farcical, and anyone who isn't blinded by how enamoured they are with him should be able to see that.
[URL=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/16/trump-miami-clinton-disarm-security-obama-birther?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=190773&subid=19571099&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2]Trump hints at Clinton's assassination again after retracting 'birther' theory[/URL]
At least he finally came out and acknowledged that Obama was born in the U.S., although he falsely claimed that Clinton started the 'birther' movement.
Interested to hear your apologetics on these ones, @Agustino.
Although, to be fair to her, he certainly is exaggerating the extent to which she wants to control gun ownership.
So, really, the title of the article just seems like typical media misrepresentation.
Oh give me a break! Nowhere in there is there a hint about Clinton's assassination, that is just crazy from the media. I've listened to his speeches yesterday, no such thing. The comment is aimed to show that if Clinton wants gun control for the general population, she should accept it for herself and her security as well. As for Trump doing something less than adequate yes he actually did yesterday. Although he is right - Clinton was indeed involved with the birther rumors in 2008. She blames it on her supporters, and says she had nothing to do with it, but a politician should assume responsibility over what their campaign does or encourages. So it's a pity the media is covering her again. What Trump did wrong is that he didn't apologize for continually making a big deal out of the birther rumors and insisting for too long that Obama wasn't US born.
Quoting Sapientia
This is not a false statement. Clinton's supporters did get involved and peddle it. She should at least assume responsability for it.
http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/09/16/bernie-sanders-interview-sot-3-newday.cnn
Come to terms with the following two words: President Trump. The sooner you accept it, the better you'll deal with it.
I don't think the presidency is a done deal either way. I'd say President Clinton has odds slightly in her favor, but President Trump is a very real possibility.
Maybe if the FBI fudges the elections :-*
But I don't know where you derive your certainty from either.
The last election I was active in the polls had our candidate winning from beginning to end. We lost. The pollsters, in spite of trying to be objective, were biased, and the opposition ran a better ground game.
That experience, coupled with the thought that Trump does indeed appeal to a darker side of the American electorate, makes me uncertain.
Why slowly the situation sounds quite urgent to me :-O
Clinton just had her worst week of the campaign and she's still up about 1.5 points on the RCP average, and has a 60% chance of winning according to fivethirtyeight.com. After Donald Trump's worst week, he was down 8+ points on RCP and at a less than 20% chance of winning. Plus, debates to come where he can't rely on a teleprompter to stop him saying more self-destructive stuff. As it stands now, the way the polls are oscillating, the average is a five point Clinton lead over the period since June. Barring any further Clinton disasters, like a massive leak of incriminating information, she'll win (by between 3 and 4 points, I'd predict).
LOL - debates will destroy Crooked, in the same way they destroyed Jeb! >:O
Edward Albee -- most well known for the play "Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" -- died yesterday. His plays even in their textual format drew me in and hooked me.
That's not, in itself, hypocritical, and I doubt that it's hypocritical in her case. It would be hypocritical if she argued against gun [i]ownership[/I], without exception, but she hasn't done that. She's just argued in favour of tighter gun control. I doubt she has anything radical in mind, and it almost certainly allows for armed security of that kind, which, I suspect, is consistent with her position, and has been from the start.
Quoting Michael
How so?
Sapientia, my fine feathered friend, you didn't really use circular reasoning, did you?
Exactly! Won't Melania make a stunning first lady? 8-)
As for it defending bigotry - I don't think so. Some things are just not moral - and the people who engage in them are immoral. Sure, some have attenuating circumstances - but that doesn't change that their actions are immoral. And of course them being immoral in no way justifies you being immoral towards them, mistreating them, isolating them, etc.
Funny to see how desperate they are all becoming as Crooked Hillary falls in the polls....
Our reaction to any incident is being watched and studied. Is it possible to reign in what the news covers? :-x
Well I think most people's penises are part of them, and in-so-far as this is true, they certainly do matter. If you want to go so-far as to think that penises are irrelevant to "the welfare of the people" that's up to you.
People's actions with their penises are most certainly relevant. The issue with "natural law" is it mistake things for ethics. For a penis just to exist means nothing. It's always a question of the ethics of using them. A question of how a penis ought to be, not merely that one is present.
I think natural law does erect a response to this quandary of yours... namely a penis should be used such that it fulfils its telos.
No doubt it is. But...
It isn't so much what the news media cover as how. Explosions in the wrong place are inherently worthy of coverage. We all need to know what is happening, whether the explosion was caused by a gas leak or a bomb. If a plane carrying 200 people disappears, when planes almost never get lost, disappear, or crash, that's worthy of coverage.
What is wrong with the coverage is the loving embrace of the spectacle, the obscene attention of the camera, the endless looped repeat of the juiciest footage, the way the presenters speak, the speculation--all that stuff. The style approaches indecency, and it's nothing new. For decades, TV cameras and moron "reporters" from local stations have been showing up on people's doorsteps to ask how the nearest relation feels about their husband/wife/child being burned to death in the tragic fire.
Each event tends to be presented as an out-of-context "this sort of thing has never happened before". I came across the report of an event in the 1920s, where a resident of a town (in Ohio, as I recollect) blew up a school because his taxes were too high, he thought, and he felt the school was costing the town too much. One night he loaded the school basement with dynamite and then set it off once school was in session the next morning. 30+ children were killed, more injured. Over a hundred would have been killed had all the dynamite gone off.
There were school shootings long before Columbine -- just not well covered. There have been violent attacks on the public for a long time, quite apart from war. Large buildings were blown up in the 20th century -- not as big as the World Trade Center and not by planes, but big for the time and none-the-less totally wrecked. Various grievances, rational and not, motivates these kinds of events.
Bad things happen. There is always a background drip of people going haywire and deciding to wipe out a few people on their way out. There have long been unpopular causes seen worth dying for. That nothing is new under the sun doesn't excuse terrorism or demented acts, but it helps put things in context. Context is boring and makes for dull TV.
Call Elon Musk.
Indeed either way we'll have quite an event. Either it's the first time a former President returns as a spouse, or it is the first time a white billionaire will move into a public home vacated by a black family... The latter seems more interesting - perhaps he'll run a TV show from there about the experience!
Maybe they plan on peeing on the flames? :’(
Could easily be interpreted that way. So much for his rhetorical skill. Seems clumsy and ill-considered.
Quoting Agustino
Yes it is. He said that she started it. She didn't. She is not her supporters, and neither is Trump his supporters. I bet you wouldn't hesitate to make the distinction in the latter case. Has Trump assumed responsibility for all the idiotic things that his supporters have said and done? I bet not.
Chalk and cheese.
No, I did not.
From his new book [I]Philosophy of Penis[/I].
He should have
Nah. That'd be silly.
I preferred his earlier work, The Joy of Penis. Had a bit more spunk.
Is there a pun in there there somewhere maybe?
Gentlemen, gentlemen, quarrel not. On the intricacies of my witticism shall I now expound, and in the process regretfully admit that sharp though my arrow was, it did veer somewhat from its target. The reference to "spunk" was indeed a play on the double entendre of "vitality" and "semen" to which Sir2U was no doubt alluding, and which, though it relies on the recognition of a peculiarly British vulgarity, I hope did not evade the more educated of our international readers (even as it seemed to have evaded Michael who I now suspect of being of a rather different national origin than I have heretofore been led to believe). However, as penises generally - except immediately prior to the moment of ejaculation - do not actually contain "spunk" - in anything but very trace amounts- but rather are the mere conduit of said bodily fluid under very transient circumstances, which I feel safe to assume none of us are unaware, the weight of the metaphor was rather misplaced, and so, instead of substituting the word "Philosophy" for "Joy", it would have been more befitting to instead replace the word "Penis" with "Testicle", which being the proper receptacle of such liquid would function to reharmonise the full sense of the quip as employed. Thus amended, said jollity would read:
"I preferred his earlier work, The Philosophy of Testicle. Had a bit more spunk."
And thus would justice have been done both to the biological realities of semen storage and to the gods of humour that deign to bless us with their gifts.
Hope that's cleared that up. :p
Oh, I am indeed British, and I did indeed understand the real reference. I just thought it funny to turn it around. ;)
Apparently my wit is too subtle.
1. There is an explanation.
2. Everyone doesn't need it to be explained to them.
3. Most people don't need it to be explained to them.
4. You possibly don't need it to be explained to you.
5. I have nevertheless provided a brief explanation.
6. This is the Shoutbox.
Also, I think the picture makes my point quite well.
That obviously isn't possible right now. But who knows what's around the corner?
Skittle terrorists, apparently.
I was pondering exploitation via capital flows to "emerging" markets.... but yea... Skittles. There's a disease you can get from eating nothing but apples called the skitters. People in the Great Depression would get it if they were working in apple harvesting and couldn't afford food.
Yes, I agree that there is such a categorical difference between philosophical and political discourse and this can be accounted for as a difference in function. But Trump is sometimes portrayed as not being a typical politician; rather being an outsider of the political class who tells it like it is. However, he seems to have rather increased the chasm between politically motivated rhetorics and rational discourse a thousandfold. Far from being an outsider, he is a grotesque caricature of a power hungry politician. I am not surprised at seeing him acting like this either; but I am surprised and saddened at seeing how successful he is.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Terrapin Station
And this:
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Terrapin Station
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Terrapin Station
Of course not, but I lack the inclination to waste too much time on people who profess not to grasp such simple things. I doubt anyone else who saw it missed the point. If so, do speak up. It is an incredibly familiar and recognisable cultural symbol. Its meaning should be clear to anyone that hasn't been living under a rock or who isn't a simpleton. Do I really need to spell it out?
I think I might refrain from replying to you on this henceforward, because it feels a bit like I'm being trolled.
Stop feeling bad about being trumped. All politicians make promises they will not be able to fulfill. Most politicians are, or will be soon enough, servants of the ruling class (even Obama). Trump is merely franker about displaying his ruling class belligerence than most candidates are. No president is in a position to save or destroy the Second -- or any other Amendment - because 2/3s of the House and Senate must agree, along with 2/3s of the state legislatures. It's a very high barrier to get over. The Supreme Court can not rule the Second Amendment unconstitutional because it is... the constitution.
Trump's rhetoric is what you get whenever politicians speak to the hostilities of the people in the vernacular tongue. Most politicians prefer to take the high road in lying to the people, and it is only the professional standards for misrepresentation and untruth that keeps them from taking the low road of getting down and dirty. George Wallace and David Duke also took the low road.
Is there something wrong with the fact that The People have embarrassing and politically incorrect hostilities? Not really. There's nothing in the Constitution that says people have to prefer diversity-oriented policies, observe politically correct and sensitive speech codes, vote liberal, welcome the stranger, and so on and so forth. If Trump wants to locate and expel every illegal immigrant, he should probably observe due process, but there is nothing in the constitution that says he can't at least try and clear the US of undocumented aliens.
Most presidents have taken the high road on illegal immigration. Obama spoke softly and he used a reasonably big stick to deport more illegals than previous presidents. (Or so the advocates for undocumented aliens say.) It could be said that if illegal aliens should feel humped and trumped, they have nobody but themselves to blame.
Hilary is also a ruling class candidate. She and Bill have become fairly wealthy since leaving the White House, and anyone who intends to win the presidency has to at least not repel the Ruling class. She doesn't repel, and has been showered with good sized chunks of cash. Jill Stein (Green Party) is not a ruling class candidate. She won't get elected.
What about the Aleppo guy? >:O
At any rate, the issue isn't whether the commercial was referencing 9-11. We agree that it was. The issue is why it should be offensive that they were referencing 9-11.
I'm not - I said from the very beginning he would win. He at least is skilled as a politician - he knows how to convince people. The others aren't. They're just politically correct, but they are weak characters. Really, in the Western world we haven't had strong leaders for a long time - since Churchill almost! I personally think Trump will be a good change - if anything, at least he will destroy political correctness (a good thing) and he will take a few shots at the progressives/liberals, which is also good, as the progressive/liberal dominance over the Western world is becoming quite insufferable - to the point it's almost an unquestioned dogma.
Furthermore the qualities of the person are very important in rhetorics. It's not about what is said. It's about the way it's said. Trump is clearly a person of boundless energy and determination - someone his age typically can't even be bothered to get out of bed, much less travel the whole country, day after day, speak to hundreds of people, etc. Even someone half his age probably doesn't have such energy! Just look at Clinton - she's so slow - so slow in everything she does. You can't lead from bed. So whatever he does to have such energy - it's amazing, and many are inspired even to see such a person, that's why they go vote for him. It's probably what years upon years of Norman Vincent Peale does to you >:O
What, like, that the image of Spock could evoke in you the meaning of someone who has high emotional intelligence, or it could evoke in someone else the meaning of a frying pan? Sure, whatever.
Still, the relevant meaning will nevertheless be clearly grasped by most.
I am not an American and I don't hold the Constitution of be a sacred text. It doesn't define right and wrong, anyway. That some opinion, or some policy, accords with the Constitution doesn't make it right. One can be saddened by the fact of Trump's popularity even if the process through which he is being propped up is constitutional. It so happens that fewer conservatives than liberals are willing to denounce him but that seems to be because they don't see themselves to have a palatable alternative right now, and so they blind themselves to his egregious faults. Many conservatives nevertheless find enough courage in them to repudiate Trump in unequivocal terms, and that's not merely because they want to uphold politically correct speech. They seem to genuinely find him to be lacking in point of integrity, competence and morality, to a degree that finds no equivalency in Obama or Hillary.
I do too - but at this point combatting progressives/liberals is much more important than electing a conservative candidate. If he does the dirty work, conservatives can take on after.
No, the issue is actually your confusion between the issue of what is the case, what should be the case, and what we can do about it. Last time, you asked why [i]would[/I] referencing 9-11 as that commercial does be offensive to anyone, which is a different question with an obvious answer if you know the least bit about human nature.
It is going to cause offence regardless, so I don't see much point in discussing whether it should or shouldn't cause offence.
For example this. This is textbook domination of an opponent in rhetorics - regardless of the content. Look how he is (1) not afraid to be who he is (or unpopular), (2) turns his opponent's advantages into disadvantages (by criticizing the audience formed of special interests/donors), (3) radiates confidence and certainty, (4) turns his disadvantages into successes. Regardless of what else we think about Trump - he certainly has the qualities of a leader. Obama, Bush, Merckel, Cameron, etc. none of them even approach him in this matter. He will wipe the floor with Clinton in the upcoming debates.
But they don't mean the same thing, so which one do you mean?
Nevermind, I'll address both questions fairly succinctly:
Why would it cause offence? Because we are human, and humans are emotionally sensitive, and it's a sensitive subject, and it was crudely trivialised in that advert, and that would probably cause some offence. It would be ridiculous to, like Spock, be all like "Why are you upset? You shouldn't be. That is highly illogical.". Spock has the excuse of being a fictional character who is not human, and has difficulty in understanding human reactions. What's your excuse?
Why should it cause offence? The question is redundant and makes little sense. Why should the Earth spin?
Why would feeling that something is "crudely trivialized" in a commercial make someone upset, though?
Thus spoke @Terrapin Station...
Frying goat flies greenly Aberdeen. (I'm using those words to mean something, and I expect you to know what I mean).
And if you believe that, boy do I have a bridge to sell to you.
You're probably not the first person I've run into to refuse to clarify a problematic ambiguity and yet nevertheless expect me to guess your meaning. Which was the point of my reply, in case you missed it.
This would be a better analogy to illustrate how daft you're being:
Do turn off the light.
[I]Turns off the light[/I].
Why did you turn off the light?
[I]You told me to[/I].
I use "do" and "don't" interchangeably to mean the same thing. Now, do turn of the light.
[I]Leaves the light on[/I].
Why didn't you turn off the light?
But I'll play along for a while.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I'm guessing you mean what you ask here, and not something else. I'm guessing you mean would as in would, and not would as in should, or would as in frying pan - all of which are possible.
I'm going to reply to your question with another question: why would you not already know? Why wouldn't you know something very basic about human nature which the rest of us know? Namely that we are all prone to involuntary emotional reactions triggered by various things, such as that video: some relatable, others not so relatable.
I think that you do already know that, which would mean that you could have answered your own question; but I think that you're confused, possibly by mixing up how people naturally react with how you think they should react. (Or you're just trolling). But that is a fallacy similar to the informal fallacy of appealing to the consequences, since you seem to expect reality to conform to the outcomes you find desirable or ideal, even if that is evidently not the case, nor even possible, realistically. There are people that do and will be offended by that sort of thing, regardless of whether you think they should or should not, and regardless of whether you can relate to it or can think of a rational explanation - and there is nothing that can realistically be done about that. So your reasoning is not only fallacious, but impractical.
Rather than feigning ignorance, why not just be clear about it and say what you really mean? It's not that you don't know why people do or would react that way, it's just that you think they should react differently or not at all - which is a rather thoughtless, pie in the sky way to think about it if applied indiscriminately.
None of this is to suggest that I'm arguing against stoicism; just this unsophisticated, stereotype, parody, nonsensical version of it.
Well explained sir, a credit to your agile and versatile mind. :)
But don't change it, "The Philosophy of Testicle" sounds like a load of bollocks.
He isn't a ruling class candidate either. No doubt (literally) some conservatives are on board with hard core libertarian thinking. Libertarians articulate some of what conservatives want. Where conservatives might not be so enthusiastic about libertarianism is reducing the government's capacity to manage the marketplace. As Marx put it, (I've quoted this before) "The government is a committee for organizing the affairs of the ruling class." The ruling class is so involved in lobbying and manipulating regulation because it benefits them. Without a strong and meddlesome central government, businesses would have to square off and settle who is the most competent the old fashioned way--vicious competition.
Agreed! :D
Hmmm I guess there are different leadership styles that appeal to different sorts of people. I found this clip of him to be rude and condescending and completely lacking in empathy. Are those traits of great leaders? It's at least debatable. Now I wouldn't question his charisma or confidence or even command over business/economic issues (I lack the knowledge to judge properly), but there are other aspects of leadership that, to me at least, he does not seem to embody. He's prone to exaggeration, to simplification, and just a general inability to inspire others with a vision of the future that - excepting his base of angry white folk - can cause them to reflect and possibly rally behind. He also seems to fit the caricature of the shameless salesman who will say or do anything to 'close the deal'; it's like he's played the game for so long that he's lost the ability to even see through his own BS.
I have more specific problems with him though: he's exploited racial and religious antagonisms while being oblivious to the deeper (perhaps more cultural/philosophical) issue of what this country stands for and where it's heading. There's no going back to some imagined past, and as it stands right now we're immersed in an obsessively consumerist culture in which every aspect of life is subordinated to economic interests. This fixation betrays IMO a narrow and constricted vision which is unbecoming of the far-sighted one characteristic of genuine leadership. It may not be realistic at the moment, but we're going to need a strong leader to use his/her credibility and rhetorical skills in the service of subordinating those economic interests to the higher (non-market) values of the community which they should serve.
Trump just doesn't strike me as the type of guy who can shift peoples' perspectives to some larger and more inspiring long-term goals. What he's good at is pandering to their short-term economic interests and personal biases by scapegoating. So while he definitely knows how to sell himself through his passionate and (probably feigned) sincere delivery, he doesn't direct the energies of his supporters in ways that are going to benefit this country generations ahead. Again, I think a shift in our values and ideals is what we need more than reactionary nostalgia, and very quickly, if we're going to maintain a global leadership position and prevent the physical, moral and spiritual destruction of the inhabitants of this planet.
Just my opinion of course, taken with a grain of salt since I'm sitting here typing away at my computer while he's on the verge of winning a presidential election. I don't necessarily think there's a strong correlation between the ability to win elections and gather widespread support with (good) leadership though; examples abound of charismatic leaders who came to power and did not serve the long-term interests of their countries. It takes more than personal charm and the ability to speak in a convincing fashion -- it takes broad vision and, once again, the ability to align the individual's interest with that of the collective. Not to sound redundant, but I don't see a visionary at all in Trump, or even a pragmatic reconciler of conflicting interests in the service of some greater good. More like a narcissist in the mold of Charlie Kane.
Also capital is interested in finding a way to get people satisfied with being slaves in different corporations - hence the focus on literarily useless worker social events, etc. All that these promote is superficial and forced relationships between people, which are based on pure selfishness - not to mention how highly destructive these are to real sources of community. If we analyse the life of the regular, unthinking middle to lower class person we will see that all their aspirations, all their dreams - are purely and wholly conditioned by the ideology of liberalism. They may express a dislike for money, they may express a desire for traveling the world, experiencing different cultures, going to exotic places, holding a good and prestigious job with a large company (the larger the better) having easy access to socialization (which is codename for sex, drugs, drinking and fun). Really this is nothing other than what capitalism needs to fuel its own growth. Liberalism and progressivism is nothing but the fulfilment of the biggest desires of big money - making people satisfied in being slaves - and giving them the necessary drugs to accept their condition. Their so called freedom is nothing but the pill they're given to hold their chains. So progressivism/liberalism has become the middle class philosophy, while neo-conservatism (Newt Gingrich, George Bush (both of them), McCain, Romney etc.) is the upper class equivalent - but they both serve the same end. The more liberal and progressive we become, the happier people will be with their chains - the more they will willingly ask for them. So I'm not interested in such things - I like someone who is threatening to destroy all this, even with his recklessness, like Trump. I think such a someone is ideal in this situation. Someone like Sanders or Clinton would merely be the fulfilment of the above - not its end. That's why both Republican and Democrat parties are really against Trump. Why do you think the Bushes are voting Clinton?
I don't think any parties represent this view at the moment. At least none from the US.
Quoting Erik
Well I think the most important is for people to organise themselves in communities which share those values. Thus their group of friends, the people they spend their free time with, etc. are people who hold those values. Then these communities need to seek to grow - which can be achieved by (1) developing the intellectual material necessary (because let's be fair, there are not many intellectual resources describing this position out there - this is something I have started to do), (2) organising events (lectures and such) to spread the message, (3) organising its own capacity to generate money, (4) finding allies in the marginalia of society, and bringing them together - uniting all the opposition. Who is the marginalia? All those rejected by the dominant culture, such as religious people. I think the future is in this periphery vs centre conflict.
Quoting Erik
Indeed. However, I think the desire for making money isn't necessarily evil. Money is as you note necessary. But it all depends what goals one has for making money. Most people want to make money so they can buy a big house and go on the beach, buy themselves yachts, and other such liberal dreams. On the other hand, one can desire to make money in order to finance social change, which I think is a very good reason for seeking to make money, provided one doesn't cause harm in doing it.
Quoting Erik
They are becoming comfortable with the alienation. That's why the progressive governments are there - to make them comfortable. Now their families are breaking up - but they say that's normal - that's how life sometimes can be. So they're told they haven't found the right person, better that they broke up. There's an entire industry of psychologists and psychiatrists catering to making people feel comfortable with the destructiveness of global capitalism. Marx was right in his analysis - capitalism has mobilised even the so called forces which are against it for its own purposes. You can go to your shrink and cry about the alienation of society - he will smile, comfort you, say that life can be tough - sooner or later he will placate you, as he has placated many others. He will encourage you towards the same "normal" desires that everyone else has - the liberal and progressive ideals, which of course will never be fulfilled, but it will take some time to realise this.
What is needed is political agitation - it is primarily combatting the mechanisms global capitalism has put in place in order to cover its own destructiveness and make it seem necessary. People are starting to think this destructiveness is normal. They don't know about any other kind of life. Combatting the mechanisms that global capitalism uses to mask itself - unmasking it - that is the requirement - which is why I seek to be so anti-liberal/progressive.
But as you note, we're not on the way to change - we're quite the contrary, we're on the way to being drugged and forced to accept reality. Hence all the popularity of New Age, Buddhism, etc. Let go... Nothing is permanent. Everything is changing, etc. These are nothing but mantras to placate and hide capitalism's destructiveness - to make it normal, to give it legitimacy and right to exist. Capitalism and liberalism/progressivism - one is the guy coming in the middle of the night and breaking your windows, the other is the one coming in daylight to fix them! The task is to show them to be one and the same.
It's not that I don't know that some people are acting emotionally to referencing 9-11 in a "crudely trivializing" way in commercial or that they're offended, etc. So reiterating that that's what they doing doesn't explain why they're reacting that way. It makes zero sense to me that some people (certainly not all of them) react that way. It just seems completely arbitrary--which is what I noted earlier.
Your responses are basically amounting to answering "why" people are offended at such things as "they just are," though you're not quite to the point of literally saying "they just are," you're rather rewording "people are offended by this."
Well, it's not random or unpredictable, nor is it by choice or whim, so in that sense it isn't arbitrary. In this case, it is largely involuntary, and very predicable. There are clear connections that can quite easily be discovered. But it would be naive to expect it to 'make sense' in the sense of expecting there to be a process of reasoning which can stand up to scrutiny. We're talking about an emotional reaction here. It is understandable, because we've all been in that sort of situation before - and yes, that includes you, in spite of your denial. But understandable isn't the same as reasonable. It does make sense that people react that way, in that it is part of our nature, and there is a psychological and scientific explanation for why we react that way. You're just applying the wrong tool or method in your search for an answer, and then expressing dumbfoundedness at not finding anything to your satisfaction.
How about trying to be more arrogant in your future responses? That's really helping.
I know what you said. So it [I]seems[/I] arbitrary [i]to you, personally[/I]. Good for you. But things aren't always what they seem. And I'm arguing that it isn't arbitrary according to one common understanding of what that word means. I'm not going to qualify [i]everything[/I] I say in subjective terms, and I don't care whether or not you think that makes me arrogant.
You have misrepresented my position by taking that quote out of context. I was not referring to your comment about arbitrariness, but rather to your comment that it doesn't make sense. My response is basically, well, what did you expect?
Re getting pissy about not understanding it (as well as a couple other things--the stuff that's coming across as arrogant), It seems like maybe you're uncomfortable with the idea of difference, so you refuse to admit that it's possible.
It seems to me like you're the one getting pissy.
I have tried to explain it to you, although I didn't think it would be necessary to provide an in depth explanation of human nature or psychology, or why it would be a category error to seek reason in raw emotional reaction. What more do you want? The term "make sense" is ambiguous. If you don't mean "to find a process of reasoning that can stand up to scrutiny" then what do you mean? Or do you expect me to keep guessing? How exactly am I supposed to explain why it doesn't make sense to you? You tell me.
You say it seems arbitrary to you, but it doesn't seem arbitrary to me, and, more than that, I don't think it [I]is[/I] arbitrary, as I defined that term.
And I mean literally random. Like we might as well have a random number generator correlated with possible responses, and we "spin" it to get the reaction in question.
Well, I think that that's patently absurd, but I'm going to watch a film and eat pizza, rather than explain the clear connections to which you are apparently oblivious.
Was that arrogant of me? Oh well, you claim not to be offended by comments, so it should be water off a ducks back for you, right?
Yeah, I'm definitely not offended by your comments. Have fun re the film and pizza. I'm sure this topic will come up again and we can talk about it more then. ;-)
[quote=C.K.Ogden&I.A.Richards]
The Meaning of Meaning (1936) p. 186
The following is a representative list of the main
definitions which reputable students of Meaning have
favoured. Meaning is—
A. I An Intrinsic property.
II A unique unanalysable Relation to other things.
B. All The other words annexed to a word in the
Dictionary.
IV The Connotation of a word.
V An Essence.
VI An activity Projected into an object.
VII (a) An event Intended.
(b) A Volition.
VIII The Place of anything in a system.
IX The Practical Consequences of a thing in our
future experience.
X The Theoretical consequences involved in or
implied by a statement.
XI Emotion aroused by anything.
C. XII That which is Actually related to a sign by
a chosen relation.
XIII (a) The Mnemic effects of a stimulus. Associations acquired.
(b) Some other occurrence to which the
mnemic effects of any occurrence are
Appropriate.
(? That which a sign is Interpreted as
being of,
(d) What anything Suggests.
In the case of Symbols.
That to which the User of a Symbol actually refers.
XIV That to which the user of a symbol Ought
to be referring.
XV That to which the user of a symbol Believes
himself to be referring.
XVI That to which the Interpreter of-a symbol
(a) Refers.
(b) Believes himself to be referring.
(c) Believes the User to be referring. [/quote]
Also, it's missing:
XVII Doing an unkind thing
e.g. I am meaning that baby by stealing her candy.
How did I not see this reply... my apologies, anyways.
It's strange you say so. Conservatives generally are for quite limited government, and conservative economics can actually be either left or right wing - it depends on the particular conservative. G.K. Chesterton for example favored a system of distributism, involving lots of small-sized producers, and therefore giving financial independence to very many people. I do too actually. Such conservatives would be against multi-national corporations, which are effectively owned by pirates - because no one "owns" them - they just have 5%, 10%, etc. which they sell whenever they see fit. If the boat were to sink, they wouldn't care.
So I'm not sure that all conservatives are "ruling class". Russell Kirk was clearly a poor, working class man growing up for example. I will however say that conservatives do have a tendency to accumulate wealth - but this is merely because of their pursuits and ideals. A conservative probably doesn't pursue liberal dreams - such as travelling to Hawaii, going to expensive parties, etc. So their money accumulates - it being spent only on the requirements of living.
I was more inclined towards saying that conservatives generally don't like libertarians because libertarians often emphasise personal freedom over community bonds, whereas conservatives take a more "equal" approach between the two, emphasising both community and individuality arising out of that community.
No, that isn't what I did. But I did make comments to the effect that my experience and understanding, in the relevant context, is shared by most others. Most others will very quickly realise that it is going to cause a lot of offence and understand the reasons why: the relationships between what people hold dear, the events of 9/11, that video, and basic human behaviour, emotion and psychology. It's not random at all. It is very predicable. You just want it to 'make sense' in some narrowly conceived of way which you haven't elucidated, and have left me to pretty much guess. Good luck with that.
And I did have fun watching that film and eating pizza.
Me too.
I'm looking forward to Resident Evil VII. The trailer looks great, and there's a free demo available from the PS Store which I'll get around to playing at some point.
Also, Final Fantasy XV and Battlefield 1 stand out for me.
In other news, the very predicable result of the Labour Leadership election will be announced in about 25 minutes. Well done, Jeremy Corbyn.
This related article made me laugh: [URL=https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-owen-smith-result-soon-over-mark-steel-a7322801.html%3famp?client=ms-android-alcatel]The Labour leadership battle between Jeremy Corbyn and his critics will soon be over – for three minutes[/URL]
That's funny and completely wrong. I will readily acknowledge that it is possible, and I have implicitly and explicitly done so multiple times throughout our discussion.
It's just that, as I've said, I find some of your comments hard to belief. You profess ignorance of things that I'd expect you to know, and deny things I find evident.
I don't want to be a party pooper but I just want to ask people to spare a thought and a prayer for the people of Aleppo who are experiencing a living hell right now. The reports are that the water supply has been cut off now so there are 2 million people trying to survive in a desert without water today, while being barrel bombed.
(Y)
Quoting Punshhh
I will spare a thought, but praying won't help.
:-|
That's good! Who could he have endorsed? Crooked? >:O And he didn't endorse - he just said he will personally vote Trump.
Endorsing no one is better than endorsing Trump. He could have done that. And if he didn't endorse him, blame the BBC.
He said he will vote for Donald Trump. This isn't exactly an endorsement. But obviously Ted Cruz will be closer to DJT given that Mike Pence is the VP, and Mike Pence is a very strong social conservative - just like Ted. In the opposition, Crooked is completely NOT social conservative. So why would he vote with her? Same with all the other candidates apart from possibly Trump (due to his VP pick)
You're trying to sugar coat the fact that this so-called principled conservative dropped all his principles for political expediency. Cruz said go vote for the walking hairdo. That's an endorsement, which is why everyone is calling it that. He did not simply just say that he would vote for Trump.
Anyway, the whole thing is as disgusting as it is predictable. Trump insulted Cruz's wife, accused his father of being involved in assassinating JFK, and walked all over him in every way possible, never even considering an apology because he won and didn't give a damn about his opponent. He even rubbed the humiliation in by saying he didn't want Cruz's endorsement. And yet now the servile little puppy dog has come crawling back to lick his master's boots with a public show of "loyalty" because he knows if he doesn't he will be partly blamed for Trump's impending narrow loss and may not be allowed to run again for President by the RNC, or worse, may be primaried and have his political career ended in his forties. Even the right wingers at RedState realize how pathetic all this all is. The guy got reamed and now has gone back and asked for more in the hope he'll be granted some crumbs from the winner's table.
[He is] "a narcissist at a level I don't think this country's ever seen...The man is utterly amoral, morality does not exist for him...Donald is a bully...Donald is cynically exploiting...anger and he is lying to his supporters."
Agree totally, Ted! But what's that you said now? Go vote for him because it will save your political career? :-}
All this is true - but still one must make a choice, which is the better candidate. Cruz decided to vote for Trump and encourage his supporters to vote for Trump - unlike the Bush family, many of whom are voting Hillary, even though Jeb quite possibly still does have interest in the Presidency. I am totally aware of the conflict between the two, and have followed it, even during the Republican Convention and afterwards. I think Cruz made the right choice - disconsidering now political reasons he had for making it, and personal reasons that he had for not making it - as a social conservative he made the right choice. His choice isn't against social conservative principles.
Are you asking me why Cruz would vote for Hilary Clinton? I never suggested that Cruz, nor any other Republican candidate - especially Trump - would vote for Clinton. That's obviously not the only possible alternative.
Why? Will a thought and a prayer help?
Vote for an utterly amoral pathological liar, apparently. Because that's would Jesus would do, right?
It's weird that you would ask [I]me[/I] that question. No, I have not. Have you? I did suspect that you might be somewhere on the autism spectrum. That's why I made sure to ask you whether there was any reason for your difficulty in understanding this typical kind of emotional reaction that we've been talking about.
Have you ever looked in the mirror?
Moral principle judges the person, not his policies though.
No it isn't. There is always the choice to endorse or vote for either this one, one of the others, or not to endorse or vote at all. How bad does a Republican candidate have to be for a fellow Republican candidate to refuse to endorse or vote for them? He got it right the first time. That he has come crawling back is pretty pathetic.
Oh, I thought you were.
Be prepared to thoroughly explain how looking in the mirror makes sense and is not just a completely random act. And be careful not to arrogantly assume that he already knows.
I understand how you feel, nothing wrong with adopting that position. As I said, I think in such situations either voting for the only possible choice or not voting at all are both rational solutions. Which is morally superior that is a different discussion, and I'm not quite sure myself.
Quoting Baden
Not to anyone, certainly. I am honestly telling you that I wouldn't be certain what to do in this case. I think Trump can be sufficiently disruptive to the dominance that the progressives have had over politics in the last 50 years or so. This could potentially inspire conservatives. At the same time I don't think Trump is dangerous in the sense that he is going to lead to the death and suffering of people (like George Bush was for example). So weighing those two I could see myself casting a vote for Trump. Although the position of not voting is also good - as a way of protesting. But social conservatives have been protesting for so long, and nothing is changing. So I am definitely not advocating this as a principle - regardless who the candidate is, so long as he is opposed to progressivism, one should vote for him. I'm not saying that. It's something particular to this situation.
I've been wanting to play Versus XIII for 10 years. Shame it turned into XV. Doesn't look as good as the original trailers.
Perhaps figuring things out isn't your strong suit.
Quoting Terrapin Station
So, it remains undiagnosed, then? ;)
Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft!
>:O Most poets wouldn't agree with you. Neither would Kierkegaard, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. You just have no guts to hope for something grander - you just love sitting in the mud. Nothing I can do for you - enjoy your mud bath ;)
Far more than no guts to think otherwise: doing so is unethical. An image of another regardless of themselves, to a point where they are considered ours without any reference to themselves-- an obligation to love and be our property. There's nothing grand about. Just our own selfishness and desire put before the people we claim to care about it. "You are mine, regardless of what you think or feel." You aren't avoiding the mud. You are counting money.
Don't misunderstand me, life-long love is fantastic. It is not "eternal" though, for it is the expression of another person, not an infinite that stands outside what happens in the world.
Poets admire what is worth admiring no?
Nobody ever said this.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Some of us need to count money in order to keep you in good supply of mud, don't we? :D
That's some terrible logic.
That there is such a thing or there isn't such a thing is up for each individual to investigate and discover for themselves - I have my answer.
As for love which isn't eternal not being love - yes. I don't see why one would confuse a shadow for the object itself. Non-eternal "love" is merely a shadow. It's a sign of something greater. It's not a stopping point.
So, what, pain that isn't eternal isn't really pain? Pleasure that isn't eternal isn't really pleasure? Happiness that isn't eternal isn't really happiness? That's just plain wrong. Pain and pleasure and happiness are those things which we have on a regular, temporary, basis. Those are the things referred to by the words "pain", "pleasure", and "happiness" – and love is the thing referred to by the word "love"; the thing that we have on a regular, temporary, basis.
All this talk of "eternal" love and temporary love being a "shadow" is just poetic nonsense.
False analogies. What makes you think pain, pleasure, etc. are like love? In what sense is pain and pleasure for example a relationship and intermingling of two different beings?
Auden, for instance. 'Lay your sleeping head, my love, / Human on my faithless arm...'
Full poem: https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/lullaby-0
But not one of yours.
You said it. Love is meant to be eternal-- defined and true regardless of what's happening in the world. A story of ownership, where people considered the property of another, to a point where they are entitled to romantic and sexual attention. Here I do not mean divorce is impossible, but rather that you understand love as an image separate to the people involved.
For you it's a question of saying: "We are together eternally" rather than a question of individual feeling and interaction. You are in love with the idea of a lifelong partnership rather than any person. To you it is the marriage contract which makes a relationship-- "Now that we and society have said we are together forever, we will be. Our love is eternal."
Counting money. Sitting in your room retelling what has been said about your value, rather understanding what is valuable and how it is used. A useless self-aggrandising act. All it does is talk about how important you have been said to be. Chasing an image of perfection rather than understanding what's around you (whether it be perfect or not).
The British government pretends to find a conscience while continuing to sell arms to a Saudi regime it knows is using them to kill civilians (+Iraq + Gaza etc etc). Funny how morality rears its beautiful head only when it costs nothing. (This is no defense of Russia who are almost certainly guilty here.)
Britain always pretended to find a conscience - even while enslaving the whole of Africa, brutally destroying the lives of villagers while pillaging the entire continent of resources. Nothing changed.
The truth that you caught is that yes - my love is grounded in something other than myself or the beloved - into a third. I would not be the first to catch this psychological necessity though - Kierkegaard was there ahead of me in understanding the need for it. The love of A and B requires a C to which both are devoted - this alone makes their love possible. A common goal is always more binding than any mere and transitory feelings - and if the common goal is God, then it is most binding as God is eternal, and hence the love of A and B earns eternity by grounding itself in C which is already eternal.
Also - real love probably requires self-mastery and morality from both people - they can't be slaves to their lusts and desires, or to their sexuality or to anything of this sort. The two lovers have to be free - and freely choose to ground themselves in the eternal.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
This is false.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
In a peculiar way this is true, but only because love is grounded in that which is eternal. But certainly in common parlance I do not mean that love is true regardless of what's happening in the world.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
As an image no - but as grounded in something separate yes.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I am in love with Love before being love with any particular X - that is true.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
This is false. Society would be completely irrelevant if the two lovers didn't live in it. It's not the marriage contract that makes the relationship - but the mutual grounding of both in the eternal. As Kierkegaard says, that it becomes a freely chosen duty to love the other - "you shall love". If the two live in society as opposed to a mountain, then the marriage contract will merely become an outward reflection of this inward truth.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
This is sometimes true - though funnily enough not about love, but rather about many other things in life (including as you said money :P ). Many times I get carried away in thinking how I should do X, or how Y will play out, etc. This is in part because of my imaginative nature, something I had ever since I remember myself - that I get lost in thought very easily, forgetting about the things around, and rather focus on possible trains of thought - possible scenarios. This makes me much slower to act than most others I have met - many don't see as many potential difficulties as I do because they think very practically, and very close at hand. So this is both a curse and a gift: a curse because I'm slow to get things started, and a gift because when I do, things actually go well.
It was the first country to declare from its seat of government that slavery is immoral.... so not always.
But a few short thousands of years from now, all traces of Britain will be gone, so enjoy it while it's here.
I agree 100%. Well at least all of us ex-pats are. X-)
Couldn't shake the feeling that Clinton legitimately can't believe she has to actually debate a guy like Trump for presidency. I'm no big Clinton supporter but she at least has experience in politics and government and I thought it was clear that she found the entire situation ironic and absurd.
Meanwhile Trump kept gish-galloping random examples of job theft and depended on this for his entire reason why he should be elected. Let's not forget that in fact illegal immigrants often aren't stealing jobs as much as they are filling jobs that nobody else wants to do, like agricultural field work and factory jobs.
Always add, "at the low wage, and under the working conditions offered".
How about we start calling it "Less Britain" instead of "Great [sic] Britain"?
And if he had better intelligence then he would have better policies and be a better person.
Yes he should have developed that a lot more until now.
Quoting Baden
The e-mails, the pay-for-play schemes, the Benghazi, the lying, the unfair earnings, Bill Clinton's rape of other women, her fainting and weak health, her lack of moral character.
Just framing her as the establishment-candidate would have resonated with a lot of people. He either thinks he can't attack her because of her gender or he secretly respects her. Maybe both.
He'd get creamed if he brought up those allegations. And he knows it. Americans, in general, do have some sense of decorum.
Quoting Agustino
She fainted because she had pneumonia. So...? You're not into the brain tumor conspiracy are you?
Quoting Agustino
Compared to what? His? I don't know if you've noticed but he's pretending to be a conservative to get votes from the gullible Republican masses because he's a power-loving narcissist. Nothing in his past suggests any hint of moral character unless grabbing as much money as possible from everywhere possible is considered laudable in your book.
I wouldn't be surprised if something along these lines eventually crawls its way out of his big mouth.
They are dropping considerable numbers of cluster bombs into Aleppo as we speak.
I don't think so at all - I think they'd just say he's telling the truth, even if others don't like it, like he built a reputation for doing. Fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton raped other women - and these women are out there claiming that this is so. This is something that is a serious offence. It ought to be discussed, especially when the candidate's wife did nothing to help those women or to stop her husband.
Quoting Baden
Which means she has weak health - that's exactly the point.
Quoting Baden
No, compared to a moral standard.
You know it's a fact or you want to believe it's a fact because you hate the Clinton's? I mean, maybe he did (I wouldn't at all be surprised) but how do you know he did. What's your proof?
It doesn't matter if he did. Fact of the matter is that there are several women who claim to have been raped by him. That alone is a sufficiently big problem that should be brought up.
So, it doesn't matter if he's innocent as long as Trump can score some political points. What kind of moral standard are you promoting here? Again, it looks like ideology über alles. And ironically, you're rooting for a guy who is not even remotely a social conservative and probably laughs at the fools who are stupid enough to think he is.
(This is why the folks at real conservative websites like RedState.com by and large despise him.)
It should be brought up with regards to his wife's presidential candidacy? WTF?
I didn't claim he is socially conservative, but he will be destructive to the liberal-progressive mindset. That's the important bit in this case.
Quoting Mongrel
Yes - why didn't she do anything about it? Why didn't she take attitude? Why didn't she divorce him? Why didn't she help those women who were abused? Let me tell you why - because she was a snitch who wanted to use her husband's position and help to get power for herself.
OK, and you want to replace that with the mindset that anything goes if you're not on the same team as me, which is what, morally superior? Again, what you are promoting here is a simple amoral ideological war. That's OK, but don't pretend it's anything else.
Nope. Not anything goes. Hitler doesn't go for example. Killing millions of people doesn't go. And so forth. Many things don't go. But Trump does go, yes.
So.. what you're saying is that if the USA is raped in the next 8 years (see what I did there?) H. Clinton is likely to fail to take attitude, divorce the attacker, and help us rape victims.
Look I talked about people. Not about countries. It's very simple - if your husband or wife rapes someone, you need to take some attitude. Most people would divorce them. If you don't, like Clinton, it means that you have interests not to - in her case to use her husband to get power, money and influence for herself.
Look I'm pragmatic. We can't sit with a finger up our bums waiting for something that may never happen. We have to play the cards we are given, and play them well, if we are to ever make a reality of any moral or political plan.
I don't know how old you are. I remember the days when people referred to her as "Lady Macbeth," because she was perceived to be the power behind the throne.
Beware the circular firing squad.
Yes I am aware of this. It is very in tune with the rest of her character.
You wouldn't be accusing them - you'd merely bring up the fact that there is a problem, since several women are in fact accusing him. A problem which has to be resolved, and which people have to consider. Why would these women falsely accuse him - why wouldn't there also be women falsely accusing of rape, for example, Donald Trump? Merely the fact that you are accused of rape is already significant.
Here you go. Also this.
Trump was himself, he didn't prepare, he said what he felt.
Clinton came off as a very well studied politician (i.e., a fake)
Wow. Just wow.
The article I provided explains it:
Okay my bad I didn't read that, as I just skimmed your article. Now after reading this:
That sounds like at least harassment and attempted rape, yes. Granted of course that the forcibly restrained her, etc. are valid.
Again I never claimed Trump to be a saint. Obviously I don't approve of such behaviour - which I find highly immoral. But Bill Clinton's affairs with women seem to be a lot more extensive - and quite a few actual rape accusations - not just attempted rape or anything of that sort. One has to make a decision between Clinton and Trump. I pick Trump, because the Clinton family is a lot more corrupt and not only this - but will maintain the dominance of progressivism and liberalism over politics much moreso than Trump. This final point is much more important since we're picking between two options which are both immoral to different degrees.
How would you rank him on a scale from 0 to 10 (with 0 being a normal man and 10 being completely psychotic?)
Probably Clinton is at a 4. Others would have done what he did had they had the power. But note that the scale is not fair. 0 should be a saint. 10 should be the psychopath. In that case Clinton would land a 7-8, easily. 5 would obviously be your average man. Someone like me would be in the 1-3 range.
Yes, the Drudge Report and umpteen others, maybe cheery picking, I don't know. The Daily Mail appears to me to be a morass of news but it appears to have more of it than any other source I have come across.
For an extended period, I did a private survey. When appropriate (or not... I'm a lunatic myself) I would ask men for their opinion on this question: "Are all men potential rapists?"
I eventually concluded the survey when a man told me that rapists are men who don't love themselves. A man who has love for himself is not a potential rapist.
Well that depends - rapists do tend to be narcissists in many cases, having an excessive love for themselves.
Well definitely not but again that's not the main issue. The main issue since both candidates are not social conservatives is which one will ready the way for social conservatism best: Clinton or Trump? Elect Clinton and you can say bye bye to social conservatism. Elect Trump, and maybe there's a chance!
Sure, but we're not comparing Trump to Bill. We're comparing Trump to Hillary.
Also, Trump has at least one actual rape accusation of his own – of a 13 year old, no less.
And I have stated it before but I will say it again: voting for Trump or not voting at all are all acceptable positions for social conservatives. One can decide not to vote for anyone due to their lacking moral character. Or one can do like me and vote Trump because he's harmful to the progressive-liberal dominance of politics. It's a strategic vote - not a vote of support.
This is just one of the several women - by the way. Women who have been ignored by the Clintons, both husband and wife.
Yes tell that to Bill Clinton and his wife.
Whenever I watch these videos I am reminded there really is no comparison between the Clintons and Trump. Trump may be an immoral man - at least though he's a man, and not a devil as the Clintons are. The Clintons should long ago have been in prison for what they have done.
Brexit? What about the 2015 general election which happened prior to that? Remember the polls?
Agreed. Clinton did so much better. I was actually a little surprised and quite impressed by her answers and the way she conducted herself. Trump should also probably get some credit for reining it in a bit.
But that's why he lost! >:O
Quoting Michael
Quoting Baden
:-O
That it is.
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
>:O
0 is celibate!
Maybe. You've certainly got a point. He can't beat Clinton at her own game, so his only chance might be to resort to the notorious behaviour that he's known for. But that sort of behaviour is nothing to be proud of, so he gets credit in my book for reining it in. Either way, Clinton would've won the intellectual and moral high ground, even if Trump had've won in terms of popular appeal.
This is a joke, right? Please tell me you're joking.
I don't know. I'm an 'Aspie'.
Or so I'm told.
How did you turn yourself into an emoticon?
Twitter button:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/DiligentTruth/status/780867768879026177[/tweet]
Chain link button:
Ah! So that's an easier way to create links.
How can you accidentally have sex with someone? Is it really possible to trip and fall into them, and then out, and then in again?
And yes, Hanover, two strokes is all it takes.
It's a joke! >:O But I didn't talk about sex there, but rather multiple partners. It's accidental because you never intended to have multiple partners - but alas circumstances so conspired.
Quoting Michael
Well certainly if you are drunk...
The Concept of Enlightenment. So far a good read.
For the record, the number 666 is associated with the Antichrist, not the Devil.
My Ask the Antichrist advice column is presently retired and appropriately falling into oblivion as the other forum falls into the bit bucket. But feel free to ask me any pressing personal questions you may have.
Okay, let me take my chance then. Will St. Peter grant me the keys to the kingdom when I meet him at the Pearly Gates? :-$
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWWkUzkfJ4M
http://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/2016/09/27/pete-willett-i-aint-partisan-hes-my-brother/
Not sure, probably some sort of school uniform...knee socks and shorts worn all year round.
Hey, watch what you repost, Cavacava, the Rider Cup is being held in Democratic Liberal Minnesota this year. Well, don't know about Chaska -- the Minneapolis suburb where the Hazeltine course is located -- they might all be Strumpets out there, 20 miles from Your's Truly.
"Baba booey"? I've never heard anybody in Minnesota say "baba booey", unless they were talking to their infant or maybe if they were from the deep fried south. Ask Hanover. And even then... What you're more likely to hear here is "oofta" or "it could be worse."
And yes, the Europeans should feel free to stun the angry, unwashed, Make America Great Again bird brains. A golf iron makes an excellent stunning tool. Even a putter.
Cruz tells it like it is
The guy in the background of the Youtube video ( with all the teeth) is Baba Booey. He works for Howard Stern who nicknamed him and has made his nickname into a meme almost like 'Kilroy was here'.
http://i.imgur.com/nZXpJxF.gifv
And there are roughly as many galaxies in the visible universe (a few hundred billion) as there are stars in our galaxy.
Super saiyan rose? More like super saiyan Utena, amirite?
My indifference aside, it is remarkable that one can hit a small ball a long ways and have it end up, occasionally, in a small hole--much more often than by chance.
Ryder Cup 2016: USA break Europe's grip on the cup with overwhelming 17-11 victory
I'm waiting for [I]Inside[/I] to download.
[video]http://youtu.be/y0uDLEG8Xao[/video]
We're looking for more minds to spread some ideas around.
The chatroom is set up similarly to the PF.
Apple cider,Tuaca Brandy and whip cream atop if you like!
The ranch smells awesome~~~ Fall is in the air at 85* O:)
So, Clinton is ahead, and has been so consistently since June. Also noticeable are the three periods in which Trump's rating dramatically dropped - much more so than Clinton's in the same period; and in early August, Clinton's rating actually shot up in stark contrast, likely due to Trump's blunders, I reckon.
https://www.facebook.com/Kickstarter/videos/10154648458389885/
I remember a while back you doubted me when I told you that the Conservative Party can't be trusted when it comes to Human Rights law. Well, I told you so: Theresa May attacks 'left-wing human rights lawyers harassing UK troops'
Politicians don't count, I meant people, not those monsters.
I don't trust most of those results. There's a hard agenda at a place when you see oversampling of dem's by 20-40%...
Wittgenstein is so much fun in putting out philosophic fires. The fun never ends!
I think I might start delving into Kripke soon after I get solid on understanding Wittgenstein.
No I'm about 3 miles off the coast. House withstood three direct hits back in 2005, now all shuttered up, feels like a cave. I am in a pretty tight neighborhood, all remainers. Cell, wifi, power in general will probably shut down tonight and might not be back on for awhile. After the three direct hits the local grocery & gas station all installed big emergency generators so hopefully they'll be back up and running.
Knocking on wood
(in the worst of times Pascal's wager has legs)
I dunno about nobody, but I do think a lot of people are now perhaps more interested in some of the pretty cool dudes that came before him, 8-)
That's certainly not true.
Glad I was proved wrong! I just rented some really awesome books on Wittgenstein's philosophy and hope to post about it soon enough...
Uh... yea. The saying is that it will make an ass out of you and me. I totally agree with that assessment.
Shouldn't that be "you or me" ( depending on who assumes)?
That makes sense in the context. I first heard it from one of the tradesmen I employed to help me in my landscaping business. He expressed in exactly the form you have. "To assume makes an ass out of you and me". I remember thinking at the time 'if you assume it makes an ass out of you, if I assume it makes an ass out of me. (Iff the assumptions are wrong of course).
:)
I saw Kripke at a conference earlier in the year. He was physically weak but enjoyably difficult to understand.
There's lots of life left in Wittgenstein. I for one have a thesis about him inside me somewhere, if the brain cells and the rest of the cells last long enough. Analytic philosophy of language needs work on it!
An affecting story I read lately was about one of his 'passionate friendships', for a young Englishman called David Pinsent. They were divided by the First World War, enlisted on opposite sides, and had lost touch. But at the end of the war Pinsent's family took great steps to ensure Wittgenstein found out from them about, sadly, Pinsent's death (in a flying accident, I think) and how much their son had still felt for Ludwig.
Accordion styled aluminum shutters for most part, took me half hour to open set them up about 10 minutes to to put back into position. Most of my neighbors with fixed styled shutters are waiting until we see if Matthew will return...putting and and taking down fixed shutters takes a lot of time and effort.
:-$
By using the caveat (iff the assumptions are wrong) I assume you've won a cigar...damn! :s
If there is no exception to assumption, then it can't be a rule.
Cool article about the importance of existential questions in philosophy, and an argument that they should be included in the "standard" curriculum.
[quote=Trump]I just start kissing them...
And when you’re a star they let you do it...
Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.[/quote]
Donald Trump. Hero of ignorant conservatives everywhere. Of course, it doesn't matter how many times you say "Look, he's just an opportunistic narcissist playing you for votes" nor how much evidence there is to demonstrate that, they will continue to kiss his ring.
"When you're a star they let you do it..."
[quote=Trump]I did try and fuck her. She was married. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn't get there."[/quote]
What is it you say about sexual morality and its importance?
Trump has some qualities of a leader that Clinton doesn't - courage, strength, confidence. This of course isn't an excuse for his lack of sexual morality - he grew up in such a culture. In fact, I think probably 50-70% of men would have said it even worse than he did. In such an environment you can't really have high expectations to find the right candidate. Fact is most men in today's culture think exactly like Trump - he's just a reflection of this. Why is the media getting so up about it? They're getting so up that Trump says it, but they're not upset about the fact that millions of men brag about their sexual exploits by the daylight. That's the real hypocrisy. They - the media and Hollywood - encourage this attitude of sexual objectification of women (and men) and then they complain that Trump does it - of course - he grew up with them! He learned from the best!
You know this is actually a great political moment to speculate for Trump. If I were him I would say "yes I did do and say all those wrong things and I feel very ashamed about it and want to apologise to everyone, including my family. But please remember that they - the media, the Clintons, Hollywood - they were my teachers! I grew up amongst them, it's only very late that I learned that there's other ways of life" - and if Trump did this, he would suddenly be freed to expose them all - and gosh there's a lot of exposing to do!
Of the people you associate with, maybe. Of the general population, no.
Quoting Agustino
Most men think that if you have enough money, you should sexually assault women, so therefore it doesn't really matter if the president thinks like that? (Note, observers, how far the rot has set in to both reason and morality here.)
Quoting Agustino
Of course. It's not his fault. Hollywood did it. Hollywood turned him into a sexual predator. Poor Donald... As for the real hypocrisy, it's more like someone who pretends to be a moral beacon for society while defending a public figure who not only condones, but boasts about sexual assault and adultery.
Anyway, it's just as I said:
Quoting Baden
Have I "defended him"? No. I just said why social conservatives should vote for him, while condemning his actions, pure and simple.
Quoting Baden
>:O - of New York's general population for certain!
Quoting Baden
Yes - actually they do (in the way I have edited your quote). Lack of wealth is a blessing for some. And no - it has nothing to do with what they think the President should do.
Quoting Baden
No, just like in a murder, it's still the murderer's fault, even if others encouraged him. But those that encouraged him also share in the responsibility.
And how are you going to take responsibility then for supporting an admitted sexual abuser of woman in his run for the White House?
I am not supporting him, I am voting for social conservatism, which in this case implies picking the least evil out of two bad choices. There's a big difference between supporting someone, and voting for them for strategical reasons.
You are supporting him, strategic reasons or no. To vote for someone or to encourage others to do so just is to support them. In fact, for a presidential candidate, it is obviously the most important form of support. And in so voting, you are voting for the personification of many of the very social evils you elsewhere claim to be most opposed to. That cannot fairly be called a vote for social conservatism or a vote of any moral consistency.
I read an interesting article recently comparing him to Thrasymachus from Plato's Republic. Bragging about being smart for evading taxes, for getting out of contractual obligations, for attempting to sleep with married women, etc. seem to show that he's not guided by any sense of virtue. He apparently looks at those who are constrained by such considerations as stupid and weak. He's a blatant liar, he's unable to take responsibility for his actions, he has no sense of moral obligation towards anyone but himself, he has zero respect for women, and on and on and on. In short, he's about as far from a social conservative as possible, and is more like the poster boy for all that's wrong with America and the modern world generally.
Okay so you suppose then a social conservative should vote for Crooked so that the progressive culture Obama has created is continued and made even stronger - new progressive Supreme Court Justices, Bill Clinton probably going to whiten the White House once again, and so forth. Furthermore, you suppose that not taking an attitude about illegal immigration, possibly starting a conflict with Russia, being unable to deal with ISIS - you suppose all these things are also good no? Or do you suppose that a social conservative should stay home - like they frequently have - so that nothing gets changed?
Quoting Erik
When I'm talking about lesser of two evils I'm referring about the effect their policies will have. As far as it looks, it doesn't seem that Trump's policies will continue the liberal progressive way of Obama, whereas it seems that Clinton's will most definitely do exactly that.
Quoting Erik
I agree but the question in voting is not that. The real question is will we give the country over to liberal progressives for possibly another 4 years - or will we elect someone who isn't a social conservative, but who is quite possibly going to be destructive towards the liberal progressives, thus preparing the ground for a social conservative candidate?
It's principled to only vote for a candidate who stands for your principles; and it is certainly unprincipled to vote for a candidate who stands in absolute opposition to many of them, as Trump so obviously does in your case.
Quoting Agustino
You have a very enlarged sense of your own importance as an individual voter. You refuse to even contemplate voting for other candidates presumably because you think they have no chance of winning (and they only have such little chance because people like you take the attitude they do - back to responsibility again) yet at the same time you don't seem to realize that your vote also has almost no chance of affecting the outcome of the election. In other words, you are selling your principles down the drain for no greater chance of benefit in one scenario than if you upheld them in the other.That illustrates rather neatly how much they must mean to you.
It's obvious that a significant percentage of Americans feel alienated from both major parties, but no one seems to be seizing the initiative. Well, Trump and Sanders tried I guess. But I feel that by combining some progressive economic positions with some socially conservative ones, an interesting coalition has the potential to arise and develop. The specific details would have to be worked out, of course, but there are some possible points of convergence amongst the discontented on both the Left and the Right that - at the very least - are worth exploring.
I'd agree with this. It could only work of course if both sides could overcome their ideological biases in favour of reasoning out novel political positions. That kind of effort and openness will always be too much for some.
Really? Could you defend this please? I don't happen to agree. It's principled to vote for someone who is helpful for your principles succeeding. Trump is more helpful than Clinton.
Quoting Baden
If all social conservatives think like this, this is why we don't win.
Quoting Baden
Which other candidates? I don't agree with most of the principles of the Aleppo guy - the libertarian party is, as far as I'm concerned, even worse than the Democrats in their principles. Jill Stein on the other hand, I agree with some of her policies, and not others, and I still think she's going to be more helpful for the progressive agenda than otherwise. So really Trump is the only candidate whom I can hope isn't favorable to the progressive agenda.
Quoting Baden
Let me show you some counter-propaganda to yours :p
Quoting Erik
I totally agree - but this has little to do with which way to cast the vote. It's a strategic vote - not a vote for support.
Quoting Erik
Yes, I agree with this, but that's for the future, there's nothing we can do about it now, except vote to ensure that this still remains a viable position for the future.
Also, Agustino, if I remember correctly, you're not even American, nor can vote, so why are you defending Trump so much, anyway? >:O
From what I read it would not work that way. The heads of the Republican Party would have to choose another candidate. It could be anyone such as Paul Ryan.
http://www.vox.com/2016/10/8/13211050/what-happens-trump-dropout
Sure, sure. It just seemed as though you thought that sexual morality was more important than that. I guess not. You set the bar really low when it comes to Trump, and your willingness to make special exceptions is... interesting.
Contrast that highly unlikely possibility under a Clinton presidency with the likely possibility under a Trump presidency of Trump supporting Putin's dubious actions, and inflaming relations between the US and China and other important nations.
What's there not to like? He says it like it is
Not voting for Trump doesn't mean voting for Clinton. If I was a Republican, I wouldn't vote for Trump.
Boris has made plenty of gaffes, and comes across as quite the buffoon. And of course they share the same surname. But I don't think he has made a gaffe as bad as Gary's. Boris is clearly intelligent, despite the buffoonery, and seems far more sophisticated than this Gary Johnson guy, or Trump for that matter.
Dancing to the Spice Girls. >:O
Yeah, I wish those progressives would stop inflating Putin's murdering of journalists and political opponents. Nothing wrong with a bit of murder here and there as long as you own the law. But these evil progressives just can't shut up about it!
Got any more lessons in social conservative morality? It's kind of fun (in a perverse way) to try to understand it.
Part of me wants to see Trump elected, just to see the world burn. Maybe then we'll finally wake the fuck up and start voting rationally, assuming he doesn't go trigger happy and get us into a war.
Satan is the one who really wants Hillary to win, only because of his fear in job security. >:)
But who will do the Exorcism.? Father Guido Scarducci lifted The Curse of the Bambino from Fenway, but that was many years ago but I think someone newer is needed. Maybe Glenn Beck? He did wonders for Ted Cruze. He is like the weird family member we all have.
LololOlolOolOOlllooooLLolOLoLOl!!!!!
I don't think I could come up with anyone better than Glenn Beck to perform the Exorcism! (Y)
Yes you can scream and if I scream, maybe we will get ice cream!
{{{{{Question}}}}}}}
Jill Stein barely showed up on my radar :s
Yay! When in doubt scream and shout!
:D
Smell isn't everything.
Quirk of the software. If you ever need to delete something, just hollow it out and we'll dispose of the shell.
Lol, yeah. My little sister gave me a poster of him for thanksgiving yesterday, she said that I should dress up like him for Holloween, just as she thought I should have for the anime convention... I know that there are few bald characters... but there has to be more options...
Saphsin got me onto the manga, and then I watched the anime. Haven't been following the manga, so the new anime should have stuff I haven't seen.
Okay, thanks. I'll just move the content then.
That has basically been the argument of both campaigns. "Look at the other candidate! You don't want them. Vote for me!"
People said the same thing of Richard Nixon -- that if he was elected people would wake up. I don't put much stock in accelerationist theories of social change.
Oh, the irony (hypocrisy?) if that happens.
No.
I like your username.
Bless you, laddy.
Don't you believe it. The PM is not (just) being bloody minded in not granting a vote. She knows there's a very good chance that she'd lose it.
He admitted to having said it (saying it was just words), but hasn't acknowledged doing the fine things he suggested. I will say that his comments pale in comparison to what his opponents' husband did in fact do, which was to take a young intern under his charge and penetrate her with a cigar. A lovely gesture really, which I'm sure made her parents even prouder of their daughter's accomplishment of becoming a Congressional page.
A bit of hypocrisy I'd say in Hillary's condemnation of Donald, but not of Bill.
So, whatever, this is all so very stupid really. The question isn't whether Trump is a boorish buffoon, but it's whether he's really qualified for the position he's seeking. I don't really think he is, nor do I think Hillary is ethically qualified for many more very serious reasons. But all this moral outrage among the morally incompetent is a bit much to take.
Trump's bragging has been confirmed by a few women in the meantime. Surprisingly, he was telling the truth in 2005! It's a miracle!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/13/trump_assault_allegations_orchestrated_by_clinton_machine.html
Not saying I agree with all of that, but it's a viewpoint that doesn't get shown by the progressives here.
It's all lies and I can prove it. Just, not today. Or tomorrow. When's the election again?
The Universe Is 10 Times More Vast Than We Thought
Nathaniel Scharping; Discover Magazine; Oct 2016
Personally I both think that I could, and I desire to subjugate the world (all I'd have to do is say true things until I'm powerful enough, and then I could say whatever the fuck I wanted, and everyone would believe me. Literally whatever the fuck I wanted. That's what they all did.) I'd never trust me if I were you. No one can lead you, the throne needs to be burnt to the ground.
Quoting discoii
Did you really have to add a smiley? Do you realize how horribly offensive that is to Thais, the vast majority of whom absolutely revered and loved the man? I mean there are times when you don't need to publicly dance on someone's grave.
:D
Trump's disqualification is based upon temperament and not his misogyny. Clinton's is based upon her general disregard for the truth and the American public. It's clear though that most care little about qualification and most are concerned about ideology and are willing to support whatever candidate will generally advance what they perceive to be their interests. If it weren't as I say, we'd have very different candidates right now.
It's the nature of politicians to disregard the truth and put their own interests before the public. If that was all that were wrong with Hillary Clinton's character then she would hardly be more disqualified than any other politician including Trump. I would say there is more to it than that for both of them, and not just in terms of temperament in Trump's case. However, I've more or less given up discussing it because as you say:
Quoting Hanover
Even here on a philosophy forum, it seems impossible to get much past this.
That is a basic truth about politics. But an ethical analysis (even an informal one) of political positions and politicians' respective characters, in order to have any worth, has to be of a different complexion.
Is that true?
Here in the UK that would be white lines and hedgehogs (good line for a lyric btw), but the same principle holds. It does seem to me that people who are sometimes advanced as 'centrists' or 'technocrats', like the Italian prime minister, for instance, turn out to have an agenda all of their own. Sometimes that's 'power at any price'.
"Says you", says you? Well if you says I says, I says I says too, says me.
I've not read his book. Is centralism dead in America? I guess that's its meaning. But an interesting choice of words. Maybe "yellow lines" could also be read as political cowards, implied in cautionary nature of yellow lines and how careful some politician are at keeping to the party side of things. Dead rodents, failed politicians litter the political landscape as cautionary tales.
Centrism is a moot concept in America. Centrism is dead. There was a big earthquake, 12 on the Rictus Scale. Centrism just disappeared.
The land mass that provided a meaningful center between political liberals (e.g., socially liberal but fiscal conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats) and political conservatives (e.g., fiscally liberal but socially conservative Democrats and conservative Republicans) fell off the political continent into the ocean. Gone. The socialists who once camped on the tails of Democrats as a reminder of their former ideals, are now isolated on a distant island far, far to the left. The old liberal/conservative continuum has been shoved into a twisted heap of old constituencies. The Goldwater and cryptofascist reactionaries are cultivating what used to be a wasteland far to the right. Hopefully their desert will never bloom.
Rodents (lying, thieving, knavish, and scoundrel rats in particular) have pretty much taken over. (But armadillos are classed with anteaters and sloths--not rodents--just in case you have to make the distinction some day.)
The result of this political Krakatoa has had real and unfortunate consequences. The legislative constipation that afflicts the House and Senate is a consequence. The failure to consider Obama's SCOTUS nominee is a result. The Republicans' and Democrats' inability to find and nominate a distinguished candidate is fallout. The mad extremists and opportunists like Trump are able to make the old party structures kneel.
It may not even make that much difference (at least in some significant areas) which party wins, because they are no longer well differentiated. (Sort of like cancer -- the more undifferentiated cancer cells are, the worse the likely outcome).
The most grievous consequence, though, is that professional politicians can't even conceive of a way forward. They could at various times in the past, before the present debacle. We are stuck--not in the middle--but in the heap of debris.
Thanks BC, I rely on the forum to provide me at least one new nugget of knowledge each day.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/14/fox-news-poll-clinton-leads-trump-by-7-points.html
Maybe this will surprise you, but Fox News is actually one of the harshest polls on Trump (not THE harshest, but one of the harshest). The most lenient, quite surprisingly, is this one: http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
They give Trump as winner - and have been doing so for quite some time.
>:O
Quoting Agustino
Yes, that does surprise me, but Fox News is still the biggest joke out there in the world of news organisations.
CNN/ORC 7/22 - 7/24 882 RV Trump +3
LA Times/USC 7/20 - 7/26 2150 LV Trump +7
CBS News 7/22 - 7/24 1118 RV Trump +1
NBC News/SM 7/18 - 7/24 12931 RV Clinton +1
Gravis 7/21 - 7/22 Trump +2
Rasmussen Reports 7/18 - 7/19 1000 LV Trump +1
When all polls were giving Trump as the winner those Crooks at NBC News still gave Crooked as the winner - they're worse than Crooked News Network (CNN - which to be honest isn't that Crooked in the polls at all)! >:O
That's even funnier than my comment that Boris Johnson is sophisticated! Although I have taken it out of context.
I'll grant that they're perhaps not very biased in [i]all[/I] things (just most), and that this may be an exception.
And yeh, I arrived at the same conclusion about the LA Times.
I've actually started to enjoy watching them - they are indeed saying a lot of similar things to what I'm saying >:O - although I don't agree with them on everything, and I don't like all their shows. But they're not as bad as the Left makes them out to be. I dislike Sean Hannity >:O but I like Bill O'Reilly. It's funny how Bill treats Trump... it's like he's trying to tame and educate a dangerous gorilla >:O If only Trump listened...
The blind leading the blind.
The God-bothering, Gobsmacking Guru of Generalization gains another glorious goal.
:-d
O:)
I just started my fifth play through of the series. Some of the best games ever made.
:-} Uh oh.
The Queen of Ireland? Who's that?