Reply to discoii You see the problem with having asinine authoritarian leaders is that they undermine authority itself by removing the very reason(s) one has for following authority.
Reply to Agustino The Thai monarchy has a very loyal, zealous following. Like how Hillary just never goes away even if she murders someone in plain daylight, the Thai monarchy just gets more money every time they back the military, and the military carries on the love the King campaign all day and all night. Just like right now. People are forced to wear black in public, and people who don't wear black, people go up to you and say 'why aren't you wearing black? Your father just died.'
Well sir, my father is still alive, sorry for the loss of your father.
The Thai monarchy has a very loyal, zealous following. Like how Hillary just never goes away even if she murders someone in plain daylight, the Thai monarchy just gets more money every time they back the military, and the military carries on the love the King campaign all day and all night. Just like right now. People are forced to wear black in public, and people who don't wear black, people go up to you and say 'why aren't you wearing black? Your father just died.'
Well sir, my father is still alive, sorry for the loss of your father.
>:O Yes the power groups. The military men will support the king so long as the king gives them power and lets them do as they wish. They are satisfied this way, I imagine they get to have quite a lot of power over the rest of the public - no wonder they are very loyal and zealous.
I also imagine that most of the public is too dumbed down to do anything.
Reply to discoii See - I'm from Eastern Europe. These regions were exactly like your country. Even now they're like this, except that now things are a bit more veiled than before. It seems to me that certain regions of the world can't change, regardless of political regimes, democracy, monarchy, etc. It's not the regime, it's the people - and this doesn't include just the public, but everyone, including those in power.
If Thailand became a democracy same thing would happen I would guess. The press would be controlled by the use of direct threat. The military men, and the underlings of the king would become your politicians. Your people would still be kept dumbed down - not that the leaders are much better either - they're all living by the law of the jungle. Install whatever laws you want - adopt the US of A constitution - anything. Who cares that the law, for example, says you need an approval for your coal-mining business? You bribe the one who verifies you. He doesn't give a shit about the state, and he'll be happy with a little bit more money. He'll sign your certification without even bothering to check anything.
Many of the folks on these boards don't even understand this it seems to me. They think the world is all regimented by laws, etc. The truth is those in power everywhere don't give a fuck about the laws. Crooked Hillary is the same - doesn't give a fuck about the law. They just pretend and their public is so stupid that they buy it. They actually think that those people who have found themselves holding the reigns of power will let them do anything. And more importantly the academia has been turned in a mass-propaganda machine. All their research and studies are applicable only within the borders of the law - but the real deals - all of them - take place outside those borders. So folks with big heads think they actually know what's going on - they've read all the research >:O
Reply to Ciceronianus the White All this time I thought Baden was English cause we talk about UK politics occasionally in threads, and he brings UK politics up a lot. Guess this makes more sense...
All I wanted to do was start some light multinational monarch shit-talk banter to celebrate the occasion.
You know what Hegel was most wrong about in my view? He thought that you have to trust the community, and no single person can be a greater judge than the whole... further that the Athenians had demonstrated all of their accusations against Socrates... but had they? What about the relation between beauty and virtue, and vice and ugliness? Socrates the ugliest man in a world that judged virtuousness based on beauty... of course he trusted the community, of course he thought he was wrong... of course he tried everything to solve the problem, to discover what was wrong with him... for years and years, and never needed to hide from the truth because he had began already right -- he just had to realize it... after years of solitary introspection, he surpassed the world, and realized what they had done to him -- that they didn't know what the fuck they all were talking about, they only thought that they did.
Another debate loss for Trump. Of course he lost the election the moment he was nominated, but it'll be interesting to see by how much and how he and his supporters respond.
Reply to Baden I doubt it. This debate was very close. Hillary came ahead in terms of intelligence and mastery of the facts, but Donald Trump overpowered her in terms of having a better vision for America and rhetoric. I think that it's too close to call, for the debate that is.
[quote=The Guardian]Clinton goaded Trump as easily as an older sister drives her brother into a full-blown tantrum. She called him a puppet of Vladimir Putin. His response? “No, you’re the puppet.”
She said the intelligence agencies blamed election-related cyberattacks on Russia. His response? “She has no idea whether it’s Russia, China or anybody else,” said the puppet. “You have no idea.”[/quote]
[quote=The Guardian]He bristled when Clinton recalled his referring to former Miss Universe Alicia Machado as an “eating machine”, but soon after, he was interrupting to call Clinton not just the usual “liar”, which has by now become banal, but “such a nasty woman”, an even more baseless character attack.[/quote]
And also when Clinton took a rare moment to brilliantly play Trump at his own game by interrupting his speech about how great his self-named hotel is with the comment "made from Chinese steel", which provoked laughter from the audience. Trump is such a massive hypocrite.
And, of course, he still refuses to release his tax returns, setting a precedent. His defence for having paid no federal income tax is terrible: "Well, you allowed me to" and "That makes me smart". It makes him reprehensible.
"We have undocumented immigrants in America who are paying more federal income tax than a billionaire," Hillary Clinton said at the third presidential debate.
I find Trump's stance on the Second Amendment and Roe vs. Wade utterly repellent. How can anyone object to Hillary's reasonable, moral, common-sense reforms on gun control?
Donald Trump overpowered her in terms of having a better vision for America
I do hope you're paid to troll these sorts of remark, Agustino. Otherwise I'd take them to undermine everything else you say, as when we're talking serious philosophy. Vision for America, indeed.
Russia planning to send monitors to US on election day after 'rigged' claims... ha, ha!
US State Dept says ok.
Maybe I laughed too quickly. While the State Department says fine, the individual states of Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana (because of flooding issues and effects on their staffing) say no.
I'm a fan of anything that presents as the antithesis of the piped pop of the day, which in the climes I now inhabit is of a deeper stratum of insidiousness than from where I originate. Black metal will do although I don't know much about it and tend to listen almost exclusively to Napalm Death when out and about. This makes me a musical snob, I suppose, which is something I've argued against being in the past (but whatever, I am large, I contain multitudes :) ). Anyway, I'd rather seal myself within a discordant dome of unhappy noise than be forced to imbibe the aural syrup that pervades the outside air.
Just looked over where the candidates stand on key issues. This is not good:
[quote=BBC News]TAXES
According to the Tax Foundation analysis, the top 1% of earners would [according to Trump's current plan] see their income increase by double-digits...[/quote]
[quote=BBC News]CLIMATE CHANGE
Donald Trump has issued no position statements on environmental issues on his website. In speeches and debates, however, he has said he opposes what he views as economically damaging environmental regulations backed by "political activists with extreme agendas". He says he supports clean water and air, but wants to slash funding to the Environmental Protection Agency. He has also called man-made climate change "a hoax" and said he would "cancel" the Paris Agreement and other international efforts to address the issue.[/quote]
Nor I. Don't see the point if you live in a big city with good transport links. Sitting miserably in traffic for hours a day pumping out pollution seems almost akin to destroying the environment out of spite.
Gestapo: Did you do that (pointing at Guernica)?
Picasso: No! You did.
Happy Birthday! Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Martyr Patricio Clito Ruíz y Picasso
Barry EtheridgeOctober 25, 2016 at 22:58#286430 likes
Reply to Baden I wouldn't bother. It's vastly overrated!
Judging by the polls, Hilary Clinton is set to win, unless perhaps something drastic happens, and the lines in the graph come close to realignment, like they did in July.
Also, stats show that most swing states will likely vote for Clinton.
Reply to Thorongil
The categories aren't visible on the mobile version of the site, but one which contains a given discussion should be visible in bold on the left of the full version (you may have to scroll to see it).
Reply to Baden The categories [i]are[/I] visible on the mobile version if you tap the button in the top right corner, then tap on 'Categories' from the drop down menu.
I was looking at this "20 advertisements with subliminal messages", and wendy's was on there, but they said that the SM is that her collar spells out "mom" giving a homey look (the few I looked at were all stupid and probably nonsense), but what's more interesting to me is that one of me sees her with an open mouth and narrow lips and she looks younger, and the other sees her with a closed mouth and big lower lip, and she looks older.
Someone also linked a picture of someone's legs with some lines of like cream on them, and they asked which you see like if they look shiny with the white lines, or just white lines. I again see both, but I know that it is in fact not shiny, even though that is my initial perception, until I pay attention and see that it isn't. My initial impression of the Wendy's girl was also open mouth and childish, making me think that the other is actually the case, or intended.
I was looking at this "20 advertisements with subliminal messages", and wendy's was on there, but they said that the SM is that her color spells out "mom" giving a homey look, but what's more interesting to me is that one of me sees her with an open mouth and narrow lips and she looks younger, and the other sees her with a closed mouth and big lower lip, and she looks older.
That [I]is[/I] weird.
The subliminal message [i]I[/I] received was to worship Satan, and to sacrifice a young, smiling, pig-tailed red-head in his honour.
The FBI is reopening its investigation of Clinton's emails, 11 days before the election and they have decided that there are too many new emails. That's insane, what a tragedy this election.
His justification "I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record".
I wonder what Comey was promised and by whom because he didn't supplement the record with his "there might be but there might not be e-mails that are relevant". Maybe the FBI can investigate that.
No. What we need is a new independent bureau of investigation to investigate the FBI. And then another one to investigate that one due to corruption. And then another one to investigate that one. And so on, and so forth, [I]ad infinitum[/I].
I voted yesterday. I know you guys are wondering how I voted. On the question of whether the state should be granted additional authority in taking control over local schools that are failing, I voted no. I voted yes to the question of whether the legislature should be given more control over the removal of judges for impropriety.
I wrote my son's name in for sheriff. I think he'd do a fine job maintaining law and order.
What else was on that ballot? I can't seem to recall.
This attack on Comey is comical. He was the darling of the Democrats when he previously declined to prosecute but now he's hopelessly corrupt. He's a champion of justice to those who support their cause. Otherwise, he's a scoundrel.
How about this: Admit that (1) Clinton is a corrupt lying criminal and (2) Trump is a misogynist egocentric buffoon. That way you don't need to support either of them and you don't have to be morally outraged if you think one is getting treated poorly.
How about this: Admit that (1) Clinton is a corrupt lying criminal and (2) Trump is a misogynist egocentric buffoon.
Interesting that you attribute "lying" to Clinton rather than Trump. That decision must have been based on something other than who the bigger liar is.
Correction: (1) Clinton is a corrupt lying criminal and (2) Trump is a lying misogynistic egocentric criminal buffoon.
(Y)
Except you left out "corrupt".
[Quote=Salon]As Media Matters laid out on Monday, Trump is currently facing 75 different civil lawsuits for matters including fraud, breach of contract, nonpayment, sexual harassment and defamation. He has three pending Trump University fraud suits and is suspected of perpetrating a “pay-for-play” scheme with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and possibly others to shut down a state investigation into the same fraudulent enterprise.
Just last week Trump was ordered to appear in federal court on Dec. 16 for a status conference in a civil lawsuit brought by a woman who accused him of raping her when she was 13. (According to the latest blockbuster investigative piece by Kurt Eichenwald in Newsweek, Trump has destroyed emails and other documents in circumvention of court orders for decades.)
Everyone knows that last month Donald Trump was revealed on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women and that shortly thereafter women began to come forward by the dozen to allege the same. A number of such women are now represented by legal counsel, a problem with which a President Trump would surely have to deal. (The Supreme Court set that precedent with former president Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones case.) One can only imagine how many others might come forward.
And I have written before about the literal impossibility of Trump extricating himself from the Trump Organization’s foreign entanglements. He would have massive conflicts of interest all over the globe, no matter how much Trump and his family try to divest themselves from the business — which they have no intention of doing. American foreign policy would be held hostage to the president’s business interests, and that’s assuming we even knew what those interests were.
The only thing we do know is that Trump has dealings with shady characters in various countries around the world that would greatly complicate American national security and its relationship to its allies. At the moment he has refused to give any information about his foreign holdings and media outlets have been strangely passive about asking him about it.[/quote]
Correction: (1) Clinton is a corrupt lying criminal and (2) Trump is a lying misogynistic egocentric criminal buffoon.
Whether Trump actually did the things to women he advocated remains a question and his tax issues have never been suggested to be criminal. Clinton's email use was criminal.
I thought they concluded that it wasn't, which is why she wasn't prosecuted. Whether or not these new emails are criminal is yet to be decided. Also, I didn't say she wasn't a criminal.
Whether Trump actually did the things to women he advocated remains a question and his tax issues have never been suggested to be criminal.
From what I understand Trump's been involved in 3,500 court cases, so it's not just about the things he's said about women and his tax issues. I don't know how many of them were criminal cases and how many times he was found guilty, but I'm OK with calling him a criminal all the same (as an aside, are you a criminal if you lose a civil court case?).
Fine, they both lie, but, yes, Clinton's lies are far more significant.
Yes, they do both lie, but as for the rest, I beg to differ.
I think that this is so true:
[quote=Politicus USA]In the end, it matters less why Trump lies than that he does, especially since he is busily convincing his base that Hillary Clinton is the dishonest candidate. And it is working. This is a trope frequently repeated by Trump’s supporters. You can correct them as often as you want; it will have no effect.
The lie has taken hold – one of many – many more than you likely expected, and observational bias takes care of the rest.[/quote]
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 01, 2016 at 20:33#297930 likes
Fine, they both lie, but, yes, Clinton's lies are far more significant.
Trump may have lied but he did not commit treason like Mrs. William Clinton. In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's nation or sovereign
Trump may have lied but he did not commit treason like Mrs. William Clinton.
In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's nation or sovereign
Or would she better be described as a traitor? :s
He actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent, and then they did just that. He also seemed to encourage assassination of his political opponent, not once, but twice. He has also denied climate change multiple times, and has refused to accept the result of the election if he loses.
Anyone ever hear the legend of the cyclops? The reason that they had one eye was because they traded the other to be able to see the future, but they were tricked... the only future that they could see that was certain was their own death.
Take it from Trump, Hilary is a fantastic human being
I could tell that he respects her because in the time-frame around the first two debates he kept using the term "big league." Ahhw.... they're so cute.
Reply to Sapientia Clinton's attempt to avoid the repercussions of her emails by complaining that they're being exposed by a foreign enemy is an embarrassing ad hom avoidance of the truth. Climate change questioning isn't a Trump invention; it's a Republican position. His refusal to state right now that he'll accept the election results is no less unreasonable than Gore's challenge of his election results.
Still don't care. USA is doomed regardless of the monkey pushing the buttons.
Tiff, you're still welcome in the Netherlands. Hanover, we have a conservative (and xenophobic) party like the GOP doing quite well too so you'll feel right at home voting for them in a year or five when you can get voting rights. Confusingly for US citizens though, they market themselves as a liberal party.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 02, 2016 at 11:47#298980 likes
He has also denied climate change multiple times, and has refused to accept the result of the election if he loses.
Climate change is a political football in the USA so there will always be a "them" and "us" mentality.
Finally considering the life Trump departed from to run for President, I feel fairly confident that he will be okay. In fact, much like in his past, he will land on his feet and make a HUGE buck to boot!
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 02, 2016 at 11:52#299000 likes
Tiff, you're still welcome in the Netherlands. Hanover, we have a conservative (and xenophobic) party like the GOP doing quite well too so you'll feel right at home voting for them in a year or five when you can get voting rights. Confusingly for US citizens though, they market themselves as a liberal party.
Benkei, Thank you for keeping the Netherlands open and welcoming for me, a true friend you are! It might just be sooner than later as my eldest Indian met his first love and she is a Van Dyke from Holland. They both want to travel to Europe next summer to see her homeland and family and I worry that he might just want to stay there. He and his friends can clearly see the USA is in it's sunset years as far as the next two generations are concerned.
Funny where life takes us when we dare to dream!
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 02, 2016 at 11:54#299020 likes
Reply to Benkei I'm not xenophobic. I like me a good wall, sure, but that's more to do with a love of architecture than wanting to keep folks out. It's kind of like how you guys like windmills. They're both just useless but interesting erections, so to speak.
Climate change is a political football in the USA so there will always be a "them" and "us" mentality.
Finally considering the life Trump departed from to run for President, I feel fairly confident that he will be okay.
Ah, I see. So, given that he hasn't been convicted, climate change is a political football, and you feel fairly confident that he will be okay, then I guess there was no cause for concern.
And your judgement on political matters such as these can of course be relied upon, as we well know, given your views on, say, gun control... :-|
If you happen to find yourself in Sydney this week, you have the unique opportunity to have sex with the earth. You just need to stop by the "ecosexual bathhouse," which is currently part of the Syndney LiveWorks Festival of experimental art.
Reply to Michael Fair enough, although Hillary was the dyke in question.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 02, 2016 at 16:28#299310 likes
My write-in for President was James B. Comey. I had thought before July that he was an idiot, but after hearing him and how he presented both himself and the case he oversaw, I felt not a shred of negative impression. Comey, so far as I can judge, is a man of great character and is unabashed in the face of doing the right thing. He's got the biggest balls in Washington, and is of a good conscience, which is precisely why everyone seems to hate him. Popular culture hates moral men, especially those that appreciate the sorts of subtly and nuance that most find too hard to comprehend.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 02, 2016 at 17:47#299400 likes
My write-in for President was James B. Comey. I had thought before July that he was an idiot, but after hearing him and how he presented both himself and the case he oversaw, I felt not a shred of negative impression. Comey, so far as I can judge, is a man of great character and is unabashed in the face of doing the right thing. He's got the biggest balls in Washington, and is of a good conscience, which is precisely why everyone seems to hate him. Popular culture hates moral men, especially those that appreciate the sorts of subtly and nuance that most find too hard to comprehend.
Heister? You might have influenced my choice for President.
;) Thinking, thinking, thinking.....hmmmm
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 02, 2016 at 17:50#299410 likes
In fact, much like in his past, he will create MASSIVE amounts of debt. FAR MORE than Hillary Clinton!!!!!!
So now should I consider writing in Comey? Sapientia, my dear feathered friend, why don't YOUjust tell me who to vote for? It would be a lot easier, eh? :P
BuxtebuddhaNovember 02, 2016 at 18:54#299450 likes
Whether Trump actually did the things to women he advocated remains a question and his tax issues have never been suggested to be criminal. Clinton's email use was criminal.
How embarrassing to see how far the party of "family values" has deteriorated, and the contortions some of its adherents will go through in order to defend Trump. So, Trump can talk about grabbing women by the pussy and so forth, but as long as he didn't actually do so, it's all fine and dandy. (Never mind that he's also bragged about walking in on beauty pageant contestants in various states of undress, an account which was confirmed by at least one pageant contestant herself.) I can see why the evangelicals continue to back him. No hypocrisy there. Of course, Bill Clinton gets a consensual blowjob while in office, and gets impeached for it (whoops, I forgot: he was impeached for lying about it. Of course...)
Trump in fact lies far more often than Hillary ever did, and if his lies aren't as "significant," it's only because he hasn't yet been placed in a position where they can have national ramifications. Just admit you'll pull the lever for anyone with an "R" after their name, because that's become abundantly clear in this election.
BTW, please fill me in on what crime Hillary's been convicted of? Has she been sentenced yet? If so, that will certainly put a damper on things if she must take the oath of office from a prison cell if she's elected President.
He actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent, and then they did just that. — Sapientia
Ohh you mean Edward Snowden
No, he means the Russian government, whom Trump encouraged at a press conference to hack into (additional) DNC emails. Trump is the traitor to our country: Clinton is a dedicated civil servant who's served her country admirably.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 02, 2016 at 20:30#299550 likes
I didn't want to imply you were but the GOP certainly is.
Can you blame them? All of those sweet, sweet lettuce picking gigs have gone to swarthy Mexicans, rendering GOP voters' aspirations to perform backbreaking labor in the sweltering sun null and void.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 02, 2016 at 20:54#299630 likes
Reply to Sapientia I imagined Comey praying more for himself (me) than Donally Trumpton, >:O
Reply to Heister Eggcart Ah, Comey, I see that you have chosen to finally reveal your true identity. Of course, I knew it all along, and was merely playing along. You should indeed be praying for yourself, and for Donally Trumpton too, since you're going to need a divine intervention to stop me (Hilald Clint) from becoming president of the United States of America, and subsequently ruler of the universe.
You won't be laughing then... You won't be laughing big league...
BuxtebuddhaNovember 02, 2016 at 21:34#299740 likes
Reply to Arkady Hillary is morally outraged by Trump's comments but defends Bill who inserted a cigar in an underling's vagina. The reason one inserts cigars in women isn't because it's sexually exciting for either party. It's to humiliate.
Hillary is morally outraged by Trump's comments but defends Bill who inserted a cigar in an underling's vagina. The reason one inserts cigars in women isn't because it's sexually exciting for either party. It's to humiliate.
Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky were engaged in a consensual relationship. Is your dime-store psychoanalysis about Bill wanting to humiliate Monica based on the Freudian nature of said cigar? People do insert objects into their lovers' vagina as part of sex play you do realize? (Had it been, say, a dildo, I'm sure you would have found the act more acceptable :-} ). And, in all likelihood Bill lied to Hillary about the affair, just as he lied to everyone else.
Please, Republicans: don't start pretending that you care about the welfare of women. It just doesn't suit you.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 03, 2016 at 00:54#300150 likes
I don't think that all Republicans are pigs. As a group, I have no reason for thinking that Republicans are any more boorish than are Democrats, independents, or members of the Green Party (ok, probably not that last one). I just think that, as a party, they're largely indifferent to the welfare of women (probably due in no small part to the fact that single women are a reliable Democratic voting bloc).
Of course, when it comes time to "protect" them from "unsafe" abortions or from the depredations of Bill Clinton on fresh, nubile White House interns if and when he assumes his position as First Man, then Republicans suddenly become gravely concerned about the female gender.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 03, 2016 at 02:38#300370 likes
Yeah, mang, but what's your point? It doesn't follow that because you think the Republidumbs don't respect women's welfare, that the women who belong to the party also don't care about their own rights.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 03, 2016 at 02:52#300400 likes
Who removed that thread about fear of death? Rude moderating is rude, >:o
So, Parliament must vote. Queue the appeal and then hopefully the Supreme Court agreeing with the ruling and enough Conservative MPs breaking rank. There's a way out @Sapientia. ;)
Reply to Heister Eggcart
Why not? They support a party which has made it its mission to, for instance, severely curtail womens' access to abortion (for which married women with at least one child already are major users), and have made defunding Planned Parenthood (a major provider of womens' healthcare, including preventative care) something of a legislative obsession of late (just to name two examples).
People vote against their self-interests in all manner of ways; there's no reason to think that married women who vote Republican can't do the same. Perhaps they're taken in by the same wedge issues that galvanize Republicans in general these days: God, gun, gays, and the flag (to which one might add illegal immigration from Mexico and terrorism in recent years).
I was thinking about this earlier. Is that what he'd be called? First Man? How Westerosi.
I'm not sure that's been worked out yet. He may be "First Gentleman" (more in keeping with its female complement in the Unites States, "First Lady.") Or, maybe he'd just be called "Bubba."
I'm not sure that's been worked out yet. He may be "First Gentleman" (more in keeping with its female complement in the Unites States, "First Lady.") Or, maybe he'd just be called "Bubba."
I think it's entirely possible that he will just be a giant pain in the ass for Hillary if she's elected. He was a star campaigner in 1992, but I think that star has faded somewhat, as he doesn't seem to have had much of a presence on the campaign trail (which is not that surprising, given that he's 24 years older, and with a heart condition). And his lurid past with women has only been a hindrance to Hillary in the 2016 Presidential election (she herself is largely squeaky clean, so the right must lie, fabricate, and exaggerate in order to attack her, and also harp on the fact that Bill - who is not running for President, you will recall - had sexual indiscretions in his past).
Will he want to sit in on Cabinet meetings? Will he want to give press conferences? Will he stick his nose into Presidential business, thinking he can do it better than Hillary? Time will tell (or this speculation will all be moot if Trump is elected).
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 03, 2016 at 11:25#300950 likes
No formal Act is required. It would take years that way. This would be a vote to approve (or not) the Government's intention much like the one to approve involvement in the Iraq war way back in the days of Labour government. There will of course be a comprehensive Act required to change laws, powers etc. once full exit has been achieved but we're a long way from that - even longer after today.
This would be a vote to approve (or not) the Government's intention much like the one to approve involvement in the Iraq war way back in the days of Labour government.
That was different, though. Declaring war is a Royal Prerogative and Parliamentary approval wasn't legally required.
So you might be right that an Act isn't required (I'm no expert), but that was a bad example. ;)
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 03, 2016 at 11:41#301020 likes
No, he means the Russian government, whom Trump encouraged at a press conference to hack into (additional) DNC emails.
Pffttt the hack happened to Podesta whom held a Yahoo account not a Government email or server. Podesta should never have been communicating on an unsecured server nor should the head of our State Department. What happened after they opened the door? Foreign governments tried and the FBI has said that with a 99% chance, 5 have successfully hacked into their accounts. All of which happened longggggg before Trump was nominated.
Even if you have nothing but doubt about Trump, do you really think that Putin would deny having anything to do with the DNC hack if they had successfully hacked into it? Not likely.
Trump may not have a political history to show but Hillary does and if she is voted into office, it will be another run of the same Clinton movie that we saw with Bill.
No thanks. Been there. Done that. Got Burned.
Or Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Or
Or
Or all the other clichés that we use when we realize we have allowed ourselves to be screwed over again by the same people we trusted the first time around.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 03, 2016 at 11:58#301050 likes
All of those sweet, sweet lettuce picking gigs have gone to swarthy Mexicans, rendering GOP voters' aspirations to perform backbreaking labor in the sweltering sun null and void.
Arkady, do you have any idea what happens under the Obama administration, when ICE encounters "swarthy Mexicans" here in Arizona, a national border state?
ICE follows their Oath to protect our border by catching those who choose to come over illegally, only to have their supervisors order their release because that is what our Commander in Chief has instructed them to do. Talk about frustration. I can only imagine the rank and file of the FBI who were told to stifle it can relate to ICE like no other.
Barry EtheridgeNovember 03, 2016 at 11:59#301060 likes
But we didn't actually ever declare war on Iraq. With his usual slipperiness Blair deliberately avoided a declaration of war (for which he alone could be blamed!) and instead sought Parliamentary approval for joint action in the invasion of Iraq (for which he could not). This is why the charge persists that UK was involved in an illegal war (and incidentally how Blair has avoided being indicted on war crimes).
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Maybe those Native Americans should have erected their own wall and set up their own border control and stopped those "pale Europeans" from colonising their land. ;)
Reply to Barry Etheridge Still, Parliamentary approval wasn't required under UK law for the Government to deploy military forces in Iraq. The illegality of the war refers to international law, which is why some say it was illegal even though Parliament approved.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 03, 2016 at 12:08#301100 likes
Maybe those Native Americans should have erected their own wall and set up their own border control and stopped those "pale Europeans" from colonising their land.
Isn't that exactly what your Supreme Court will be asked to decide, i.e., whether or not legislation is required to Brexit. How did the UK enter the EU? Perhaps it needs to unfold the same way it folded into it.
Pffttt the hack happened to Podesta whom held a Yahoo account not a Government email or server. Podesta should never have been communicating on an unsecured server nor should the head of our State Department. What happened after they opened the door? Foreign governments tried and the FBI has said that with a 99% chance, 5 have successfully hacked into their accounts. All of which happened longggggg before Trump was nominated.
This is a red herring. The fact remains that Trump encouraged Russia to hack further emails, and thus we have the gruesome spectacle of a presidential candidate from a major party encouraging a foreign power to meddle in our election for the sake of his political gain. The fact that cyber attacks did not originate in tandem with the Trump candidacy is irrelevant to this fact, and renders it no less egregious. (Imagine for a moment that the roles had been reversed, and it had been the RNC's or Trump's campaign chair's emails which had been hacked, and a foreign power such as Russia was the prime suspect. Further imagine that Hillary suggested to said foreign power that they hack more emails. Would you be so blase about it? I have a hard time believing so.)
Even if you have nothing but doubt about Trump, do you really think that Putin would deny having anything to do with the DNC hack if they had successfully hacked into it? Not likely.
Of course I do. Putin is a serial liar, just like his buddy Trump. He lied about having troops in Crimea for Chrissakes.
Trump may not have a political history to show but Hillary does and if she is voted into office, it will be another run of the same Clinton movie that we saw with Bill.
No thanks. Been there. Done that. Got Burned.
Or Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Or
Or
Or all the other clichés that we use when we realize we have allowed ourselves to be screwed over again by the same people we trusted the first time around.
What, exactly are you referring to by being "burned" by Clinton? The strong economy when he left office? The balanced budget (which is a conservative hobbyhorse)? The absence of major, ongoing wars?
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 03, 2016 at 12:11#301150 likes
Arkady, do you have any idea what happens under the Obama administration, when ICE encounters "swarthy Mexicans" here in Arizona, a national border state?
ICE follows their Oath to protect our border by catching those who choose to come over illegally, only to have their supervisors order their release because that is what our Commander in Chief has instructed them to do. Talk about frustration. I can only imagine the rank and file of the FBI who were told to stifle it can relate to ICE like no other.
In some ways, Obama has outstripped his predecessors in deporting illegal immigrants; in other ways, he has probably been less aggressive (likely moreso with illegal immigrants who are already living in the country, as opposed to being caught at the border). Given the shifting terminology over time, it's hard to compare different administrations' records on border enforcement. (Some of the gory terminological details are described in the linked-to article.)
What, exactly are you referring to by being "burned" by Clinton? The strong economy when he left office? The balanced budget (which is a conservative hobbyhorse)? The absence of major, ongoing wars?
Does a blue dress ring any bells? How about the word impeachment?
The Clinton's lie. Period. Full Stop.
It doesn't matter to whom, about what or who it affects, as long as it advances their plan. Lately it has been more about lining their pockets than helping others. The Clinton Foundation showed preferential treatment to those that stepped up to help out Haiti. In addition to helping out their friends with those contracts, they themselves, the Clinton Foundation utilize .09 cents out of every dollar for the cause and .91 cents goes to administrative costs. Please.... stop with the bs. The Clinton's left the White house broke and now she alone is worth an estimated 32 million?
Come on, let's at least be able to call bs when it is bs.
Does a blue dress ring any bells? How about the word impeachment?
The blue dress? Monica's dress which Bill ejaculated on? Is this a matter of national concern? We know in advance that Trump is a lech who has bragged about committing sexual assault, so if you're so concerned about such matters, let's bar him from office from the start, and not have to worry about stained dresses.
As for impeachment, let me get this straight: the highly partisan Congressional Republicans impeach a President for getting a blowjob (I know they say they impeached him for lying about it, but that's just some of the BS which you speak of, below), and it's Clinton's fault? The impeachment was a national embarrassment, to be sure, but it's Republicans who ought to be embarrassed.
The Clinton's lie. Period. Full Stop.
Trump lies, full stop, at about 3 times the rate of Hillary. Please check the fact-checkers' work on this and get to know your candidate.
It doesn't matter to whom, about what or who it affects, as long as it advances their plan. Lately it has been more about lining their pockets than helping others. The Clinton Foundation showed preferential treatment to those that stepped up to help out Haiti. In addition to helping out their friends with those contracts, they themselves, the Clinton Foundation utilize .09 cents out of every dollar for the cause and .91 cents goes to administrative costs. Please.... stop with the bs. The Clinton's left the White house broke and now she alone is worth an estimated 32 million?
Come on, let's at least be able to call bs when it is bs.
Come on, Tiff. I expect more of you than repeating the right-wing lie that the Clinton Foundation only pays out 10% of its money towards charitable causes. The figure is closer to 88%. Please step away from the right-wing blogosphere and read some real news.
As for the Clintons' worth, how much has Trump made in scamming his business partners, stiffing contractors, and so forth? How many debts did he shed when he declared bankruptcy multiple times, leaving others holding the bag? Give me a break.
Edit: and I will say that the Clintons have been transparent in releasing their tax returns, and the Clinton Foundation's financials are a matter of public record, which is more than I can say for Trump, who has refused to release his tax returns, no doubt in part because he's a known liar when it comes to his wealth (much in the way he lies about nearly everything else, from the number of illegal immigrants in the country to Ted Cruz's father being involved in assassinating JFK. It just goes on and on).
So, Parliament must vote. Queue the appeal and then hopefully the Supreme Court agreeing with the ruling and enough Conservative MPs breaking rank. There's a way out Sapientia. ;)
Yes, there is a way out. But it is through a mine field.
[quote=The Guardian]The map looks a little more daunting for the 2016 Republican candidate, though. Even if Trump can win Florida, Ohio and Iowa (three important states where he is in a close race with Clinton), and all the other states where he is leading (including those where it’s close), he would still need to secure at least one state with a decent number of electoral college votes like Virginia, Pennsylvania or Michigan. But Clinton is ahead in all three of those states by a pretty safe margin of five to seven points.[/quote]
Reply to Sapientia The U.S. election system confuses me. Are the Electoral Colleges obliged to vote according the people in their state, or can they vote for whomever they want?
The U.S. election system confuses me. Are the Electoral Colleges obliged to vote according the people in their state, or can they vote for whomever they want?
Erm... dunno, to be honest. Would have to look it up.
The U.S. election system confuses me. Are the Electoral Colleges obliged to vote according the people in their state, or can they vote for whomever they want?
They can technically vote for someone other than the popularly-elected candidate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector).
In any event, barring such unusual circumstances, a popular vote/Electoral College split is rare, but it does happen (perhaps most famously in 2000, when Bush v. Gore landed in the Supreme Court's lap, though that case didn't concern the constitutionality of such splits per se, but rather focused on vote counting issues).
In any event, barring such unusual circumstances, a popular vote/Electoral College split is rare, but it does happen (perhaps most famously in 2000, when Bush v. Gore landed in the Supreme Court's lap)
There's an interesting scenario where McMullin wins Utah and the other two split, and he becomes President as a compromise candidate. Unlikely but possible.
Based on policy, she is the better candidate. Sure, Trump with his Second Amendment nonsense, for example, might appeal to you more, but what Clinton has said on that matter is very sensible, and Trump is guilty of attacking a straw man and scaremongering, as he has also done with regards to taxation, where Clinton yet again has the right approach.
There's an interesting scenario where McMullin wins Utah and the other two split, and he becomes President as a compromise candidate. Unlikely but possible.
Yes, however, I believe that would be a result of the House of Representatives voting him in, which would almost surely never happen (but possible, as you say, in that there's a nonzero probability of its occurring...).
Is your dime-store psychoanalysis about Bill wanting to humiliate Monica based on the Freudian nature of said cigar? People do insert objects into their lovers' vagina as part of sex play you do realize? (Had it been, say, a dildo, I'm sure you would have found the act more acceptable :-} ).
Uhhh, yeah. Maybe my sexual experience varies greatly from yours, but inserting a cigar into someone's vagina is a bit different than a dildo. We also can't overlook the fact that this was THE most powerful man in the world basically doing whatever the hell he wanted to an ordinary college girl in his charge.
Hah! Here we go again. This is a battle you cannot win. Bringing up lying is a losing strategy for any Trump supporter. At least in terms of the facts, rather than peoples failure to check them, and instead lap up what they're told by the likes of Trump and his supporters.
Uhhh, yeah. Maybe my sexual experience varies greatly from yours, but inserting a cigar into someone's vagina is a bit different than a dildo.
Of course it's different; no one would mistake the 2. However, my point is that inserting objects into a lover's vagina can be part of consensual sex play. You make an unwarranted assertion that this somehow implies that Bill had an intention to thereby humiliate or demean Lewisky, which is, as I said, just dime-store psychoanalysis. So, had it been a dildo, you presumably would have found that less egregious (though still unacceptable, presumably, as would I), since dildo = sex play and cigar = desire to humiliate?
You're really stretching here: I love witnessing these contortions that the party of "family values" goes through in defending Trump. Perhaps you'll next take the Ralph Reed line and say you can't judge what's in a man's heart, blah blah blah. Look, I get it: it's all partisan. Just admit you'll pull the lever for whomever has the "R" after their name and be done with it: that's what this is all about.
We also can't overlook the fact that this was THE most powerful man in the world basically doing whatever the hell he wanted to an ordinary college girl in his charge.
Again, it was consensual. How do you know he did "whatever he wanted?" Perhaps he wanted the relationship to go further (and have actual "sexual relations"...), but she refused.
Regardless, you would elect a man who has bragged about groping women, who has been accused of sexual assault by multiple parties, and who apparently divorced his first wife because (in part), her breast implants didn't "feel right." As I ask of Tiff, if you're so concerned by such matters, why are you electing Trump as our groper-in-chief?
However, my point is that inserting objects into a lover's vagina can be part of consensual sex play
Whatever. The age and power disparity in the relationship along with the cigar craziness is sufficient for me to exercise my common sense analysis to conclude the behavior was misogynistic. It's not dime store psychoanalysis. It's your not living in the real world.
Again, it was consensual. How do you know he did "whatever he wanted?" Perhaps he wanted the relationship to go further (and have actual "sexual relations"...), but she refused.
Yeah, that's what happened. The two laid side by side dreaming of a future together where he'd divorce Hillary and follow his heart and he and Monica would buy a small house in the country where'd they'd bask in their love. This is so very stupid. My recollection of what really happened is that he broke it off with her suddenly and denied he ever had sexual relations with that woman. He then offered some contorted definitions of "sexual relations" so much so that he was impeached for committing perjury and then disbarred for it. The only reason he was caught is because Monica kept her semen stained sweater that linked her back to Bill's testicles.
If we're going to allow for the fact that certain women like cigars in their vaginas, let's at least allow that certain women like their vaginas suddenly grabbed. Both are equally stupid, but since they could happen in some theoretical universe, let's not let our common sense exclude them.
Whatever. The age and power disparity in the relationship along with the cigar craziness is sufficient for me to exercise my common sense analysis to conclude the behavior was misogynistic. It's not dime store psychoanalysis. It's your not living in the real world.
Well, according to this, "According to Ms. Lewinsky: '[H]e was chewing on a cigar. And then he had the cigar in his hand and he was kind of looking at the cigar in . . . sort of a naughty way. And so . . . I looked at the cigar and I looked at him and I said, we can do that, too, some time.'"
Guys of TPF, have you or your esteemed colleagues ever inserted a cigar into your sweetheart's vagina? I'm just asking because maybe I'm now learning that my upbringing might have been more sheltered than I thought.
Reply to Hanover
Please don't distort what I said in such a childish fashion. I said that the insertion of objects into lovers' vaginas is part of normal (i.e. consensual) sex play. I don't deny that said object being a cigar is unusual, but I'm contesting your unwarranted claim that this thereby implies that Clinton sought to humiliate or degrade Lewinsky. I'll ask again: had it been a dildo, you would have found it less egregious?
I'll also ask again: if you're so concerned with the predations of lecherous men in the Oval Office, why are you voting for Trump (answer, because he's the "R", of course!)?
Guys of TPF, have you or your esteemed colleagues ever inserted a cigar into your sweetheart's vagina? I'm just asking because maybe I'm now learning that my upbringing might have been more sheltered than I thought.
I don't have a sweetheart. And what's a vagina? If it isn't something to do with videogames, then I don't care.
There are a lot of kinky people out there doing all sorts of stuff I'd never even dream of.
I love The Onion article during the Bush administration, the headline of which was something like "White House celebrates Five Straight Years Without Oral Sex." (Because, you know, W restored the "dignity" of that office...)
I don't have a sweetheart. And what's a vagina? If it isn't something to do with videogames, then I don't care.
Well, it's technically referred to as a "pussy," and it's the part of female anatomy which Trump professes to love grabbing without permission. (Such statements have cost him a sliver of the evangelical vote. Such rock-ribbed conservative Republicans stand on principle, and never put party before country.)
Whatever. The age and power disparity in the relationship along with the cigar craziness is sufficient for me to exercise my common sense analysis to conclude the behavior was misogynistic. It's not dime store psychoanalysis. It's your not living in the real world.
This is argument by assertion. You have no basis for your claim, with all due respect to your "common sense." (My "common sense" says it was not done with an intention to humiliate. Perhaps we should have a "common sense"-off to see who's the most common-sensical?)
And again, if you're concerned about age and power disparity, why are you voting for a man who bragged to Howard Stern about being able to walk in on undressed beauty pageant contestants because he was the owner of said pageant? Yea, no age or power disparity there. (More "family values" from the right.)
Now I'm part of the religious right?
I didn't say that you were: but you're performing the same sort of contortions to defend Trump.
Yeah, that's what happened. The two laid side by side dreaming of a future together where he'd divorce Hillary and follow his heart and he and Monica would buy a small house in the country where'd they'd bask in their love. This is so very stupid. My recollection of what really happened is that he broke it off with her suddenly and denied he ever had sexual relations with that woman. He then offered some contorted definitions of "sexual relations" so much so that he was impeached for committing perjury and then disbarred for it. The only reason he was caught is because Monica kept her semen stained sweater that linked her back to Bill's testicles.
I agree, but this is all a red herring. You made the unwarranted claims that (1) Bill intended to humiliate or debase Lewinsky through his sexual actions, and (2) that Hillary defended him for it. Nobody thinks that Clinton exercised good judgment in having an extra-marital affair, especially while in office. Please stay on-topic. (I do notice you repeating the BS that he was impeached for "perjury". He was impeached because Republicans hated him, and that's it. It was pure partisanship, just as it's pure partisanship which is driving Republicans to vote Trump.)
If we're going to allow for the fact that certain women like cigars in their vaginas, let's at least allow that certain women like their vaginas suddenly grabbed. Both are equally stupid, but since they could happen in some theoretical universe, let's not let our common sense exclude them.
This is a false equivalency. Trump bragged about making unwanted advances, saying he could do so because he was a big star. And again, Bill Clinton is not running for President. Please stay on-topic and continue to pretend that you're worried about Hillary's email servers or something.
A Japanese artist has put cartography back on the design map by creating a near perfect chart of the world – a spherical globe that can be un folded into a flat rectangular map without distorting the size of continents or oceans.
Known as an “area-equal map,” the AuthaGraph provides a new solution to the 447-year-old problem plaguing the world of mapping.
Architect Hajime Narukawa claimed the prestigious Good Design Award for his design, which, according to judges, “faithfully represents all oceans, continents including the neglected Antarctica.”
No. The courts are deciding on a question of how far the executive powers of the Government under royal prerogative may legally be extended. Today's decision says only that it is for Parliament to approve and therefore in effect to trigger any invocation of Article 50 not solely the Government. By what means Parliament reaches and declares its intention pursuant to this ruling is entirely for Parliament to decide.
Hi Barry thanks, since posing my question I've read this in The Guardian:
Unless the government does win at the supreme court, parliament will get to legislate on invoking article 50. And that means a proper bill, passing through the Commons and the Lords, with MPs and peers getting the chance to amend it. Theresa May has been refusing to give parliament a vote on the terms of Brexit because, once power shifts from the hands of the executive to the legislature (see 8.49am), the prime minister loses some control. The key point about today is that MPs and peers have, for the first time, got a strong chance of shaping the start of the Brexit process.
I started reading the article on Freud, the two biographies that came out, but the article is suggesting that Freud's theories are not vitaly active today, and that is not what I find:
New study examines Freud's theory of hysteria 7-4-16
Being Sigmund Freud' INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDIES (SISSA) Sept 1995
A neurotic personality increases the risk of Alzheimer's disease 2014 (Freud's Hysteria Theory)
Suppressing unwanted memories reduces their unconscious influence on behavior 2014
And so on..
There seems to be a steady steam of clinical studies & other investigations, some upholding some questioning his theories. But still I have to finish the article.
.
Reply to Cavacava It might be fair to say that Freud is not *as* prominent as he was, though. I didn't live at the time, but given how often he's an underlying current in philosophy at the time vs. now that seems to hold up.
Yeah, reminds me of the less plausible sinister characterizations of Trump; sometimes being a dick is just being a dick. Thing is, do you want a dick for president?
They're all opportunistic predators. Anyone that wants to save the world by ruling it, talk, be interesting, or otherwise do fuck all for a living, and be worshiped for it is a huge massive asshat. A swindler, a con-man, an anti-social wolf in sheep's clothing. No one's too important to do real work, no one has anything interesting, special or unique to say. It's just been a game to get out of having to do stuff from day one... but has mutated and transformed into not only not having to do stuff, but also getting the whole world to do the stuff you want while you still don't have to do stuff and are worshiped for it.
Yeah, reminds me of the less plausible sinister characterizations of Trump; sometimes being a dick is just being a dick. Thing is, do you want a dick for president?
That was just random weirdness related to the Freud cigar situation. For some reason it makes me laugh.
Don't know about a Trump presidency. I'd probably have to go back into news-blindness.
Yeah, reminds me of the less plausible sinister characterizations of Trump; sometimes being a dick is just being a dick. Thing is, do you want a dick for president?
I miss Richard Cheney. The guy at least was honest in his treachery.
Hell, I'd vote him back into office if people didn't hate him so much. MUCH more competent than Trump.
[quote=The Guardian, quoting Trump]"...I actually think, considering that [Hillary's] under criminal investigation, I think [Obama's] got a conflict.” Clinton is not known to be under a criminal investigation...[/quote]
Oddly enough perhaps, we've actually received email spam here, that more or less slanders Obama, others that rave on about gun rights, yet others that fear-mongers about Clinton.
It's more concerning (in my opinion) if there are places, where that kind of political (and election) strategy actually works.
(They were formatted in html, tables, bold letters, colors, a few ! marks, etc; didn't think much of it at the time, though now it seems a bit odd.)
In all honesty, though it's against the US federal term limits, I'd rather have Obama take another round than the current candidates.
But I'm not a US voter, just an observer, with friends in the US.
Something I'm sure many are aware of, that seems troubling to me: Pence, Trump's right-hand (vice president) nominee.
I'm going by Pence's stance on a number of things, which, by my estimation, invalidates him for such a position.
Judge for yourself (I'm going to resist an urge to ridicule him).
In case he ends up in office, one can just hope he sticks to things that do not involve science, religions other than his own, various social concerns and tasks - well, or just politics.
Maybe Trump just picked him as a magnet for a sizable fraction of the US population.
Reply to jorndoe
Yes, Pence is what political scientists refer to as a "steaming shitbag" (a term first coined by Hugo Grotius, if I'm not mistaken. Or maybe it was Harvey Mansfield...).
8 hours of THE CROWN produced by and available on NETFLIX is terrific. It's a leisurely bio of QEII. Excellent acting. Not quite sure how they will end it -- perhaps the PM will inform HM that the story of her life has been completed and it is time for her to go.
Barry EtheridgeNovember 05, 2016 at 11:31#304750 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank Nah. Madge will wake up in a shower and realise it's all been a dream!
8 hours of THE CROWN produced by and available on NETFLIX is terrific. It's a leisurely bio of QEII. Excellent acting. Not quite sure how they will end it -- perhaps the PM will inform HM that the story of her life has been completed and it is time for her to go.
Nowhere near as interesting as a bio of her namesake and predecessor, but it might be worth a watch. Unfortunately, I don't have Netflix, and I ain't gettin' it, so I'd have to watch it some other way.
You helped convince me to buy Life Is Strange, and it really ain't that great a game - although I'm still only part way through. The story is interesting enough to make me want to continue, but... reading a teenage girl's diary and all that crap... (N)
Still, it was cheap as chips.
I am downloading Deus Ex: Mankind Divided and The Order: 1886 (both at discounted prices from the PS Store), and I also recently downloaded White Night.
Why not? They support a party which has made it its mission to, for instance, severely curtail womens' access to abortion
I see how you've phrased this, mister, *wags finger* Many of the women who belong officially to the Republican party are for severely curtailing abortion as a practice, not to impede upon a "woman's right" to have an abortion.
(for which married women with at least one child already are major users)
Huh? Sauce, please.
and have made defunding Planned Parenthood (a major provider of womens' healthcare, including preventative care) something of a legislative obsession of late (just to name two examples).
Of late? The Planned Parenthood kerfuffle has died down considerably since a few years ago.
People vote against their self-interests in all manner of ways; there's no reason to think that married women who vote Republican can't do the same.
Actually, it seems that you're more the sort who will become mildly infuriated when people out there disagree with what you think constitutes women's rights. Clearly you have this nicely, ready-made leftist idea of what women's rights stands for, and so when these silly "Republican" women come down the pipe, you throw out the red-herring of "they don undastan they being abused." Conservatism in America goes far beyond party lines. You need to realize that women who are opposed to abortion are not, therefore, opposed to women's rights. To suggest the opposite would not follow at all.
And hot-diggity-DAMN, for the love of baby Jesu please stop writing quips within paraphrases. I cannot follow what you actually want to say and what you're just insinuating...(but I realize now that because I've said this you'll continue to snicker in your brackets, sigh...)
Of late? The Planned Parenthood kerfuffle has died down considerably since a few years ago.
Defunding Planned Parenthood is a conservative hobby horse, and extends beyond the most recent Republican primaries in which lies about what PP does were told almost unceasingly by the right (including, oddly candidate Carly Fiorina who refused to back down about having seen a nonexistent video purporting to show a PP staffer purporting to sell fetal body parts. Fiorina, for the record, favors defunding PP).
As for being "infuriated," I am at best lukewarm on supporting abortion rights, and believe that there are loads of bad arguments on both sides. Having said that, the utter duplicitous bullshit conservative legislators give on this issue about curtailing abortion access for the "protection" of women (e.g. requiring physicians performing abortion to have admitting privileges as nearby hospitals) is what angers me. If the case against abortion is so strong, then they should be able to make that case without lying and dissembling.
And hot-diggity-DAMN, for the love of baby Jesu please stop writing quips within paraphrases. I cannot follow what you actually want to say and what you're just insinuating...(but I realize now that because I've said this you'll continue to snicker in your brackets, sigh...)
Huh? I wasn't aware that my quipping was excessive, but you seem strangely put off by it (one might even say "infuriated"). Could you point out some instances in which I've "written quips within paraphrases"? I think I've taken your posts pretty seriously.
As for being "infuriated," I am at best lukewarm on supporting abortion rights, and believe that there are loads of bad arguments on both sides. Having said that, the utter duplicitous bullshit conservative legislators give on this issue about curtailing abortion access for the "protection" of women (e.g. requiring physicians performing abortion to have admitting privileges as nearby hospitals) is what angers me. If the case against abortion is so strong, then they should be able to make that case without lying and dissembling.
Amen.
And the irony of deceptive and misleading info being continually generated by religious conservatives makes my head hurt.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 06, 2016 at 03:07#306420 likes
Defunding Planned Parenthood is a conservative hobby horse, and extends beyond the most recent Republican primaries in which lies about what PP does were told almost unceasingly by the right (including, oddly candidate Carly Fiorina who refused to back down about having seen a nonexistent video purporting to show a PP staffer purporting to sell fetal body parts. Fiorina, for the record, favors defunding PP).
That was quite a long time ago now, in my opinion. I'd also add that the only real contentious part of PP is its policy on abortion. Virtually everything else is supported by everyone, regardless of political leaning. You'll find outliers, of course, but that's moot.
Huh? I wasn't aware that my quipping was excessive, but you seem strangely put off by it (one might even say "infuriated"). Could you point out some instances in which I've "written quips within paraphrases"? I think I've taken your posts pretty seriously.
You stick perfectly good thoughts inside parentheses for absolutely no reason, instead of simply extending a sentence with a comma, or writing a fully new sentence, even. I've just noticed it of late, and find it rather annoying. I do realize everyone writes differently, though. Whatever, friend.
If it cannot break out of its shell, the chick will die without ever being born.
We are the chick-
The world is our egg.
If we don't crack the world's shell, we will die without ever truly being born.
Smash the world's shell.
You stick perfectly good thoughts inside parentheses for absolutely no reason, instead of simply extending a sentence with a comma, or writing a fully new sentence, even. I've just noticed it of late, and find it rather annoying. I do realize everyone writes differently, though. Whatever, friend.
That was quite a long time ago now, in my opinion. I'd also add that the only real contentious part of PP is its policy on abortion. Virtually everything else is supported by everyone, regardless of political leaning. You'll find outliers, of course, but that's moot.
No, Arkady is right.
Defunding Planned Parenthood continues to be a primary political goal of conservative Christians. And although the PP policy on abortion is the primary objection, it is not the only objection. Providing contraception is another (because it condones, if not promotes, sex outside the "sanctity of marriage.") And there's always the underlying aspect of its demonically inspired left-wing "secular humanism" which rejects God's will and informs its ethos. PP is seen as firmly embedded in the camp of the enemy--Satan himself.
So, the specific issue I addressed was Arkady's challenge to Eggcart's assertion that "The Planned Parenthood kerfuffle has died down considerably since a few years ago."
Reply to Thorongil
Indeed? Perhaps you have access to some sort of information which I lack, then. I was under the impression that, if elected, candidate Hillary Clinton would be sworn in as President Hillary Clinton once inauguration day rolled around. However, apparently, I was in error, as we are also (re)electing her husband, Bill.
Will he then serve as a sort of "co-President"? Or will Hillary simply be put out to pasture to tend the White House Rose Garden (or perhaps assist the kitchen staff), while Bill takes up his old role in the Oval Office to serve as "head" of state (wink, wink, you know what I'm talking about)? Do tell.
You could have fooled me, as anyone who wishes to run on the Republican side must whore themselves out to the religious right kingmakers. Even McCain, who once denounced Jerry Falwell as an "agent of intolerance" had to make the requisite schlep to Liberty University to pay homage to Jabba the Hut.
And never mind Trump's stumbling over "Two Corinthians." I give the religious right credit, though: they are people of principle, and that principle apparently consists of voting for whoever has an "R" after their name, even if they've, say, been married three times, have bragged about committing sexual assault, have mocked the disabled, have called Mexicans "rapists," have called women who criticized them "fat pigs," and so forth. You know, like Jesus would have done.
BrainglitchNovember 06, 2016 at 18:57#307600 likes
Foe the vast majority of tens of millions of evangelicals, abortion is the make or break issue. It trumps all the rest of their moral judgments combined.
Reply to Brainglitch
Yes, it does seem that way sometimes. Sometimes I think that Roe v. Wade was the best thing that ever happened to Republicans.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 06, 2016 at 19:18#307620 likes
Reply to Brainglitch Cutting and scraping a human fetus out of a vagina is pretty grisly an enterprise. Are you surprised that people take issue with it? :I
BrainglitchNovember 06, 2016 at 19:33#307640 likes
BuxtebuddhaNovember 06, 2016 at 19:35#307650 likes
Reply to Brainglitch I should have written, "take tissue with it." That would have been a good joke, :’(
BrainglitchNovember 06, 2016 at 19:40#307660 likes
Reply to Heister Eggcart What I find blatantly hippocritical, though, is their facile rationalizations for excusing all his behavior that blatantly violates so many of thei other moral principles they continually espouse in the public forum.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 06, 2016 at 19:41#307670 likes
BuxtebuddhaNovember 06, 2016 at 19:47#307690 likes
Reply to Brainglitch Hmm, I understand what you mean. I dunno if you were here when Agustino was discussing politics and conservatism, but he was saying that so long as someone upholds conservative values, he'd vote for them, whoever they are - Trump included. I'd imagine most people have the same, rudimentary outlook. I think it's logically wack, but that's just me.
BrainglitchNovember 06, 2016 at 19:58#307710 likes
Reply to Heister Eggcart Well, we're all willing to compromise to a point. That's what makes politics work--when it works.
BrainglitchNovember 06, 2016 at 20:02#307720 likes
Never mind!
FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers Sunday the agency hasn’t changed its opinion that Hillary Clinton should not face criminal charges after a review of new emails.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 06, 2016 at 20:49#307740 likes
Reply to Brainglitch It isn't much of a compromise if you're getting the short end of the stick, which is what Republicans have been struggling with lately.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 06, 2016 at 20:52#307770 likes
Reply to Cavacava Wow, I can't belieb dat. Oh no. You wanna know why he said that? Because Clinton bought him off, godbangit! Fack, this is turrible.
It isn't much of a compromise if you're getting the short end of the stick, which is what Republicans have been struggling with lately.
How so? Republicans enjoy congressional majorities as well as majorities in many state legislatures and governors' offices. They have effectively dragged the country to the right since 1980 (or at least since 1994), whereas even moderately center-left politicians such as Obama can be denounced as radical socialists.
They have also pulled the levers of power to deny Obama his constitutional right to appoint Supreme Court justices.
BrainglitchNovember 06, 2016 at 21:19#307820 likes
And Republicans now have to contend with the "base" they've been playing for suckers for decades.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 06, 2016 at 21:31#307850 likes
Reply to Arkady We were talking about Trump being a candidate for supposed conservatism.
Reply to Heister Eggcart
Trump has the support of the vast majority of Republicans, for one thing, perhaps down slightly from other candidates, but the party and the electorate is pretty squarely behind him nonetheless. So, there's that.
Secondly, it is an odd statement to say that Republicans are getting the short end of the stick due to the self-inflicted wound which is the Trump candidacy. To me, saying that someone (or group of someones) "got the short end of the stick" insinuates that they've run into some bad luck, or got a raw deal somehow. But Republicans (as a party) did this to themselves.
Trump has the support of the vast majority of Republicans, for one thing, perhaps down slightly from other candidates, but the party and the electorate is pretty squarely behind him nonetheless. So, there's that.
Oh really? The vast majority? Not even the vast majority of Republicans in Congress got on board the Trump train, nor even support him all that much now. To say that the scrubs off the street are the complete opposite would be hard to prove.
Secondly, it is an odd statement to say that Republicans are getting the short end of the stick due to the self-inflicted wound which is the Trump candidacy. To me, saying that someone (or group of someones) "got the short end of the stick" insinuates that they've run into some bad luck, or got a raw deal somehow. But Republicans (as a party) did this to themselves.
Trump is not a classical Republican, nor even much of a classical Conservative, therefore the Party is getting the short-end of the stick precisely because Trump doesn't represent many of the values it has upheld for the last 70 years. Clinton represents more of the Democratic base than Trump does, this is just a fact if you parse policy.
Only a very small fraction of the American people made Trump the party nominee. The same is true for Hillary. Most Americans don't like either of them. So Trump is by no means the favorite candidate for large swaths of the Republican party and for large segments of conservatism generally. A majority might vote for him, but not because they like him personally.
Oh really? The vast majority? Not even the vast majority of Republicans in Congress got on board the Trump train, nor even support him all that much now. To say that the scrubs off the street are the complete opposite would be hard to prove.
Trump wouldn't be polling at nearly the numbers he is if he weren't backed by a vast majority of the Republicans. Last I checked, the figure was around 85 or 88% of Republicans backing him. (As far as Congressional Republicans, even Paul Ryan, moral coward that he is, voted for Trump even after their long-running dustup. A man who Ryan basically said was morally indefensible got his vote.)
Trump is not a classical Republican, nor even much of a classical Conservative, therefore the Party is getting the short-end of the stick precisely because Trump doesn't represent many of the values it has upheld for the last 70 years. Clinton represents more of the Democratic base than Trump does, this is just a fact if you parse policy.
Oh, so the poor GOP, who has spent the last 50 years appealing to the lowest-common denominator of racial demagogues, Civil War revisionists, anti-intellectuals, and uneducated hillbillies doesn't like the candidate that the hoi polloi selected for them? Cry me a river.
BrainglitchNovember 06, 2016 at 23:27#308160 likes
Trump is not a classical Republican, nor even much of a classical Conservative, therefore the Party is getting the short-end of the stick precisely because Trump doesn't represent many of the values it has upheld for the last 70 years. Clinton represents more of the Democratic base than Trump does, this is just a fact if you parse policy.
Trump is the invasive species weed that blossomed in the decades of manure the party shoveled to its "base."
Come on, Brain. Can't you actually see that, actually? It's actually as clear as the nose on your face. It's all the Social Justice Warriors, of course!
EDIT: let's not forget that Ghostbusters remake that had all women in it. That was doubtless the catalyst which vaulted Trump to power.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 06, 2016 at 23:40#308210 likes
Reply to Arkady I think you underestimate the amount of people who simply hate Clinton's guts and voting for Trump is a reaction of that. A few classmates and I had a political discussion a couple of weeks ago, and two of the three Bernie supporters revealed that they voted early for Trump. I realize this is anecdotal, but you should realize that this election can't be made sense of so easily.
Oh, so the poor GOP, who has spent the last 50 years appealing to the lowest-common denominator of racial demagogues, Civil War revisionists, anti-intellectuals, and uneducated hillbillies doesn't like the candidate that the hoi polloi selected for them? Cry me a river.
I'd take a southern conservative over an SJW quack. Perhaps that's just me. There are depressing amounts of idiots on both sides, but only one party has been really uprooted, ideologically.
I think you underestimate the amount of people who simply hate Clinton's guts and voting for Trump is a reaction of that. A few classmates and I had a political discussion a couple of weeks ago, and two of the three Bernie supporters revealed that they voted early for Trump. I realize this is anecdotal, but you should realize that this election can't be made sense of so easily.
I'm just going by the percentage of the party who are supporting him. A vote is a vote, whether it's done with the utmost eagerness or reluctance. And most Democrats are supporting Clinton, too, so this is largely just a party-line vote.
I'd take a southern conservative over an SJW quack. Perhaps that's just me. There are depressing amounts of idiots on both sides, but only one part has been really uprooted, ideologically.
I'm not sure who is this SJW quack which you refer to, but if you think Hillary Clinton is any kind of leftist, you don't know much about her record.
Of course, that vast American left, who wields so much power in this country. All of those Congressional leftists! If only there were someone on the right to balance out that left-leaning ideology.
Don't throw garbage on your own lawn, and then complain that someone else put it there. The Republicans nominated Trump, and they have to own it.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 06, 2016 at 23:47#308260 likes
Reply to Arkady "Support" is a dicey word. I'd say most Republicans, like those in Congress, are in reality voting for Pence, so they can work with him, who is a more sane conservative figure.
So only the GOP and Trump are guilty of targeting "the lowest common denominator"? You're nuts,
No, but the GOP has in the last few decades had a decidedly anti-intellectual streak, with an almost vitriolic contempt for facts and reasoned analysis and discourse. They've also leaned on their "Southern Strategy" by garnering votes through race-baiting and xenophobia. Trump is just the culmination of this (except this time, the rubes didn't vote for a Ted Cruz or John Kasich, or someone the party might like. It's a dark day for the GOP when John Kasich is not sufficiently conservative for it).
It also doesn't help that they've so gerrymandered their congressional districts that most GOP congressmen needn't fear a challenge from Democrats in general elections, but instead fear being outflanked on their right by a primary challenger, meaning they're scared shitless to do anything which bears even a whiff of compromise with or capitulation to that black guy in the Oval Office.
BrainglitchNovember 06, 2016 at 23:56#308290 likes
Democracy in a dysfunctional, broken society is a Shakespearean tragedy--sooner or later the stage will be littered with bodies.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 06, 2016 at 23:58#308300 likes
No, but the GOP has in the last few decades had a decidedly anti-intellectual streak, with an almost vitriolic contempt for facts and reasoned analysis and discourse.
It also doesn't help that they've so gerrymandered their congressional districts that most GOP congressman needn't fear a challenge from Democrats in general elections, but instead fear being outflanked on their right by a primary challenger, meaning they're scared shitless to do anything which bears even a whiff of compromise with or capitulation to that black guy in the Oval Office.
No, this is not true. Republicans have demeaned intellectuals for decades now, and have an outright contempt for facts and evidence. (This was exemplified in the bizarre statement of Rick Santorum's, a man with a law degree and MBA, calling Obama a "snob" for saying that every kid should go to college). Trump is the culmination of this tendency, simply tossing out lies, half-truths, and outright fables at a rate greater than the fact checkers can debunk them. And his followers care not at all.
Republicans now are essentially olden Democrats. This strategy is one of the oldest in American history.
Yes, the KKK-lovers used to be mostly Democrats, and now they're mostly Republicans. Next you'll be telling me that the GOP is the "party of Lincoln."
As if the Democratic Party hasn't done the same.
Again, not true. And congressional Democrats have not been dragged to the left in the same way that congressional Republicans have been dragged to the right.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 07, 2016 at 00:10#308330 likes
You caught me, I've been purposely lying to you. Damn.
I never said you were lying. I said what you said wasn't true. A person can be in error without lying. Though, to be honest, your empty tu quoque statements are oddly reminiscent of Trump's debating strategy, which seemed to largely consist of interjecting "No, you are," to Hillary while she criticized him...
(If I'm "angsty," perhaps it's because roughly half of the electorate thinks a monomaniacal, narcissistic demagogue with authoritarian strongman tendencies and zero knowledge of world affairs would be just dandy to occupy the world's most powerful office. Ok, I admit: that makes me a little cranky.)
Reply to Thorongil Democrats have been race-baiting, and engaged in xenophobia? The party that nominated and elected a black president twice in 8 years? The party which overwhelmingly has the backing of blacks and Hispanics? The party which favors affirmative action? Forgive me for asking, but what planet are you living on?
(And remember what I said about that lawn and the garbage.)
Reply to Arkady I'm rather surprised at your being surprised. I will bow out, for I can see you're not the type who will facilitate productive conversation on these topics. Cheers, fatty.
I'm rather surprised at your being surprised. I will bow out, for I can see you're not the type who will facilitate productive conversation on these topics. Cheers, fatty.
Come now, Thor. "Fatty?" That's the best you can do? I'm not even fat for Chrissakes. Why not take a page from the Trump playbook, and call me a "loser," a "disaster," or "a nasty person?" C'mon man, dig deep!
BuxtebuddhaNovember 07, 2016 at 01:37#308490 likes
Reply to Arkady I think what Thorongil means is that you're unwilling to be impartial, which makes for impenetrable conversation. It's been made quite clear, to me at least, that you're using this thread to rant, which is fine, everyone does that from time to time it seems - but don't expect anyone to have patience with you when you cease being particularly on point.
Also, if I continue "debating" with you, I can imagine you will but result to thinking me a Trump supporter, as you have done with Thorongil, for my simply disagreeing with you. And I don't mean the following in any demeaning way, but just as an observation, you're one of a few people I've met who seem to put people's opinions in pre-packaged little boxes so as to avoid critical thinking. I saw this in that discussion about God, and I see it here. You're a bit like Agustino's antithesis. You each see things in a black and white manner, yet interestingly hold completely different view points. Can't say that either of you are better for it, though.
BrainglitchNovember 07, 2016 at 01:48#308500 likes
OR--we can stick to analyzing the propositional content of what people say, and challenge it with counterarguments if we disagree with them.
I think what Thorongil means is that you're unwilling to be impartial, which makes for impenetrable conversation. It's been made quite clear, to me at least, that you're using this thread to rant, which is fine, everyone does that from time to time it seems - but don't expect anyone to have patience with you when you cease being particularly on point.
Thorongil opened our "discussion" by responding to a post of mine by saying only "naive," and when I rebutted him (albeit in a sarcastic manner, which was perfectly justified IMO given said post's content, or lack thereof, and condescending manner), he replied again by saying "still naive."
I then (again sarcastically) said that he'd obviously given this a lot of thought and moved on to something else. He then accused me of having a stick up my ass, and called me a "fatty" or something. If this is the general tenor of his engagement, then I would see no way to make the exchange anything other than "impenetrable."
And what makes you think I am not "impartial"? Because I don't brook false equivalencies about, say, the Democrats and the Republicans being equally xenophobic?
Also, if I continue "debating" with you, I can imagine you will but result to thinking me a Trump supporter, as you have done with Thorongil, for my simply disagreeing with you.
No, I don't think either of you are Trump supporters. Thorongil, in fact, has previously said that he doesn't like Trump or Clinton, and considers them both "evil," or something to that effect (more of that false equivalence I spoke of).
And I don't mean the following in any demeaning way, but just as an observation, you're one of a few people I've met who seem to put people's opinions in pre-packaged little boxes so as to avoid critical thinking. I saw this in that discussion about God, and I see it here.
Wayfarer (formerly known as Circadian and jeeprs) and I have something of a history of debates about God stuff, so if that conversation seemed to have more of a personal bent to it, that may explain things.
You're a bit like Agustino's antithesis.
Augustino? That's a low blow, man. :’(
You each see things in a black and white manner, yet interestingly hold completely different view points. Can't say that either of you are better for it, though.
With all due respect, I don't think you know me well enough to make this judgment. I hold a variety of views which would fall under both the left and right on the political spectrum, and I strive to be as non-tribalistic as possible (that is, I don't reflexively side with "my team" and attack the "other team" no matter what, which is partly the source of my anger over the GOP's Trump-supporting hypocrisy).
(For whatever it's worth, Thorongil has said many things with which I agree when it comes to foreign and domestic policy. By his posts, I also know that he's a thoughtful and intelligent person capable of reasoned discussion. That capacity of his was apparently on a coffee break in this thread.)
BuxtebuddhaNovember 07, 2016 at 03:34#308680 likes
Hence why I don't feel the urge to respond. I'll just end up reframing my questions and answers a blue million times in the hope they're actually addressed on point. This was deteriorating, and why I felt like Arkady wasn't reading what I said and just shooting from the hip, rant style, because many of his answers were not direct corollaries to my own.
You're not Agustino's "antithesis", but I can't think of the word I want. I've written too much elsewhere, so my brain's fried. Suffice to say, it's like you're trying to be Batman, while Agustino is the Joker - you can tell I perused the superhero thread >:O
You're not Agustino's "antithesis", but I can't think of the word I want. I've written too much elsewhere, so my brain's fried. Suffice to say, it's like you're trying to be Batman, while Agustino is the Joker.
I think you underestimate the amount of people who simply hate Clinton's guts and voting for Trump is a reaction of that. A few classmates and I had a political discussion a couple of weeks ago, and two of the three Bernie supporters revealed that they voted early for Trump. I realize this is anecdotal, but you should realize that this election can't be made sense of so easily.
Oh my god... fools! That is about as wise as cutting off your nose to spite your face. (And I know a thing or two about wisdom. ;))
Bernie himself supports Clinton, and she is much closer to him in terms of policy than Trump - even adopting some of his policies. Bernie supporters voting for Trump is insane. If you can't bring yourself to vote for Clinton, then don't vote at all, or vote for someone similar, or cast a protest vote for anyone other than Clinton or Trump. I saw on the news that some states allow you to change your vote, so if your state is one of them, then it might not be too late for those two shmucks.
Though, to be honest, your empty tu quoque statements are oddly reminiscent of Trump's debating strategy, which seemed to largely consist of interjecting "No, you are," to Hillary while she criticized him...
Reply to Baden
Perhaps "counterpart" would be more apt. I think he meant to suggest that I was just like Augustino, except on the left side of the political spectrum, which is incorrect on at least 2 counts...
And I don't mean the following in any demeaning way, but just as an observation, you're one of a few people I've met who seem to put people's opinions in pre-packaged little boxes so as to avoid critical thinking.
You mean like you have done, when, for example, you poisoned the well in the middle of an ongoing discussion?
If it cannot break out of its shell, the chick will die without ever being born.
We are the chick-
The world is our egg.
If we don't crack the world's shell, we will die without ever truly being born.
Smash the world's shell.
How about I crack your shell and make an omelet? Not so clever now are we?
Just a pause for breath from across the ocean. I find it hard to understand the rational argument
(S) for Trump. Clinton is a dire machine politician, granted. But Trump is an idea-less populist. If the USA vote him in, it will become a laughing stock.
Barry EtheridgeNovember 07, 2016 at 23:53#310360 likes
There is no rational argument to understand. It's an entirely post-rational campaign. And there are plenty of people who don't give a damn about becoming a laughing stock as long as it's a grand ole American laughing stock!
Having now watched 10 hours worth of the exquisitely produced series THE CROWN on Netflix, I am quite sure the name of the show should have been The Classically and Chronically Constipated Queen and her mostly stuffed staff, family, and conservative ministers like Winston Churchill.
As shows go, it is an excellent production about a group of people who make one think of guillotines, axes, and chopping blocks. And then there are her millions of admirers...
Reply to mcdoodle We'll be a damn sight worse than 'laughing stock' with Trump, which the world can ill afford. Not happy with Hillary either, and she will not be vastly better -- just somewhat.
There was a 3 hour-long wait at 5:00 p.m. at this area's early polling station. Minnesota usually does about 70% of eligible voters casting ballots in presidential elections--one of the highest among the states. Maybe the backup was due to longer procedure to vote early--absentee ballots, and all. I'll head over to Holy Trinity (to vote) tomorrow after the early morning crowd goes to work.
Reply to mcdoodle I'm with you, McD. What appalls me, is the total disregard for fact. Trump routinely lies - every single day of the campaign, including lying about Hillary telling lies. He molests women, boasts about it, then lies about it. He shows no interest in politics, as such, or any grasp of history, foreign policy, or even democracy. And yet, this is OK! He'll make America great!
I am wondering if this is actually the long-term consequence of the ubiquity of entertainment media, and the fact that a large number of people can no longer distinguish truth from fiction.
I am wondering if this is actually the long-term consequence of the ubiquity of entertainment media, and the fact that a large number of people can no longer distinguish truth from fiction.
A ubiquity of entertainment media is too simple an explanation. Dime novels ("trash"), popular music, radio, television, games, movies, etc. have been blamed for the moral rot of 5 generations.
Telling truth and fiction apart is, of course, tricky business. Distinguished intellectuals wrestle with the task of separating out the two, so of course so do the masses. Even here in these threads even we struggle sometimes.
If what pessimistic observers of the American scene say is true (and not a fiction) why wouldn't the average fucked over "working class slob" latch on to the most amusing politician who comes closest to expressing himself like they do? Why wouldn't the guys who are getting ratcheted down the economic ladder like somebody who proposes to build a wall and get rid of 10 million undocumented, illegal low-wage competitors? Why wouldn't they like someone who says they are going to bring back jobs from Asia?
60% of working Americans are not college educated, and if what pessimistic observers of American education say is true, high school graduates are practically uneducated. How would these barely educated, not very literate, people who don't consume lots of political and economic news and analysis parse out whether Clinton is really going to be better for them than Trump?
The TRUTH is that the American political system is working the way the entrenched establishment wants it to work (even if many Republics are displeased by Trump). It is a FICTION that people who support Hillary Clinton have much deeper insights into the state of the nation and its needs than those who support Donald Trump. The TRUTH of the matter is that it doesn't make any difference what people know or don't know about the long-range future of America. BECAUSE it is a FICTION that the entrenched establishment has any intention of asking The People what, exactly, they want them (the establishment) to do, and then just doing it.
The TRUTH is that the entrenched establishment plans on giving The People more of the same crap they have already received. Maybe Donald Trump is an embarrassment because he might not be sufficiently competent to deliver what the entrenched establishment wants. Maybe Hillary Clinton is going to steal a ladle of some entrenched establishment's gravy.
Reply to Bitter Crank Trump is an embarrasment because he seems like a loudmouth know-nothing who is driven only by egotism, and yet millions of people can't see through him. David Brooks nailed it a few weeks back in Donald Trump's Sad, Lonely Life.
The rationale for voting for Trump is the same as voting for Clinton: they serve as representatives of a general ideology, although each personally are terrible people. If one wants to see a supporter of conservative legislation and conservative nominations on the Supreme Court, one ought to vote for Trump. If otherwise, vote Clinton. The fact that the left can ignore Clinton's massive failings and that the right can do the same for Trump is just an indication that personal character is secondary in the minds of the voter. There is nothing irrational about choosing the best of two evils.
If one wants to see a supporter of conservative legislation and conservative nominations on the Supreme Court, one ought to vote for Trump. If otherwise, vote Clinton.
Or, if one wants to see a supporter of conservative legislation and conservative nominations on the Supreme Court, but one thinks that Trump's flaws and extremities are not a price worth paying, then one ought to neither vote for Trump nor Clinton.
I think that that would be my position. Trump would be too far to the right. Similarly, if my views were further to the centre, and if Sanders had've beaten Clinton, then I might not have voted for him on account of him being too far to the left.
Having watched the debates, my view of Hilary Clinton improved. I approve of much of what she says.
Or, if one wants to see a supporter of conservative legislation and conservative nominations on the Supreme Court, but one thinks that Trump's flaws and extremities are not a price worth paying, then one ought to neither vote for Trump nor Clinton.
But I think many think Trump is the price worth paying, especially in light of the Supreme Court nominations that might arise over the next four years. The effect of those nominations could last several decades, well beyond the nonsense that is occurring right now.
CiceronianusNovember 08, 2016 at 19:52#312620 likes
If Trump is elected, it will be established that the great Sage of Baltimore's poor opinion of us and of our democracy was accurate, and that he was something of a prophet regarding the fate of our Great Republic:
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” H.L. Mencken
Trump's obnoxiousness is child's play compared to Andrew Jackson's:
"Observers likened him to a volcano, and only the most intrepid or recklessly curious cared to see it erupt.... His close associates all had stories of his blood-curling oaths, his summoning of the Almighty to loose His wrath upon some miscreant, typically followed by his own vow to hang the villain or blow him to perdition. Given his record – in duels, brawls, mutiny trials, and summary hearings – listeners had to take his vows seriously."
"On the last day of the presidency, Jackson admitted that he had but two regrets, that he "had been unable to shoot Henry Clay or to hang John C. Calhoun."
It might be that Mencken also said this, or it might be apocryphal: "It can't be known for certain, but I believe it is the case, that no one every went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American."
In another version of this, it is underestimating the "taste" not "intelligence" for which one will not go broke.
I voted today; I did not vote for Donald Trump and I did not vote for Hillary Clinton either. I'm hoping that voting for the Greens might given them enough of a following to qualify for future funding. Probably won't.
It might be that Mencken also said this, or it might be apocryphal: "It can't be known for certain, but I believe it is the case, that no one every went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American."
In another version of this, it is underestimating the "taste" not "intelligence" for which one will not go broke.
The version I've seen substitutes "the American public" for "the average American." A fuller version of what I've quoted is this, which gives a better idea of the context of the comment:
"When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
He wasn't a fan of democracy, and had a disturbing (to me) fondness for Frantic Freddy Nietzsche; he had other views I thought objectionable, but is great fun to read. Especially in his coverage of the Scopes trial for the Baltimore Sun.
CiceronianusNovember 08, 2016 at 23:01#312940 likes
Reply to Hanover Some say Jackson would foam at the mouth when angered. More savage than obnoxious, I think, and what he did to the Cherokee and others, the Creeks and Seminoles, was horrible. A completely ruthless man.
7:00 pm
'Tis the night of elections, and from several hovels
Grave diggers are leaving to wield picks and shovels.
Someone will get buried, that is quite certain,
On whose campaign falls the black hole’s bleak curtain?
I didn't vote, as I think Trump and Hillary are both equally evil scumbags
One should have voted -- there were candidates to vote for down ballot, and there were a couple of 3rd party candidates that one could vote for, and maybe a local issue or two.
In the end, I liberal, couldn't bring myself to vote for Hillary. Sanders was better. The Greens got my vote, for what little good it will do.
We will have to live with the consequences, whatever they are with Donald T, or Hillary C. It's really the SCOTUS that worries me most with Trump. Maybe we'll have high tariffs on imports? Up until WWII we had very high protective tariffs.
Trump doesn't even know what Trump is going to do if he fucking wins... besides... you know, putting a big golden "Trump" logo on the white house.
I cannot believe Trump has made it this far. I thought Clinton had it in the bag. And I thought Trump would have been out of the race over six months ago.
I suppose this is what America "needs". If Trump doesn't get elected, it will blue-ball America.
Holy shit. The tables have turned. These analyses they're making on BBC News are saying that it's going to be difficult for Hillary Clinton to win - with just a single, narrow pathway - whereas if Trump gets the key states in which he is currently in the lead and just one other state, then he will win. :-O
Well, if I had to have voted republican, he would have been the best one, by far. Though I seriously thought that there wasn't really a chance of him winning... surely...
Whereas on the Canadian side, we have Trudeau, and legalized weed in like 5-6 months!
DeleteduserrcNovember 09, 2016 at 04:39#313230 likes
He's going to delegate all the work to other people. Nothing much will happen, I suspect. Though the left will act like it's the apocalypse.
I've heard a lot of very smart, well-informed, professionals say this kind of thing. Similar to how they said he would never actually clinch the republican nomination; and then how he could never win the general election.
Reply to csalisbury You're saying I'm a very smart, well informed professional?
Anyway, we already know Trump is going to make other people do all the work. This was leaked from an email to John Kasich's staff earlier in the campaign.
VagabondSpectreNovember 09, 2016 at 04:51#313270 likes
Our sprites have given the most collegiate of tries
Not least through constant and wanton spreading of lies.
Whether we play a trumpet or proclaim to be with her
The constitutional democratic republic surely shall wither.
The New York Times missed the boat, that's for sure. they've been predicting a Clinton win by wide margins.
Well, I've been disappointed before: [s]Nixon[/s]/Humphrey, [s]Nixon[/s]/McGovern, Carter/[s]Reagan[/s], Mondale/[s]Reagan[/s], B[s]ush, Bush, Bush[/s]. It mattered some, maybe on some points quite a bit. Well that's the good thing about getting old -- one won't have to put up with this crap tooooo much longer.
If WI, AZ, and NH go to Trump - and he's in the lead in each of those states - then he'll be on 269, and will need just 1 more vote to win, which he'd surely get.
Reply to Bitter Crank The really sad story about the whole thing is that this was (in all likelihood) a PR stunt for Trump that took on a life of its own. He will be regretting taking on such a job, which I can see in my crystal ball.
Everyone I know here in Sydney is scared, shocked and dissappointed. We thought, at the end of the day, the good guys were going to win. Now it looks like the baddies are going to take over. We never thought that could happen.
Exactly. There were none. Certainly not Clinton who has expressed admiration for the mass murderer Kissinger. For that alone, she deserves to lose. (Of course, neither deserves to win...)
I think he will take the easy way out about this matter and have some sociopath Kissinger tell him what to do. If the guy is really that much an egomaniac and decides to lead the country on his own whim, well then God have mercy on us all.
Personally, I'm just happy marijuana is legal now in California. Not that I smoke it; but, rather want to see if prices for a compound called CBD can drop significantly enough for me to affordably use it for medicinal reasons.
Build a wall, over turn Roe v. Wade, tariffs on Chinese imports, repeal Obama are, tax breaks for the rich, increase debt, insult some women, gays, Muslims and Latinos. Not that difficult to see what will happen.
The establishment got what was coming to it. Although it's a pity it had to be someone as odious as Trump to do it. If Democrat voters had been principled enough to go with Bernie, he would have taken it imo. Anyway, progressives need to forgo whining now and realize that the way we live just doesn't make sense, and people at the margins are realizing that enough to push for change at whatever cost. Add them to the traditional constituencies on either side and it's now enough to tip the balance. Anyway, I got my prediction about the result wrong, so I'm not going to bother trying to predict what happens next. What will, will. I'm going back to my media-free diet (which I heartily recommend to all!).
The establishment got what was coming to it. Although it's a pity it had to be someone as odious as Trump to do it. If Democrat voters had been principled enough to go with Bernie, he would have taken it imo. Anyway, progressives need to forgo whining now and realize that the way we live just doesn't make sense, and people at the margins are realizing that enough to push for change at whatever cost. Add them to the traditional constituencies on either side and it's now enough to tip the balance. Anyway, I got my prediction about the result wrong, so I'm not going to bother trying to predict what happens next. What will, will. I'm going back to my media-free diet (which I heartily recommend to all!).
"She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch. Whether or not she would win was always a secondary matter, something that was taken for granted. Had winning been the party’s number one concern, several more suitable candidates were ready to go. There was Joe Biden, with his powerful plainspoken style, and there was Bernie Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free figure. Each of them would probably have beaten Trump, but neither of them would really have served the interests of the party insiders."
"It is those who dare, the obstinate, the barbarians who will take the world forward. We are the barbarians! The real idiots, populists and demagogues are the journalists and the establishment intellectuals," Grillo in his blog, hailing Trump's victory. Matteo must be quivering in anticipation of his day coming up in December.
Reply to Cavacava Yea. His ideological descendants will be smug little establishment toads. They rise up, do a little something, retire to comfort and get corrupt. It's all the same shit. Different day.
I'm not surprised. This was clearly about any change at any cost - revolution rather than evolution. The trouble with revolution however is the day after when you wake up to realise that now you've ousted the 'aristocrats' you have absolutely no idea what to replace them with!
It seems fairly clear that had the Democrats fielded a more likable candidate who wasn't under criminal investigation and who was vetted through the democratic process, they would have had little trouble beating Trump. By the same token, had the Republicans nominated Rubio, Kasich, or even Cruz, this election wouldn't have been close. Both parties were hell bent on finding the least electable candidate, and so we got the best of two evils.
The Democrats don't need to be scratching their heads as to why Trump won. They need to ask themselves why they agreed upon such a poor candidate. I would agree with everyone who thinks America could do better. But, to those who actually think Clinton was this great candidate who couldn't carry the day, I don't get that.
Reply to Hanover I'm kind of politically clueless so I don't the answer to this: is it normal to pay-for-play the State Dept? I mean.. I was disgusted by that, but was I asking her to morally rise above what everybody else does?
Likability didn't really bother me. She's who she is because she's been battling assholes most of her life. Not a very engaging person? I identify with that.
Reply to Ciceronianus the White I tired watching that movie recently and couldn't finish it. Was left wondering why it's considered a classic, given how tedious it was.
It's funny watching all the liberals whine and complain now - what a great day yesterday was. Finally Roe v. Wade will be overturned and the conservative agenda can be pushed forward. They didn't give a shit about us when we were complaining that we don't like living under them, why should conservatives give a shit about them now? We've been waiting for far too long and bearing under the arrogance of the progressives who have seen themselves as invincible and entitled. It feels great to finally have won a victory, even with Donald Trump at the helm. Greatest day of the last 8 years!
I should add this: @Baden, and all of you other progressives who were so cock-certain that Crooked was going to win, what do you say now? Your big intellects clearly weren't very helpful in seeing this one coming were they? You got too used to conservatives sitting down and not voting, you would taunt us based on our principles just so that you would keep your candidates in power. Now you see that we are still many, and we can win. You don't own the world, and that's a very very good thing.
No, it won't. There are no grounds on which to mount a challenge. Even if Trump appoints a Supreme Court Justice whose decision he can absolutely rely on it will take far longer than the duration of his Presidency to even bring a legitimate case which the Supreme Court is minded to hear. And that assumes that Trump seriously wants to challenge abortion law in the first place which I very much doubt. Really need to read the small print! Product may differ from that pictured on the box!
Barry EtheridgeNovember 10, 2016 at 12:44#317840 likes
That's what I thought. And I'm inclined to agree. But then, I have thought a number of things that have turned out to be wrong. For example, I thought that Hillary Clinton was going to win. Although I wouldn't say that I was "cock-sure".
Well, when I takes a position on a prediction, I takes a position. No half measures. And at the risk of being wrong again, I say with absolute cock-surety Roe v Wade stays. :-*
You got too used to conservatives sitting down and not voting, you would taunt us based on our principles just so that you would keep your candidates in power.
Actually, we'd taunt you based on your principles because your principles are ridiculous.
Finally Roe v. Wade will be overturned and the conservative agenda can be pushed forward.
It wasn't overturned when Scalia's seat was filled with Scalia, and he disagreed with Roe vs Wade, so why would it inevitably be overturned if filled with a different pro-life Justice?
I don't think the Supreme Court would consider it unless public opinion was strongly against it, and according to this it isn't.
I work with this lady.. I say lady.. she's younger than me. She's black, she has a kid, and she has this kind of far-reaching insight about how events in the world fit together. If I ask her something, I know her answer will be connecting dots from all over and include angles I never thought of. She's the one who brought me up to speed on why independent research needs to be done on Monsanto's products and stuff like that. Not conspiracy stuff exactly, but there's definitely a flavor of suspicion.
When I look back on our conversations about Trump, I realize something. I knew at the time she wasn't going into all the details of it the way she normally does. She just said something like.. "He has a lot of good ideas, but then he keeps talking.." I'm not going to ask her (because we don't really have that kind of relationship)... but I think she voted for Trump. I think people like her are probably how he was elected.
BrainglitchNovember 10, 2016 at 14:18#318150 likes
I think perhaps, that what motivated a lot of people's vote for what they believed would be radical change is their underlying recognition that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.
Reply to Brainglitch The system or subversion of the system... it's that Trump was free of the establishment. Why didn't 2008 result in substantial reform? The establishment survived it.. that's why. What shapes US foreign policy? The establishment's methods of channeling money into their pockets. Chomsky, Richard Reich... both envision a sort of headless monster that in practice hangs together enough to, for instance, wage a war in the Middle East in such a way that Halliburton benefits.
Is Trump the solution to any of that? No. Was Clinton the poster-child of it? Yes. Where is conservatism in all this? Not even in the room.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 10, 2016 at 15:19#318420 likes
When I look back on our conversations about Trump, I realize something. I knew at the time she wasn't going into all the details of it the way she normally does
Many of us confirmed in whisper that we were voting for Trump. From the check out lines at the grocery store, to across the table at Father's Day brunch, if you were voting for Trump, you knew whom else was voting for Trump.
It's like being able to sniff out a bullshitter because you yourself is a bullshitter. Ya know?
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 10, 2016 at 15:22#318440 likes
Mhhmmm go ahead and laugh for now, my friend.
Tell me something: Will the Netherlands be the next to Brexit? Or will the Dutch be the wealthy, gentle nation that gets caught holding the tattered and stripped bag of depreciated Euros?
One more thing...remember this? remember who remained steadfast that it was not an accident? Remember me saying that the Netherlands needed to hold the Russians accountable? Has time changed your inability to decide who was the criminal in this tragedy?
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Yea. I understood the attraction to Trump. But it was clear to me that he wasn't what he wanted people to think he was. So my vote went for gun control. Maybe next time a Bernie Jr will run Republican and the GOP will return to its liberal roots... in libertarian clothes?
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 10, 2016 at 15:51#318530 likes
Reply to Mongrel I truly hope he reaches out to Bernie Sanders now and puts him in charge of Social Security. I think it would show so many doubters that Trump can mix it up, that he can surround himself with smart people, regardless of the letter after their name.
CiceronianusNovember 10, 2016 at 16:09#318560 likes
I tired watching that movie recently and couldn't finish it. Was left wondering why it's considered a classic, given how tedious it was.
I think it's famous not so much for its basic story (which was daring and interesting for the time, when William Randolph Hearst was still around and controlled many newspapers), but for its cinematography, and the fact that it introduced techniques in telling the story and filming it which became common but were for the time revolutionary. For example, the use of flashbacks (which conflict as they're seen from different perspectives), low-angle shots, wide-angle lenses, ceiling shots, continuous sequences without apparent interruption like the one in which the camera pans up from the opera stage to the two workers high above it. It may be the most influential film of all time, as a result.
Mhhmmm go ahead and laugh for now, my friend.
Tell me something: Will the Netherlands be the next to Brexit? Or will the Dutch be the wealthy, gentle nation that gets caught holding the tattered and stripped bag of depreciated Euros?
One more thing...remember this? remember who remained steadfast that it was not an accident? Remember me saying that the Netherlands needed to hold the Russians accountable? Has time changed your inability to decide who was the criminal in this tragedy?
Not sure what that has to do with me enjoying myself at your expense. X-)
Reply to Benkei I don't think I've ever been able to enjoy myself at your expense, Benkei. I have no idea what's going on in your country. I'm not proud of it. It's just the way it is.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 10, 2016 at 20:17#318920 likes
Agustino always writes as if he's an American. Must be his nature of being a filthy immigrant shining through, ;)
I don't think I've ever been able to enjoy myself at your expense, Benkei. I have no idea what's going on in your country. I'm not proud of it. It's just the way it is.
We'll be having our elections in 4 months or so and it's likely to be a farce too. I hope you'll be enjoying it as much as I will.
CiceronianusNovember 10, 2016 at 22:04#319070 likes
It seems fairly clear that had the Democrats fielded a more likable candidate who wasn't under criminal investigation and who was vetted through the democratic process, they would have had little trouble beating Trump. By the same token, had the Republicans nominated Rubio, Kasich, or even Cruz, this election wouldn't have been close. Both parties were hell bent on finding the least electable candidate, and so we got the best of two evils.
The Democrats don't need to be scratching their heads as to why Trump won. They need to ask themselves why they agreed upon such a poor candidate. I would agree with everyone who thinks America could do better. But, to those who actually think Clinton was this great candidate who couldn't carry the day, I don't get that.
I think it's quite true that Trump was successful because his opponent was Hillary Clinton. I personally feel she would have been the lesser of two evils, but have no desire to see the Clintons back in the White House though I would likely have tolerated them better than I'll tolerate Trump.
But I also think it's quite possible that Trump won't follow through on many of his promises to those who voted for him. All politicians make promises they don't keep either because they can't or never intended to do so, but I suspect Trump may be especially inclined to renege, as that's been his practice either through the bankruptcy laws or otherwise. Also, as a salesman of the gross kind he seems to be, I doubt he'll feel much in the way of an obligation to do what he said he would do in order to make this particular sale.
Already his surrogates are giving signals he's backing away from the more extreme positions he took (like prosecuting Hillary). And he's complimenting Obama, thanking Hillary for her years of service, saying he wants to be the president of all, etc. Hypocrisy is hardly unusual in politicians, but given the particularly egregious statements he's made in his campaign, "hypocrite" may be too mild a word to describe him, now. Perhaps he'll disappoint the more rabid of his followers as a result.
Many consider it (devoid of its contents) a cinematographic masterpiece.
So I understand. But as it addressed a huge Nazi rally with hundreds of thousands of people, I think its focus on depicting a mass of people at an event responding to a leader makes it something of a different animal. Aerial shots and running camera views of people at a huge rally and speeches to the sound of Wagner overtures isn't something that one sees duplicated or imitated much in most films.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff If Trump grants any authority to Bernie Sanders, an open Socialist, Trump would lose any control over the Republican controlled House and Senate.
To the victor goes the spoils, which means getting to do whatever he wants, which won't include propping up his defeated opponents.
That contract is ambitious to be sure, but it looks good to me for the most part. I note there is no wall in the plan, so apparently that was just talk.
Reply to Hanover End Illegal Immigration Act
"Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country of Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall... "
Reply to MarcheskI imagine they won't. That was part of Trump's plan as laid out in the link above, which Hanover apparently missed since he said he didn't see anything about a wall.
I overlooked the wall provision, but as you note, it was there. As Trump previously explained, every time Mexico refuses to fund the wall, it gets higher.
I overlooked the wall provision, but as you note, it was there. As Trump previously explained, every time Mexico refuses to fund the wall, it gets higher.
Higher in the hyperbole he used to get elected? It's not a promise he can deliver on, short of starting a war, which I doubt even the Republican congress would go along with.
Well, while I don't agree with this hypothetical building of a wall at all, I would also assume the US could pursue policies which would hurt the Mexican economy even worse than financing the construction of the wall, and may therefore have some leverage in the matter. I'm just speculating here without understanding the particular details. I can't imagine any Mexican leader acquiescing to this insulting demand.
End Illegal Immigration Act
"Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country of Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall... "
I have been down to the border where Mexico meets Arizona and I think it is pretty safe to say that he has underestimated the terrain of the border and what building a wall will entail. There are many ways to cross the border illegally and going over the wall is probably the hardest of all ways to get here. An unchecked trip across the border of Mexico up to Phoenix, takes half a days travel on a Coach bus for about 5k.
Combine that with the Federal MO for the last 7 years, anytime a group of illegal immigrants was caught across our State, the local law enforcement called ICE and were ordered to release those being detained. So all a wall would have done is made it take a bit longer to get here.
In all fairness, ICE has been livid with the Federal authorities which has tied their hands and made it impossible to enforce the laws that are on the books. It is also why Sheriff Joe Arpaio was running an illegally profiling, police department and is also why Sheriff Arpaio has been voted out of office and is facing Federal charges for lying to a Federal Judge about the profiling.
Now, if Utah, California, Washington, D.C., New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Florida, Colorado, Maryland, Washington, Oregon, Connecticut, New Mexico, Massachusetts and Maine ALL decide to give up their stance on honoring and hosting Sanctuary cities, Trump might have a card to play in removing Federal funding for each state but I just don't see that happening.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 11, 2016 at 14:51#321410 likes
Well, while I don't agree with this hypothetical building of a wall at all, I would also assume the US could pursue policies which would hurt the Mexican economy even worse than financing the construction of the wall, and may therefore have some leverage in the matter. I'm just speculating here without understanding the particular details. I can't imagine any Mexican leader acquiescing to this insulting demand.
Erik, you are a pretty good speculator!
In some of Trump's interviews he explained that the wall would be paid for by Mexico, in that he is going to charge a 35% import tax on United States products being made in Mexico being brought back over to be sold here in the USA (Carrier being one of them as was Nabisco) and that collected tax will be Mexico paying for the wall.
An attempt at a Trump perspective
I am looking forward to the Supermoon on Nov 14th. It will break the horizon at 6.02 pm over the ocean where I'am at. It's the closest a full moon has been to Earth since January 1948, next one is in 2034. Hoping for clear weather.
The wall would be symbolic at best. The way to stop immigration is to fine businesses who use them, but that's not something we've ever wanted to do because immigrants provide cheap labor and therefore cheap products.
Unless the US wants to change its basic ideology that it is a consumer driven nation that tries to create the cheapest products, we're never going to get a handle on immigration or on shipping jobs overseas. If we care about the worker who has seen all the manufacturing jobs going to Mexico or China, we could easily stop that through regulations and tariffs. The net result would be more jobs and higher salaries for workers, but we'd then be paying far more for our electronics and homes.
If you really want to figure out why there was a sudden influx of Mexican immigrants in the 90s, look no further than the deregulation of the financial markets which allowed easier loans to unqualified home buyers, which resulted in a massive housing boom. All across America, we saw Mexican workers working from sun up to sun down on the homes we eventually bought (and then saw get foreclosed upon).
The wall would be symbolic at best. The way to stop immigration is to fine businesses who use them, but that's not something we've ever wanted to do because immigrants provide cheap labor and therefore cheap products.
Unless the US wants to change its basic ideology that it is a consumer driven nation that tries to create the cheapest products, we're never going to get a handle on immigration or on shipping jobs overseas. If we care about the worker who has seen all the manufacturing jobs going to Mexico or China, we could easily stop that through regulations and tariffs. The net result would be more jobs and higher salaries for workers, but we'd then be paying far more for our electronics and homes.
If you really want to figure out why there was a sudden influx of Mexican immigrants in the 90s, look no further than the deregulation of the financial markets which allowed easier loans to unqualified home buyers, which resulted in a massive housing boom. All across America, we saw Mexican workers working from sun up to sun down on the homes we eventually bought (and then saw get foreclosed upon).
OMG! You saw the same reality I did!
Oversea friends laughed at me when I said that almost everything at Wal-Mart is $5.00. You can go to Wal-Mart and get a 50" Plasma TV or a Family size bag of Doritos. Who wouldn't get the steal of a deal on a Plasma TV? Only a fool right? Of course it makes no sense on the surface but you cannot eat TV's, no matter what the price. So it quickly becomes acceptable to pay $5.00 for a bag of Doritos, because that you can eat. The upcharge gets lost on the consumer and the profit? It comes from the consumer that used to pay $3.50 for a Family size bag of Doritos and now thinks nothing of paying $5.00.
Polls have shown that Trump supporters view the building a wall comments to refer to strengthening border security and addressing illegal immigration more generally. It seems only the left has taken such comments literally, judging by all the howls of derision they constantly provoke.
God damn American immigrants... with their stupid Jesus fishes, and thinking that they're being just like Canadians when they make ridiculous and unreasonable requests politely.
I was hearing about some guy in the states from the kids, and heard that he mangled his hand in a lawnmower accident (typical american), and then was shown a picture of his sliced, and now becoming green fingers... and I was all like "wtf! why hasn't that idiot got to the hospital!", and then I remembered that he's American, and out there they tell you to pray, and prey instead.
Reply to Wosret I like Colbert but that was very unfunny and patronizing.
Robert LockhartNovember 11, 2016 at 15:54#321590 likes
Hey, ‘My fellow American’ Comrades! Vladimir Putin here! - You know, ‘Tough-guy’ Putin! (Though, as those who really know me and aren’t so dumb as to contradict will tell you - just really the likable big bebee!)
So then, Thank you again soooo much for following my kind email advice and electing my fellow bilionaire fine Meester Trumpet, as your next Presidenty! Like me in that respect, I’m thinking he’s just so much a, ‘Man of the People’ - as you Americans are so comically want to say! Seriously though Comrades, he is also a man who I think could provide even me with lessons on how to deceive the public with a diet of simplistic mob rhetoric – albeit that his public seems to have provided him with an even more gullible audience than my own countrymen ever did me!
Anyway: How glad I am that soon, once fine Meester Trumpet’s policy of abandoning those troublesome Nato allies of yours is implemented - like the Baltic states for example, who continue to use that pathetic excuse following decades of wonderful patronisation by my former Soviet Union that their economy somehow is unable to fund their Nato defence commitments – how glad I am, that soon, I will be able to relieve you of those ungrateful traitorous bastards!
No wonder my pseudo–parliament, when they heard the great news, seemed to clap unendingly! (Though I’ll let you into a funny secret... Their enthusiasm strangely enough reminded me of the good old days of Stalin - when everybody knew you daren’t risk being seen to be the first to stop clapping – or else!) Ah, such happy memories, Comrades! And you know what else? – Seems your Trumpet is shortly about to sanction my recent benign returning of the Ukraine to our happy Soviet fold. That is to say - to our happy democratic fold of course - you bourgeois dummies!
So maybe you can now imagine, Comrades just how eagerly I await being able to shove him our esteemed Medal of Honour which he has earned so well - once I've summoned him to our beloved Mocba! Sleep well, America - Sleep well!
Reply to Cavacava I'm looking forward to this Full Moon too. Some local walkers are hoping for good weather so they can be silhouettes against the moon rise on Monday for an Associated Press photographer. If it works it may appear on a major front page next to this crazy-haired man everyone's talking about tor some reason
Yet, the opinion that "you don't have to read someone's book to understand that they are mistaken and bullshit" is obviously wrong. Bullshit, if you please. That's probably the only point on which I agree with Thorongil, even if for different reasons. And this opinion that you don't have to read someone's work to know what someone has to say, leads to...
"For some funny reason, people think they shouldn't have to spend a lot of time and energy finding out themselves what people actually wrote. They just have to read others' accounts on what people actually wrote and that's all the answers they need."
No, the difference is that you can read reviewers that objectively quote the books and provide compelling reasons as to why the contents of the book are mistaken. That is the whole purpose of reviews, to help people make informed decisions so they don't waste their time and money.
Indeed it would be bullshit if Dennett simply said "nah, Harris is wrong, ignore him kk bye" but that's not what Dennett (and co) do. They actually provide reasons that anyone can understand as to why Harris' claims are bullshit.
Reading other peoples' accounts on Aristotle gives you other peoples' views on Aristotle, not Aristotle's views. Sure, there might be an identity between them but you can only know that if you actually read Aristotle too. And, surely, you can do genuine philosophy without ever reading Aristotle's accounts, but if you've only read Aristotle through Thomas and Thomas through Feser, you can only conditionally conclude that Aristotle's or Thomas' accounts are good or bullshit, for you don't know what their accounts are. Only "If Feser's reading of Aristotle and Aquinas is correct" makes your account of them plausible. But there's only one way to remove that "if", without generating other "ifs". That's why historians of ideas have to read the original texts - you can't be a historian of Greek philosophy or Aristotle's corpus without reading the texts attributed to Aristotle and other Greek philosophers.
But the difference here is that Aristotle, Aquinas, and co. all had something important to say that couldn't just be easily summarized and rebuked as is the case with Sam Harris.
Sam Harris is to philosophy what creation science is to evolutionary science. He's bullshit. Do I really need to read a book on homeopathy to know that it's bullshit? Do I really need to read a book on auras and crystals to know that it's bullshit?
The funny thing anyway is that Sam Harris is really the one doing the sweeping claims when he entirely rejects moral philosophy without a single good reason as to why other than that "it's boring".
What is nice about philosophy is that it doesn't really require public appreciation or acceptance to be done. Anybody can stand up on a podium and call philosophy bullshit, and it might work well with the general public because the general public doesn't know much philosophy or what philosophy even is. Philosophy shouldn't have to justify itself to those who cannot grasp its importance. The difficult thing about the public acceptance of philosophy is that anyone and everyone can attempt to do philosophy, including attempting to show how we do not need philosophy. And when the masses are so fucking ignorant as they are today, they'll eat this shit up.
And so those who criticize philosophy for being irrelevant tend to do so based upon prior assumption and agendas, and a steady dose of cultural scientism. It is nowhere similar to the rejection of homeopathy or whatnot.
BrainglitchNovember 12, 2016 at 20:17#324130 likes
What is nice about philosophy is that it doesn't really require public appreciation or acceptance to be done
What's nice about reasoned argument--in philosophy or elsewhere--is that it actually addresses the substantive content--the specific propositions, logic, presuppositions, entailments, and the empirical evidence offered in support of those propositions.
So now your contribution to philosophical discussion is to spread the good news that some reviewers with whom you agree criticized some books you haven't read.
Reply to Brainglitch Sheesh, you sound like the guys over at reddit. I'm not just accepting some guy's opinion based on nothing but authority. I already know some things about ethics, and Harris' reviewers put the nail in the coffin when the provide direct in-text citations and refutations of the major supporting points of Harris' position.
I mean, should I have to read a book on homeopathy to know that homeopathy is bullshit? Why should Harris be an exception? Incredibly damaging points have been made against Harris.
unenlightenedNovember 12, 2016 at 20:54#324260 likes
Life is too short to build your own large hadron collider or read every philosophy book, so you have to take other's work on trust or live in the stone age.
Reply to unenlightened Exactly. What is nice about philosophy though is that you don't have to have a LHC to understand the material. You just need some patience and bit of intelligence. Like Wayfarer said, philosophy requires no equipment.
BrainglitchNovember 12, 2016 at 21:02#324280 likes
But if you're going to jump up on a soapbox and publicly rail against a particular author, and make blanket charges that are little more than name-calling, then it seems to me you ought to at least have read the books you're railing against. And perhaps even, you know, address some substantive content with a counterargument.
Like Wayfarer said, philosophy requires no equipment.
Absolutely no equipment, right.
Except our philosophy discussions require a computer of some sort; a wifi system, telephone system, cable system, or fiber optic system; server farms; large power generation systems; power distribution systems; satellites or under-sea cables; rockets and ships to launch satellites or lay cable; factories to manufacture everything; a table to hold one's tea cup; farms to grow tea; forests to grow wood for the table (and for the house in which we conduct our discussions).
Reply to Bitter Crank LOL, I suppose you're right on that. But this all seems to be in the realm of communicating philosophy, not necessarily doing philosophy per se.
unenlightenedNovember 12, 2016 at 21:10#324320 likes
Not at all. The joy of soapboxes is that they are freely available at small cost, and anyone can climb on one and pontificate about about what it seems to them folks ought to do.
BrainglitchNovember 12, 2016 at 21:13#324340 likes
This is an inapt analogy that somebody should've called you on long ago.
Harris's arguments are about areas of discourse that you accept as legitimate--ethics, the epistemic ground of religious belief, the condsequences of literalistic interpretation of religious belief, neurological evidence about spiritual experiences ...
Reply to unenlightened The sad thing is that Sam Harris (and co.) take this to the next level and publish entire books that are essentially just soap boxing.
Reply to Brainglitch One should be familiar enough with superstitious nonsense to call out a sample of the details of its nonsensicality. I don't need to read a book on astrology to criticize it; I do need to know what astrologers think they are doing, and that has been described in short pieces. Naturopathy and homeopathy, likewise, need to be clearly identified. Like one shouldn't confuse homeopathy with osteopathy. Naturopathy shouldn't be confused with all natural all bran rat chow.
If one is going to criticize abstract expressionism or atonal music, then one should have seen a batch of abstract expressionist work AT THE VERY LEAST, and heard a couple of hours worth of atonal music. I can say I don't like Wagner's operas, because I don't, and that's that. I can't criticize Wagnerian opera because I don't know very much about opera, and nothing about opera criticism.
So go ahead and fire away at Sam Harris; he is not that mysterious.
BrainglitchNovember 12, 2016 at 21:16#324370 likes
Not at all. The joy of soapboxes is that they are freely available at small cost, and anyone can climb on one and pontificate about about what it seems to them folks ought to do.
Yes, nut-jpbs do it all the time.
The point is, though, if your purpose is to persuade rational others to acceot your arguments, then you need to argue rationally--address substantive content with sunstantive counterargument--not just name call.
This is an inapt analogy that somebody should've called you on long ago.
Harris's arguments are about areas of discourse that you accept as legitimate--ethics, the epistemic ground of religious belief, the condsequences of literalistic interpretation of religious belief, neurological evidence about spiritual experiences ...
Yes, and he fails to provide anything useful to the debate. He begs the question by assuming consequentialism from the get-go and utilizes such a broad and alien definition of science as to make it utterly empty aside from a neat advertising trick.
I may not have held a copy of The Moral Landscape in my bare hands, but I have read bits of it by proxy, though interviews, blog posts, and most importantly reviews by professional philosophers who use direct citations in their reviews. What Harris says in his book is mirrored in these other outlets.
The analogy to homeopathy is apt. When criticizing homeopathy, we can use empirical evidence to show that homeopathy has failed to prove anything and is in fact in contradiction to established science. One does not need to read a book on homeopathy, nor have a degree in chemistry, to understand that homeopathy is bullshit. That's what objective reviews are for, and to ignore this in the case of Sam Harris is to beg the question. Objective reviews utilize the ethos of authority and the logos of evidence/argument to establish a claim about a work.
So it's not really that I have to provide reasons why one should not read Sam Harris, as it's already been done by the reviewers. Rather, it is the Harrisite that needs to explain why we should see Harris as some kind of authority on anything at all, because public approval doesn't prove jack shit.
BrainglitchNovember 12, 2016 at 21:33#324400 likes
Yes, nut-jpbs do it all the time.
... just name call.
Yeah, well. Not that I'm trying to persuade any rational other here, but...
Is Sam harris worth reading? One needs to answer before one reads him, given that one cannot read every nut job. So does he appear on college courses much, is he cited in reputable journals, do the people one has read and found not to be nut jobs tell you he is not a nut job and worth a read?
BrainglitchNovember 12, 2016 at 21:51#324470 likes
The context here is not that somebody simply mentioned in passing that they'd read reviews they judged to be insightful and wouldn't be expending any more time or effort on that author.
Rather, the context is that somebody read reviews they judged to be insightful--and then jumped up on public soapboxes, announcing for the edification of all that he was about to submit "a post with the sole intent of destroying new atheism, specifically Sam Harris. It will be gloriously savage" and a reference to his "warmup" post from a different si\oepbox--all without actually reading the books.
I read The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, don't know if he's written any since, I haven't been paying attention to them for a few years.
BrainglitchNovember 12, 2016 at 22:24#324710 likes
Reply to darthbarracuda
Without actually reading the books, it's certainly possible to learn much about what an author proposes from competent reviews. But if one ia out to savage the author and destroy the whole movement, at the very least one ought to address the suthor's arguments, and present the reviewers' analyses and counterarguments--rather than give us what amounts to nothing more substantive than the brilliantly insightful Beavis and Butthead critique: "Harris Sucks."
I've read Free Will, Moral Landscape and some online stuff. I think Harris is an enjoyable stylist, but that he uses his stylistic gifts to conceal holes in his arguments m and some if his vuews seem downright prejudiced to me. I'm bewildered though at the idea of attacking someone you haven't read. Harris himself does that, in attacks on Islam for instance: he seizes on a few newspaper clippings to atttack a religious worldview. He's got a good website, plenty to sample there.
I suppose you're right on that. But this all seems to be in the realm of communicating philosophy, not necessarily doing philosophy per se.
I suppose you're right on that too. But having cogitated, philosophized in the divine stillness of our lonely hearts, and reached conclusions about our existences, we generally want to tell somebody about it.
It's not enough to decide that it would have been better to never have been born and endured all the sufferings of existence (see "how many harms can you name" et al") but we want to share our delight in measuring our suffering. Even those antinatalists who wish they had not been born like having company. We are social beings. Don't tell us vital secrets -- we like to share!
Reply to darthbarracuda I agree, DB, write a book :) I've written several (nothing about philosophy as yet) and it's exciting and terrifying, like climbing a mountain . Oddly enough, knowing how arduous a journey it is gives me a bit of sympathy even for a Sam Harris, who is a slippery polemical thinker but has completed and marketed several. Everyone in book-writing hits moments when they think, Oh fuck it, I'll skip through the rationale for this bit and come back to it later. Then for the less fastidious 'later' never comes.
One feature of Harris i've been thinking about is his loathing for social science, especially what he sees as the relativism of anthropology. This is a feature of most analytic philosophy: to act mostly as if social science isn't there, and as if physics chemistry and biology gave crisper answers than they actually do. There's a thread for another time.
BrainglitchNovember 13, 2016 at 14:47#326410 likes
Why not give one or two of your ideas a test run in a thread?
Indeed, each of the New Atheists has said things that can be analyzed and challenged with counterarguments. And if your primary gripe is Sam Harris, why not focus on one or two of his positions that you disagree with and savage it? For example, I agree that the consequentialism you mention is vulnerable to challenge.
But you need to realize that Sam Harris is not an uninformed boob shooting from the hip. He is well-versed in several areas, and has degrees from Stanford amd UCLA.
Reply to Brainglitch I mean, I already presented some rough criticisms, like how he utilizes a vacuous definition of science, or begs the question with his consequentialism, essentially making his ethical scheme a tautology (morality is welfare and welfare is morality). It isn't necessarily the positions he espouses but the process he goes about arguing for them. I might still make a thread sometime in the future though.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 13, 2016 at 19:09#326760 likes
Sam Harris has always struck me as someone who straddles being both irritatingly ponderous as well as unduly self-righteous. I read his recent book 'Waking Up' about a month after it came out, and though I was impressed by the writing style, the book's content fell short, as usual. I think I have to remember that Harris writes for the stereotypical Western non-religious liberal who, funnily enough, believe in as vacuous an ethical and spiritual understanding as the many religious folk for whom Harris has built his career disparaging. 'Waking Up' really does highlight this as Harris meanders ceaselessly around the vague and banal, which makes for rather insufferable reading.
I mean, I already presented some rough criticisms, like how he utilizes a vacuous definition of science, or begs the question with his consequentialism, essentially making his ethical scheme a tautology (morality is welfare and welfare is morality).
Well, it seems to me that a charge such as "he uses a vacuous definition of science" without demonstrating what his definition is and how it is vacupus is empty accusation, bluster. A very long way from the destroying and savaging you threatened to unleash. Same with the charge of consequentialism. Show how what he proposes is consequentialist, and explain why such a consequentialist position is a problem.
It isn't necessarily the positions he espouses but the process he goes about arguing for them. I might still make a thread sometime in the future though.
I don't understand what you mean here.
If you don't have a problem with his positions, then what's the substantive dispute?
By "the process," do you mean the logic of his arguments? The evidence?
Reply to Brainglitch Well, he calls reasonable discussion (counterfactual analysis, phenomenological analysis, etc) "science". Which is really not that impressive of a definition, considering it basically includes any and all forms of inquiry. So he slapped a label on something that it didn't belong on. And he's a utilitarian, so a consequentialist in virtue, because he argues that a world with horrible suffering is bad, and that the moral landscape is just the spectrum of experience across a population. He's not even that sophisticated of a utilitarian, though, since he doesn't even try to work around the utility monster despite this being quite intuitively problematic.
And so no, I don't generally have a problem with his positions. He's an atheist, I'm agnostic. He's critical of organized religion, and so am I. He doesn't believe in free will, and neither do I. He is a utilitarian, and so am I (although I'm a negative utilitarian).
What matters, though, is the process he came to these beliefs. They are valid beliefs argued for in a very poor and shallow way, and without any respect for the surrounding philosophical literature.
BrainglitchNovember 14, 2016 at 03:08#327350 likes
What matters, though, is the process he came to these beliefs. They are valid beliefs argued for in a very poor and shallow way, and without any respect for the surrounding philosophical literature.
If you're going to savage what Harris has actually argued and the way he's argued it, you might consider: (1) reading the books the arguments are presented in, and (2) taking a lesson from Harris about presenting the argument you're criticizing so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
[quote=Brainglitch]taking a lesson from Harris about presenting the argument you're criticizing so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”[/quote]
It's not clear to me how that's a lesson from Harris. Has any of his opponents ever said that about something he wrote about their arguments or beliefs?
BrainglitchNovember 14, 2016 at 04:11#327460 likes
Reply to andrewk It's something Harris has said should be anyone's goal when challenging someone's argument.
He did not originate the idea, but has promoted it. It's the main point in what's been called a "steel man" argument--as contrasted with the well-known straw man argument.
Reply to Brainglitch If nobody has said it about him then it would seem that it's a standard that he does not live up to himself. I have a feeling that many Christians and Muslims would not regard his characterisation of their beliefs and arguments as accurate or fair.
It seems to me that it's just a renaming of the well-known 'principle of charity'. This is a principle that one sees evinced by some old-school atheists like Bertrand Russell, for instance in his delightful discussion about the existence of God with Frederick Coplestone.
I'm absolutely in favour of the idea, but it seems incongruous to associate it with Harris, given his aggressive approach to philosophical and political discourse.
The most annoying aspect of Harris is the depth of his antireligious convictions. He's like a mirror image of an evangelical. If the element of 'hatred of religion' was taken out of his polemics, then nothing he writes would be particularly objectionable - or noteworthy. Although one thing I will give him credit for is actually attempting to articulate a positive ethical philosophy, albeit one that is essentially a form of utilitarianism.
And I don't give him any credit for not believing in free will, because if he's right - he had no choice!
BrainglitchNovember 14, 2016 at 14:23#327790 likes
Reply to Wayfarer
So you're OK with his substantive content, you just don't like his style and attitude.
BrainglitchNovember 14, 2016 at 14:59#327820 likes
If nobody has said it about him then it would seem that it's a standard that he does not live up to himself.
Non seq.
Not to mention that you don't know that nobody has said it about him.
I have a feeling that many Christians and Muslims would not regard his characterisation of their beliefs and arguments as accurate or fair.
Your feeling about what Christian and Muslims would say hardly constitutes grounds for a sound conclusion that Harris misrepresents their arguments. Sounds more like a vague impression not supported by any actual evidence.
It seems to me that it's just a renaming of the well-known 'principle of charity'. This is a principle that one sees evinced by some old-school atheists like Bertrand Russell, for instance in his delightful discussion about the existence of God with Frederick Coplestone.
Sure, it's a variation of the principle of charity. One that emphases making an honest effort not to misrepresent others' arguments as straw man in debate just for the rhetorical effect. It a call to attend to offering genuine philosophical challenge rather than the pseudo-debate of a sophist.
I'm absolutely in favour of the idea, but it seems incongruous to associate it with Harris, given his aggressive approach to philosophical and political discourse
Aggressive counter-argument and clear, vivid, fair presentation of the target argument are not mutually exclusive.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 14, 2016 at 15:41#327870 likes
One for the ages
NicK and I were looking back over our 26 years together and were analyzing it in a good way.
I lovingly said "You bring balance to my life. It's like you are the Yin to my Yang." To which he said "Exactly! It's like I am the Karm and you are the .....oh shit!" 8-)
Ps. Living with perfect people can be a bitch sometimes ;)
BuxtebuddhaNovember 14, 2016 at 15:52#327910 likes
Reply to Brainglitch I didn't like the books that made him famous, but I think he's more open-minded than some of his New Atheists confreres. He at least recognises that spiritual experiences actually occur.
Reply to Brainglitch "Aggressive counter-argument and clear, vivid, fair presentation of the target argument are not mutually exclusive. "
Subject to replacing 'aggressive' by 'energetically assertive' (which is like aggressive but without the element of hostility), I agree with that. Bertrand Russell is an example of somebody that can pull off that combination. But my observation is that Harris does not generally do the latter. Many of his characterisations of religious people, their arguments and beliefs, particularly of Muslims, strike me as unfair.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 15, 2016 at 11:19#329850 likes
You think we are "so fucked" now? Wait until the new administration takes away Federal funding for Sanctuary cities. Rahm Emanuel alone is calling for anyone, from anywhere, to come to Chicago for they will ALWAYS be a Sanctuary city.
Does he really think that this is going to help the gun crime of his city?
>:O He is going to fuck up so BIG league that even Barrack will find a new state to reside in.
Is this guy gay? this is Stefan Molyneux, a blogger on the "Manosphere", something I just heard about a few minutes ago. The 'manosphere' devotes itself to the cause of disliking feminists, uppity women in general. He's probably sexist, racist, islamophobic, homophobic, veganphobic, kale-hating, etc. as well.
Anyway, just listening to Molyneux, it struck me that he has the kind of gift of gab I most often have heard from gay guys when we are off on a rant. Just listen to the first couple of minutes, if you can't stand more. Tell me what you think.
How fucked are we? Good question, of course. In response to the "just you wait" theme, let me quote a leftist folk singer--Malvina Reynolds.
Do you think you've reached bottom?
Oh, no; there's a bottom below.
There's a low below the low you know
you can't imagine how far it goes...
D
O
W
N
There's the nightmare kind where you fall and fall,
And you wake to find you haven't been dreaming at all.
Do you think you've reached bottom?
Oh, no; there's a bottom below.
BrainglitchNovember 16, 2016 at 04:08#331640 likes
Some hit bottom never returning to the top and others bounce back higher than they've ever been. How high is high? Truth is as high as it gets, infinite immeasurable and absolute.
Re: Stefan Molyneux has some points, but he is mostly hyperbolic. Newspapers seem to spin the news more and more for the entertainment of their readership and I am not sure that's the newspapers fault, it's what their readership wants and the customer is king. Newspapers give us the ability to feel the full spectrum of emotions that engulf the events that they report. Sure they are bias, but so is their readership.
Also, and we have discussed this before, you are a Kale-hater. Like other things Kale tastes better when it's been damaged, it loses its bitterness.
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/edible-science-heres-secret-perfect-kale-salad/
And the award for the most unintentionally funny argument today goes to........
@Metaphysician Undercover, for arguing that there is not a world of difference between, say, [I]The Wonderful Wizard of Oz[/I] and [I]The Oxford Illustrated History of World War II[/I], because both are books, and that there is not a world of difference between, say, a human and a carrot, because both exist.
Metaphysician Undercover, for arguing that there is not a world of difference between, say, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and The Oxford Illustrated History of World War II, because both are books, and that there is not a world of difference between, say, a human and a carrot, because both exist.
How much of a difference is a world of difference? You and @Metaphysician Undercover probably just draw the line at different places.
Reply to Sapientia I don't know what you mean by ruling out the differences. I'm sure he accepts that humans and carrots are not the same thing; that they look different and behave differently. Whether or not you want to call these differences a world of difference seems to be trivial terminological issue with no real philosophical substance.
I don't know what you mean by ruling out the differences. I'm sure he accepts that humans and carrots are not the same thing; that they look different and behave differently. Whether or not you want to call these differences a world of difference seems to be trivial terminological issue with no real philosophical substance.
I mean ruling them out as irrelevant. But that is to superficially narrow the context. The differences matter in the context of the discussion, as well as in typical contexts. And if you have any doubt, you could put it to the test. Go ahead, ask people whether or not there are many important differences between the two. The results will be very predicable and in my favour.
I mean ruling them out as irrelevant. But that is to superficially narrow the context. The differences matter in the context of the discussion, as well as in typical contexts.
And what does it mean to say that the differences are relevant or important? If you just mean that when deciding what to eat an informed decision will require understanding these differences then I'm pretty sure that Metaphysician would agree with you.
So, again, this seems like a trivial terminological dispute. You probably both agree that there is a physical difference between a human and a carrot, and that these physical differences play a deciding role in how we make use of them. You're just disagreeing over what adjective to use to describe these differences. It's all fluff.
And if you have any doubt, you could put it to the test. Go ahead, ask people whether or not there are many important differences between the two. The results will be very predicable and in my favour.
Argumentum ad populum?
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 17, 2016 at 15:19#334550 likes
And what does it mean to say that the differences are relevant or important? If you just mean that when deciding what to eat an informed decision will require understanding these differences then I'm pretty sure that Metaphysician would agree with you.
So, again, this seems like a trivial terminological dispute. You probably both agree that there is a physical difference between a human and a carrot, and that these physical differences play a deciding role in how we make use of them. You're just disagreeing over what adjective to use to describe these differences. It's all fluff.
Oh, come on, Michael. Get real. You have to go to extraordinary lengths to attempt to justify denying what we know through common sense: that there is a world of difference between the two. The former misses the point. This kind of thing is why philosophers get lampooned.
No, it isn't fallacious. There are exceptions to that fallacy, and this is one of them. Importance (or relevance) is a relative concept, and by asking that question to people, you will get a typical response which indicates what is important to them, and that will obviously be the differences, and they will be of such relevance to them that the response will probably be one which suggests that they find the very question absurd.
Metaphysician Undercover has set that aside in order to superficially narrow the context so that he can deny that they're a world apart. Which is just silly. There are times when you should just concede, and this is one of them.
Importance (or relevance) is a relative concept, and by asking that question to people, you will get a typical response which indicates what is important to them, and that will obviously be the differences, and they will be of such relevance to them that the response will probably be one which suggests that they find the very question absurd.
Right, and Metaphysician has responded with a "no, they're not important (to me)". So what's the problem?
Oh, come on, Michael. Get real. You have to go to extraordinary lengths to attempt to justify denying what we know through common sense: that there is a world of difference between the two. The former misses the point. This kind of thing is why philosophers get lampooned.
Again, what does it mean for the differences to be a world of difference? That the differences matter? Then, again, what does it mean for the differences to matter?
And again, given that Metaphysician probably agrees that humans and carrots look different, behave differently, have a different material constitution, and that these differences are relevant when deciding what to eat, it seems clear that the only thing you and Metaphysician disagree over is the adjective used to describe the differences.
It's a pointless disagreement. Neither of you is going to mistake a carrot for a person or have human flesh for dinner (hopefully). What philosophers get lampooned over is their insistence that there's more to consider than just this.
Right, and Metaphysician has responded with a "no, they're not important (to me)". So what's the problem?
The problem is that that is beside the point. Wayfarer wasn't making a point about what is important to Metaphysician Undercover. He was making a general point. Fortunately, any point that is made here does not of necessity depend on the standards of judgement used by Metaphysician Undercover.
The problem is that that is beside the point. Wayfarer wasn't making a point about what is important to Metaphysician Undercover. He was making a general point. Fortunately, any point that is made here does not of necessity depend on the standards of judgement used by Metaphysician Undercover.
Then by the same token you can't refer to popular opinion when justifying your claim that the differences are important. Hence my accusation of argumentum ad populum.
Anyway, the "world apart" comment might have been either quantitative (i.e. the number of differences) or qualitative (i.e. in terms of their significance) or a combination of the two. I've been assuming that it's one of the latter two, but it might not be.
No, he was implying that he doesn't consider them to be important enough for there to be a world of difference. Which is beside the point.
Right, but this circles back to what it means for the differences to be a world of difference. And if this is for the differences to be important then to take issue with what he was saying you need a notion of importance that isn't a relative concept. What does it mean for the differences to be important (rather than just important to me)?
But still, given that neither of you is going to mistake a carrot for a person or behave with one as one would with the other it seems that your disagreement is simply over the adjective used to describe the differences. Your disagreement isn't over what those differences actually are. Hence why there's no real substance behind your disagreement.
What are you talking about? There's a world of substance behind our disagreement.
Then what is the substance? What makes a difference a world of difference? What makes a difference important? If you both agree that carrots and people look and behave differently, then where exactly is the disagreement? It's not like he thinks that carrots can walk and talk or that human flesh is a suitable side dish.
Then what is it? What makes a difference a world of difference? What makes a difference important?
If there are a number of differences that the general population would consider to be of much relevance, then I think that it's fair to say that there's a world of difference, which is to make a general and relative point, as opposed to a personal or absolute one. So any response that amounts to "Well, I don't personally consider the differences to be of relevance" is to miss the point.
I also think that to over-analyse this whole thing is a bit silly. There's a world of difference between a human and a carrot. Only in philosophy is this mole hill turned into a mountain. And yes, there is a world of difference between a mole hill and a mountain as well, irrespective of any form of sophistry which argues otherwise.
If you both agree that carrots and people look and behave differently, then where exactly is the disagreement? It's not like he thinks that carrots can walk and talk or that human flesh is a suitable side dish.
It's that he implies that the distinction is unimportant. Yet it's clearly an important distinction for innumerable reasons, including the one you just mentioned. Perhaps it isn't as important for him as it is for me and the general population. Perhaps he wouldn't be bothered if he accidentally ate a human or asked a carrot for directions. But even if so, that is still beside the point.
I also think that to over-analyse this whole thing is a bit silly. There's a world of difference between a human and a carrot. Only in philosophy is this mole hill turned into a mountain. And yes, there is a world of difference between a mole hill and a mountain as well, irrespective of any form of sophistry which argues otherwise.
I'd say that you're over-analysing. It's only in philosophy that one would claim that there's more than "carrots don't walk or talk and people aren't food" to say.
It's that he implies that the distinction is unimportant. Yet it's clearly an important distinction for innumerable reasons, including the one you just mentioned. Perhaps it isn't as important for him as it is for me and the general population. Perhaps he wouldn't be bothered if he accidentally ate a human or asked a carrot for directions. But even if so, that is still beside the point.
There's no such thing as importance tout court. It has to be important to someone or towards some end. As you said before, it's a relative concept.
And given that I'm sure he agrees with you that the differences between people and carrots are relevant when deciding what to eat, he isn't disagreeing with you on any substantive issue.
So, I've actually decided to read what he's written and this stands out:
"And even of two existing things, if 'existing thing' is the most general category, there is not a world of difference between them, because they necessarily have that in common."
In his terminology, "X and Y have a world of difference between them" means "X and Y have nothing in common".
If you agree that a novel and a biography have something in common then you agree with what he actually means when he says "a novel and a biography don't have a world of difference between them" even if you disagree with his choice of words.
No substantive disagreement; just a trivial terminological dispute.
BrainglitchNovember 17, 2016 at 19:19#335120 likes
If there's not a difference between two things, then there are not two things.
But whether the differences are significant or insignificant, relevant or irrelevant, negligible or worlds of difference, etc. are judgments relative to a given context. And unless the context and the grounds for those judgments are agreed upon, there is no resolution for dispute.
It's only in philosophy that one would claim that there's more than "carrots don't walk or talk and people aren't food" to say.
Nah, it isn't a complex philosophical argument to get from [i]there[/I] to "there's a world of difference between them". Lots of philosophical lay people would make that connection. In fact, it's hard to think of one who [i]wouldn't[/I] make that connection. So, it seems that Metaphysician Undercover is special in that regard.
And given that I'm sure he agrees with you that the differences between people and carrots are relevant when deciding what to eat, he isn't disagreeing with you on any substantive issue.
Yes, he is, because I think that it is patently absurd to deny that there is a world of difference between the two, for that reason and for many others, and he thinks that there is nothing wrong with that.
And besides, isn't whether the disagreement is over any substantive issue relative in much the same way? Are you only going so for as saying that it isn't a substantive issue [I]for you[/I]?
Yes, important in general, like I said. It has a basis in the general population. It is relative to the general population.
I hope I don't have to clarify each time that I make this point about importance.
But when I asked you if he was claiming that most people don't consider the differences important you said he wasn't. So when he says "there isn't a world of difference" he isn't saying "most people don't consider the differences important". Bringing up the fact that most people consider the differences important to criticise his claim is thus a non sequitur.
And if "there isn't a world of difference" doesn't mean "most people don't consider the differences important" then referring to what most people consider important to explain what it means for there to be a world of difference doesn't work. So, again, what does it mean for there to be a world of difference?
But when I asked you if he was claiming that most people don't consider the differences important you said he wasn't. So when he says "there isn't a world of difference" he isn't saying "most people don't consider the differences important".
Oh my god. I know that, Michael. We've been over this already. My criticism is that what he is saying is beside the point for that reason.
And if "there isn't a world of difference" doesn't mean "most people don't consider the differences important" then referring to what most people consider important to explain what it means for there to be a world of difference doesn't work.
My criticism is about what that phrase means [i]for him[/I] in contrast to what it means [i]in general[/I].
It's that he implies that the distinction is unimportant.
I don't imply that the difference is unimportant, what I imply is that the similarity is more important than the difference. Therefore I thought Wayfarer's use of "a world of difference" was uncalled for, because this implies all the difference in the world, rendering the similarity which I thought to be more important than the difference, meaningless.
What's more important to you, the fact that two things are both the same, in sense of both being books, or the fact that each is different, being a novel, and a book of history? I suggest that the difference between them, that one is called a "novel", and the other is called a "history", is completely meaningless, unless you already know that both are books.
And the same goes for "human being", and "carrot". unless you know that each of these words is referring to something, then the perceived difference between these words is completely meaningless.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 17, 2016 at 23:06#335530 likes
Last night my eldest indian asked me if I thought "fear was real"? To which I asked him if he was asking me philosophically or literally and he gave me the easy answer of "both".
So if "fear" is instinctual, does that make it "real"?
What about learned "fear"?
Is learned fear as "real" as instinctual fear?
Is it possible to rid yourself of the emotion of 'fear'?
I don't imply that the difference is unimportant, what I imply is that the similarity is more important than the difference. Therefore I thought Wayfarer's use of "a world of difference" was uncalled for, because this implies all the difference in the world, rendering the similarity which I thought to be more important than the difference, meaningless.
What's more important to you, the fact that two things are both the same, in sense of both being books, or the fact that each is different, being a novel, and a book of history? I suggest that the difference between them, that one is called a "novel", and the other is called a "history", is completely meaningless, unless you already know that both are books.
And the same goes for "human being", and "carrot". unless you know that each of these words is referring to something, then the perceived difference between these words is completely meaningless.
It is obvious that they're both books, and that both a human and a carrot is a thing. That can be taken for granted, and go without saying. There's no need to even bring that up. In that sense, it is trivial.
What was controversial was how you seemed to be denying, or at least downplaying, the significant difference between the one and the other. You shifted the focus by taking what he was talking about and putting it in a different context, to unduly emphasise similarity over difference. Again, that would seem to miss the point, and again, that seems more like sophistry than philosophy - more like a convenient trick which could mislead the less discerning. But there is no controversy about the similarities. The controversy only arised as a result of your attempt to blur distinctions and equivocate terms to suit your argument.
Is it possible to rid yourself of the emotion of 'fear'?
Hell no. I am still as scared of the dentist as I was when I was 10. I went to the dentist once for emergency treatment, 3 years after being told I needed it. :-*
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 18, 2016 at 03:20#335860 likes
It is obvious that they're both books, and that both a human and a carrot is a thing. That can be taken for granted, and go without saying. There's no need to even bring that up. In that sense, it is trivial.
So are you saying that things which we take for granted are insignificant and trivial? I think the opposite is the case. The things we take for granted are the most important things, the fact that we can take them for granted allows them to become important. And the point I was making in the thread was that the reality of these things which are taken for granted (the sameness referred to) was being denied, for the sake of some slight difference, which really is insignificant.
From where I'm sitting we're 2nd on both google.com and google.co.uk. Finally taken over the Online Philosophy Club. Just Porat's graveyard left standing.
So are you saying that things which we take for granted are insignificant and trivial?
No, that's not what I'm saying. Although, they [I]can[/I] be.
I'm saying that, in the context of the discussion, pointing out what is both obvious and uncontroversial - that both are books, and both are things - is pointless and beside the point.
And the point I was making in the thread was that the reality of these things which are taken for granted (the sameness referred to) was being denied...
...some slight difference, which really is insignificant.
And that is what I disagree with, and think is absurd and ridiculous. But if you skew your perspective, then yes, it will seem that way. Otherwise, no.
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 18, 2016 at 20:51#337200 likes
I'm saying that, in the context of the discussion, pointing out what is both obvious and uncontroversial - that both are books, and both are things - is pointless and beside the point.
When one of the members of the discussion is claiming that the only important thing about the things being discussed is that which is not obvious, particular differences, then the obvious must be pointed out to that person! Don't blame me if you can't see the obvious. If you can't see the forest for the trees, such that the forest must be pointed out to you, then that's not my fault.
CiceronianusNovember 18, 2016 at 22:18#337280 likes
$25,000,000 isn't a bad settlement of a baseless lawsuit.
Reply to shmik Put that woman in as head of the National Endowment for the Humanities, National Public Radio, Public Broadcasting, Education Department, etc. and we'll get our marching orders straight away. She has that flinty, starry-eyed gleam of the True Believer.
When one of the members of the discussion is claiming that the only important thing about the things being discussed is that which is not obvious, particular differences, then the obvious must be pointed out to that person! Don't blame me if you can't see the obvious. If you can't see the forest for the trees, such that the forest must be pointed out to you, then that's not my fault.
Everything's your fault.
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 19, 2016 at 05:11#338320 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank I don't have time to listen to all of his monologue (and he rants too much, isn't concise, and very boring to listen to), but it seems he is on the right track.
It's been the greatest event in the last 30 years that Trump won, because finally it's become clear that the conservatives can win, and we don't have to live in a world where we are ashamed of being who we are, and where we have to be on the outskirts of society. Finally conservatives have the confidence to fight back against Hollywood, the Media, the Politicians and the other crooked organisations that seek to impose a progressive agenda on the whole world (while pretending they represent the majority of people - they don't, and this election has made that clear - it's just that they had us conservatives sitting down, and not doing anything, accepting it as they were taking our world away). That this guy you showed us is against feminism - well that's a great thing. I'm sick of seeing these whores and shameful human beings on the streets abusing their privileges - just look at this:
http://www.emandlo.com/amy-schumer-doesnt-feel-bad-about-your-abortion/
Now not only does she go around having abortions as if it was nothing, she also brags and jokes about it! That's just outrageous. I could agree with women having the right to have abortions, but because of asses like her, with such attitude, they don't deserve it. This mockery of the benevolence of others, and this abuse of one's privileges for purely selfish reasons - as if she was entitled to all this - this screams to the Heavens for justice. If they were humble about it - if they understood they were in the wrong - then I'd see no problem helping them if they needed an abortion. But when these good-for-nothings come with such attitude then they lose those rights. That's what progressives have never understood. They fight using mockery and disrespect for morality and greatness. If I was Trump, I'd throw people like Amy Schumer in jail until they learn to have respect. She can live however she wants - including have abortions as far as I'm concerned - but she should be humble about it - the world isn't here to satisfy her selfish desires. Instead she turns her vice into a virtue - oh how great she is that she can have an abortion whenever she wants as if it was nothing - no she's not great, we're great and she gets to have it because of our mercy - she should pay her respects - and she should be ashamed of herself for posing naked to elect Crooked Hillary Clinton - that alone disqualifies her from the rest of humanity.
Furthermore - and more importantly - Trump has exposed the lying politician class who would do anything to stay in power (just look at all the Republicans who hated Trump go and snuggle to him after he won). I am reminded of the story of Alexander and Diogenes. Alexander respected Diogenes - but he didn't respect those fools around him - because they were all licking up to him to have a share of his power. They would humiliate themselves in the worst ways for a little bit of power. Those are the lying politicians. Trump is Alexander. If Trump had lost, he would have been Diogenes - he would never have licked up to his enemies for a position - he would never have humiliated himself in order to win. There's something worth respecting in that, something that is almost non-existent in the modern world and I'm happy to finally see a glimpse of it.
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 19, 2016 at 12:21#339340 likes
He would have accused them of rigging the election. Actually, he already asserted that the election was rigged, so what does that say about his win?
Exactly - he wouldn't have gone to them begging for a position like Republicans are going to him now. What he would have done is spite them. That is infinitely better than licking up to them.
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 19, 2016 at 13:05#339430 likes
Reply to Agustino Unless the described action is actually good, it makes no sense to refer to it as "infinitely better". Since "spite" is not good, you could have claimed that it is infinitely less bad than licking up. But I think "licking up" is an act of cleanliness, so licking up to another is the intent to make them cleaner, and therefore infinitely better than spiting them, which is simply bad.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover Well Diogenes was certainly spiting Alexander wasn't he? "Get out of my sun!" That action is meritous not because spite is good in itself - but rather because it shows a certain character trait - integrity and dignity - sticking to one's own self, and not short-selling oneself to the other merely because the other holds great power.
It's been the greatest event in the last 30 years that Trump won, because finally it's become clear that the conservatives can win...
It was clear to me long before then. I, like many others, just didn't think that they [i]would[/I] (win the presidency in the recent election).
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 19, 2016 at 13:13#339460 likes
Reply to Agustino You do realize that to spite is to wish ill will on another, and this is completely contrary to the principal precept of Christianity, do you not?
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover Spite is to thwart someone else's will. In the case of the story, Diogenes spited Alexander - Alexander's intention was to have Diogenes cower to him - and Diogenes refused. So I don't think spite is necessarily seeking to harm someone - Socrates also spited the Greek court with his affirmations at his trial - "You think by killing me you will harm me more than you will harm yourselves?" Spite can be the mark of a great soul which does not humiliate or bring itself down for petty reasons - in the case of Socrates and Diogenes, a soul which is greater than (earthly) life, which doesn't cling to life at all costs. The court tried to bring Socrates down, to humiliate him, to show that he too is a petty soul who will cower immediately for fear of his life to their demands. But Socrates stood defiant - he spited them - and in that was his greatness, that's why he is remembered. If he had said all he said, but he would have cowered to their demands - no mention of his name would have existed today.
Also I will add that Alexander's reaction to Diogenes also shows his own greatness - he recognized in Diogenes one who was great - like him. One who wouldn't bow down the head for a little piece of meat - the same as him. While all those sitting around him, who had laughed at Diogenes' remark - they were all cowards, and Alexander knew. They weren't like him or Diogenes, they weren't great. Had he not been Alexander, they would have laughed at him too - they would have paid no attention to him. It was only his power they were hungry after - not his greatness, for if they were after his greatness, they would be after Diogenes as well.
Reply to Sapientia
I see nothing funny about a good-for-nothing who does zero for society, and yet is living a millionaire lifestyle, all the while mocking and degrading important matters (while making rude and unbecoming remarks) as if they were nothing. There is nothing great about that - there is only shame in that.
So I don't think spite is necessarily seeking to harm someone
Clearly spite does not necessitate that one seeks to harm another. However, it is to wish that the other does meet harm, and that's why it's called an "ill will". This ill will towards another may or may not lead one into actually harming the other, and that is why it must be prevented as harmful. it is necessary that we prevent the emotions which incline us toward harmful actions, even if they do necessarily lead to us taking such actions.
Socrates also spited the Greek court with his affirmations at his trial - "You think by killing me you will harm me more than you will harm yourselves?"
I see no indication here, that Socrates wished harm on the members of the Greek court. He just informed them of how he understood the situation, that to harm him was to harm themselves.
Reply to Sapientia Funny or not, there are some things that should be respected, not laughed about. You cannot make a mockery about everything. And the life of unborn babies is one such subject that should be treated with seriousness - like the life of adults as well. The problem with her is precisely she's NOT treating it with seriousness. Really - can't she find better things to make jokes about than abortions, vaginas, etc. ? That's the real shame - why the hell is she spending her whole life joking about abortions and vagina? Is that all life is about? That's what's shameful, that's what's petty about her. She's like Kierkegaard said, like a worm:
“Let other complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is paltry; for it lacks passion. Men's thoughts are thin and flimsy like lace, they are themselves pitiable like the lacemakers. The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful. For a worm it might be regarded as a sin to harbor such thoughts, but not for a being made in the image of God. Their lusts are dull and sluggish, their passions sleepy...This is the reason my soul always turns back to the Old Testament and to Shakespeare. I feel that those who speak there are at least human beings: they hate, they love, they murder their enemies, and curse their descendants throughout all generations, they sin.”
At least Trump fucking sins, and does it properly. That's something worth respecting when people's biggest passions have become to joke about vaginas.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 19, 2016 at 13:39#339600 likes
But see, you're equally an idiot for voting Clinton. I never said there was a good path to lead.
Fair enough but we had to make a choice. We couldn't stand at the cross roads forever hoping the perfect person would come along and be willing to serve.
Clearly spite does not necessitate that one seeks to harm another. However, it is to wish that the other does meet harm, and that's why it's called an "ill will". This ill will towards another may or may not lead one into actually harming the other, and that is why it must be prevented as harmful. it is necessary that we prevent the emotions which incline us toward harmful actions, even if they do necessarily lead to us taking such actions.
I more or less agreed, but I specified I've used spite as:
I see no indication here, that Socrates wished harm on the members of the Greek court. He just informed them of how he understood the situation, that to harm him was to harm themselves.
Not only that - he was defiant, he was arrogant in front of them, he thwarted their will, which was to see him cower in fear and renounce his convictions in order to be granted a few more years of life.
Augustino is using metaphors which I am not familiar with, "licking up", is that like "brown nosing"?. How is this inherently bad?
Licking up means prostituting oneself for power, prestige, money, and so forth. It's what Republicans are doing to Trump now. They said "Trump is the worst", and now that he won and has power, they all say "We would be willing to join his cabinet, we look forward to work with him etc." That's being servile - that's humiliating oneself. Trump wouldn't have done that if the tables were turned.
Hell no. I am still as scared of the dentist as I was when I was 10. I went to the dentist once for emergency treatment, 3 years after being told I needed it.
And no - she's the farthest from Kierkegaard you could get.
But you don't know Kierkegaard like I did. He used to make abortion jokes all the time when he thought no one was looking. He would just say them out loud to himself when there were no other people around.
But what he didn't notice was the owl in the tree nearby.
"At least Trump fucking sins, and does it properly"
That's the 11th commandment, I think.
Edit: Oh, I didn't know about this: The 11th Commandment (Ronald Reagon). That wasn't what I meant, but it's interesting. Trump has definitely broken that one on many occasions. He is quite the sinner, isn't he?
It's been the greatest event in the last 30 years that Trump won, because finally it's become clear that the conservatives can win, and we don't have to live in a world where we are ashamed of being who we are, and where we have to be on the outskirts of society.
In the spirit of Zoroastrian charity, let me say how glad I am that you can now come out from the shadows, come up from the underground, come in from 30 years in the wilderness, and go forth waving the banner Excelsior. Free at last, free at last. Thank Trump the mighty you are free at last.
Have you applied for a position in the Trump Administration? Maybe a cabinet position? Virtue Advisory Board?
Reply to Heister Eggcart
Have you read the Kierkegaard quote? To sin is better than to live the cowardly life in which you neither sin nor are virtuous (the life of the worm). Of course to be virtuous is superior to both.
Have you applied for a position in the Trump Administration? Maybe a cabinet position? Virtue Advisory Board?
To qualify for such a position, it would help if you've attended a respectable institution, such as Trump University.
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 19, 2016 at 17:41#339880 likes
Reply to Agustino You're sick, and so is Kierkegaard if he really believed that is better to take bad action than to take no action at all. Don't you think that an evil person is worse than a worm? How about comparing that evil person to a carrot? At least you can eat the carrot.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 19, 2016 at 18:25#339930 likes
Reply to Agustino Tell me again in which work Kierkegaard says that. And if he does think amorality is somehow worse than immorality, then both he and you are wrong.
Tell me again in which work Kierkegaard says that. And if he does think amorality is somehow worse than immorality, then both he and you are wrong
I think this is a section of Either/Or which in its references to lace-making girls and Jews is not Soren's most edifying observation:
Kierkegaard: Let others complain that the times are evil. I complain that they are wretched, for they are without passion. People's thoughts are as thin and fragile as lace, and they themselves as pitiable as lace-making girls. The thoughts of their hearts are too wretched to be sinful. It is perhaps possible to regard it as sin for a worm to nourish such thoughts, but not for a human being, who is created in the image of God. Their desires are staid and dull, their passions drowsy. They perform their duties, these mercenary souls, but just like the Jews, they indulge in trimming the coins a little; they think that, even though our Lord keeps ever so orderly an account book, they can still manage to trick him a little. Fie on them!
And if he does think amorality is somehow worse than immorality, then both he and you are wrong.
It is. It's better to be a devil, than to be nothing at all. At least the devil uses the gift of free choice, and chooses something. The man who is nothing at all doesn't even choose. Things are chosen for them. Indifference to the gift of God - freedom - that is the worst of sins - worse than choosing evil.
You're sick, and so is Kierkegaard if he really believed that is better to take bad action than to take no action at all. Don't you think that an evil person is worse than a worm? How about comparing that evil person to a carrot? At least you can eat the carrot.
I think indifference to the gift of God - freedom - is worse than misuse of freedom. Thus, the one who neither sins nor is virtuous - the one who simply doesn't make use of freedom, the one who is indifferent to it - that is worse than having made a choice (whether it's for good or for evil). As Kierkegaard goes on to say it's the difference between despairing and not knowing that you despair, and being aware of your despair. The entirely evil person, who has chosen evil - is despairing but knows that he is despairing - there is a chance for him to be saved. Whereas the one who doesn't use his freedom at all, who makes no choice, and lets their choices be made by others - they are indifferent of their own despair, and they are hopeless. They cannot be saved.
Don't you think that an evil person is worse than a worm?
In comparison with his potential (represented by the rightful use of freedom) you could say he is worse than a worm, in-so-far as the worm fulfill its (more limited) potential and the man doesn't. But in comparison to someone who has this potential of freedom, but does not use it, either for good or for evil - in comparison to that person he is superior.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 19, 2016 at 20:41#340100 likes
Yeah, but she said you were in a basket, which I imagine to be a lovely little wicker basket with a red ribbon bow around it.
So it might have actually been a compliment! (Albeit a backhanded one).
I call bs on your response my fine feathered friend. You know full well it was not intended to be a compliment, nor was it received as one. In fact, after a request for clarification, her only correction was the % of the "deplorables", not that she wished she hadn't have said the whole remark.
While I realize your response was crafted in jest, try and entertain the idea that when someone calls you deplorable, you can give it little to no weight because you know that you are not deplorable.
But when someone who wants to be the leader of your country says, that because of your choice to support her competitor, that you are "deplorable"?
No, poor sportsmanship is claiming it's rigged... unless you win. And calling your opponents childish and insulting nicknames.
If she clarified by claiming that a certain percentage of Trump supporters are deplorable, then that's correct. They are. They include KKK newspaper The Crusader and convicted rapist Mike Tyson (which is hardly a surprise, given this), among others.
As for Kierkegaard, and the question of what he really believed, and what he said... one has to bear in mind that that quote is from Either/Or: a book which is more like a novel than a philosophical treatise, and which explores two fundamentally different views, written by fictional characters, which allows Kierkegaard to distance himself from the views explored and expressed in the book, and to hide his own position behind that of his characters.
Revelations 3:16 I wish you were cold or hot. Because you are lukewarm I will spit you out of my mouth.
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 19, 2016 at 22:09#340280 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank Great, thanks B.C., I like that one, think I'll use it on regular basis to attack all the mediocrity in the world. Because you are lukewarm I will spit you out of my mouth!
BuxtebuddhaNovember 19, 2016 at 22:20#340320 likes
It is. It's better to be a devil, than to be nothing at all.
So purgatory is worse than hell?
At least the devil uses the gift of free choice, and chooses something.
You're trying to glean something positive from an evil, which is strange to me.
The man who is nothing at all doesn't even choose.
Wait, wait, wait. We're talking about a man that does nothing, not that he is nothing. Also, how is doing nothing not a choice?
Things are chosen for them.
By whom, and how? Does somebody other than the "player" roll the dice on the Candyland board, and if they the roll means you don't move anywhere, then oh well? Is this person still fucked even though they didn't roll and it's their fault that someone else rolled a perfectly available option in "the game"?
Indifference to the gift of God - freedom - that is the worst of sins - worse than choosing evil.
Choice is a curse, not a freedom, because one cannot always do the good, thus we are doomed from the start with broken legs to try and run life's race.
~
Going back, I just don't see how it's possible for an amoral "thing" to somehow be worse morally than an immoral "thing." I can perhaps see how an amoral "thing" is "worse" (although not morally) than what is moral, but the other way around? Nope.
At least Trump fucking sins, and does it properly.
Trump is here following Martin Luther's counsel, at least half way: "Be a sinner and sin?? boldly..." Old Trump grabs 'em by the gonads in ever so many ways, which probably counts as a sin, just for starters. My guess is that Donald and Martin part ways over the second clause of the sentence: "but believe and?? rejoice in Christ even more boldly.” I don't see the Boss Donald paying too much attention to the Good Shepherd. Jesus didn't say, "Fleece my sheep."
What does that have to do with whether it's better to be a devil than to be nothing at all? The indifferent man is the most distant from God as far as I'm aware, more distant than the devil.
By the rest of their society. They tell them go to this school, study this in University, get yourself a job, etc. etc. Or they tell them, come smoke weed with us, come do this and that, etc.
Choice is a curse, not a freedom, because one cannot always do the good, thus we are doomed from the start with broken legs to try and run life's race.
Is this what the Bible says that "choice is a curse"?
Going back, I just don't see how it's possible for an amoral "thing" to somehow be worse morally than an immoral "thing." I can perhaps see how an amoral "thing" is "worse" (although not morally) than what is moral, but the other way around? Nope.
That's because indifference is not an amoral thing. That's a choice, the choice of rejecting the gift of freedom you have been offered because it's too hard to choose either good or evil.
Fair enough but we had to make a choice. We couldn't stand at the cross roads forever hoping the perfect person would come along and be willing to serve.
All those people are in the Netherlands anyway. You ain't much if you ain't Dutch!
Reply to Sapientia So you think Clinton's reference to Trump supporters is that she really just meant some were deplorable, as in maybe 1%, maybe 90%, she just needed to clarify? I think it's pretty obvious such a statement applies to every candidate's supporters. If I were to find a convicted racist who supported Clinton would I be similarly correct in implying he typified a Clinton supporter, much in the same way you used the Mike Tyson example? I mean that was your point, right?
And Tiff is right that many Clinton supporters are terrible losers. Dealing with the reality and saying "we'll get you next time" would not only be true, but it would show the person actually has competed and lost before and has enough character to get up and dust himself off and fight the next round, as opposed to curling up in the fetal position and showing us just how bad it hurts.
Does anyone really think this loss hurt you more than Obama's second term hurt us.
BuxtebuddhaNovember 20, 2016 at 14:09#342010 likes
What does that have to do with whether it's better to be a devil than to be nothing at all? The indifferent man is the most distant from God as far as I'm aware, more distant than the devil.
By the rest of their society. They tell them go to this school, study this in University, get yourself a job, etc. etc. Or they tell them, come smoke weed with us, come do this and that, etc.
Okay, so this fictional person we're talking about is being told what to do...but guess what? He's still choosing whether to do what he is told or not. Nobody and no thing is robbing him the choice between doing and not doing.
Is this what the Bible says that "choice is a curse"?
Well, considering the fact that if one does not believe, they're fucked, that's kind of a curse, for if you use your "free will" not to believe, you're punished. That's not much of a choice, now is it? This is besides the point, though.
That's because indifference is not an amoral thing.
How? Indifference is precisely not acting with moral or immoral intent, therefore it can only logically be amoral. Amorality is akin to apathy, which can be good, or it can be bad, but before that, it's amoral.
That's a choice, the choice of rejecting the gift of freedom
wat.
Rejecting the "gift of freedom" is in fact affirming the freedom through choosing to reject it.
you have been offered
Oohhhh, so you're admitting that we ourselves didn't even choose to be free through choice, it was offered us. Interesting, an offer that will kill you if you don't take it and do good. Hummm...
because it's too hard to choose either good or evil.
We very rarely get to choose between good or evil, instead relying upon good or ill intentions, with the idea that doing so will better bring about one or the other in the end. The choice between doing good or ill generally boils down to which future fog you'd like better to walk through. If it was so apparent what the right thing was to do or not do, I'd imagine we'd have far less amorally indifferent and apathetic people and more immoral and moral people.
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 20, 2016 at 14:32#342070 likes
No, I'm actually talking about someone who is nothing in the sense that he never truly chooses. All the choices are made for him.
You don't seem to understand Agustino, that to resist the temptation to choose is just as much an act of willing as it is to choose freely. This we call will power, and it is commonly represented as a suspending of judgement, a refusal to choose. The person who suspends judgement, and declines choosing is not a "nothing", but a person with a strong will power.
If such a person is necessarily a follower, like the proverbial sheep, how do you conclude that being such is worse than being a sinner?
Truly chooses? And choices are made for him? What, how?
Yes - choices are made for him/her when he or she follows what others tell him or her to follow in order to avoid the anxiety that comes with having to make a choice by oneself.
Okay, so this fictional person we're talking about is being told what to do...but guess what? He's still choosing whether to do what he is told or not. Nobody and no thing is robbing him the choice between doing and not doing.
No he doesn't choose - doing what others tell him or her becomes a means of guarding against the anxiety that comes with actually having to use freedom, and thus in the process upset people, and disturb the status quo.
Well, considering the fact that if one does not believe, they're fucked, that's kind of a curse, for if you use your "free will" not to believe, you're punished. That's not much of a choice, now is it? This is besides the point, though.
No I'm asking you what the Bible says. You said you are a believer, so I don't want to consider what someone who doesn't believe thinks.
How? Indifference is precisely not acting with moral or immoral intent, therefore it can only logically be amoral. Amorality is akin to apathy, which can be good, or it can be bad, but before that, it's amoral.
Only if you remove duty from the equation. You have a duty to care - if you are indifferent - if you don't care - you're neglecting your duty, and therefore you are immoral.
Rejecting the "gift of freedom" is in fact affirming the freedom through choosing to reject it.
It's my birthday. You bring me a present. I throw away the present. Thus I am affirming that I have received it, because I couldn't have thrown it away without first receiving it. See what I did there? >:O
Oohhhh, so you're admitting that we ourselves didn't even choose to be free through choice, it was offered us. Interesting, an offer that will kill you if you don't take it and do good. Hummm...
You can't choose to be free unless you already have the potential for freedom in you. Freedom is granted by God. Some waste it. Others use it, whether for good or for bad. We should encourage people away from indifference and apathy, and towards facing the anxiety of freedom, and making a choice, being who they are. Trump is who he is - he is evil in some regards. Congrats for him to sticking with it. Even Satan must play his role, and do it with utmost seriousness no? My biggest problem is that it's the bad guys who are out there batting, while the good guys don't do anything. Men of real moral value and character sit down. I don't want to get rid of the bad guys - that's God's job during the Apocalypse. I want us to be capable to fight them back and win. That's our job on Earth. It's not to get rid of evil - we'll never get rid of evil. That's the pipe dream that only Marxists and their ilk believe. But we do have to FIGHT evil - not look at it, not complain that it exists and wish that it didn't. We have to fight it back.
If it was so apparent what the right thing was to do or not do, I'd imagine we'd have far less amorally indifferent and apathetic people and more immoral and moral people.
Can you explain why you think such a "moral fog" exists?
You don't seem to understand Agustino, that to resist the temptation to choose is just as much an act of willing as it is to choose freely. This we call will power, and it is commonly represented as a suspending of judgement, a refusal to choose. The person who suspends judgement, and declines choosing is not a "nothing", but a person with a strong will power.
If such a person is necessarily a follower, like the proverbial sheep, how do you conclude that being such is worse than being a sinner?
And did I say overcoming your base instincts isn't a choice? Of course it is! That's in fact what choosing is all about. Following the dictates of your impulses and instincts, much like an animal, isn't choosing. Following the conditioning of your society, that too isn't choosing. You have to rise above both of those in order to choose. The sinner - the real sinner - is the one who HAS risen above his impulses, conditioning etc. S/he freely chooses to sin - much like the devil - fully knowing what he or she is doing. The blind follower is the one who still hasn't risen to the level where freedom can be used to choose either good or evil. He is "worse than the sinner" only because the sinner is at least human - but the one who rejects freedom outright, he is less than human. The sinner feels his own sorrow and desperation. He despairs knowingly. That is superior to the unknowing despair of indifference. The sinner is much more likely to be saved than the worm. The worm's indifference is a silent killer.
Reply to Heister Eggcart By the way, I've watched 12 Angry Men that you recommended, and liked it. An interesting movie! Ah, how I wish that modern day Hollywood movies would be like that. Instead what you get is Amy Schumer talking about some disgusting thing, or doing some disgusting thing...
BuxtebuddhaNovember 20, 2016 at 15:12#342170 likes
No he doesn't choose - doing what others tell him or her becomes a means of guarding against the anxiety that comes with actually having to use freedom, and thus in the process upset people, and disturb the status quo.
Nope. He still chooses whether to do or not to do what he is told. You're ignoring this point.
Only if you remove duty from the equation. You have a duty to care - if you are indifferent - if you don't care - you're neglecting your duty, and therefore you are immoral.
No, no, and no. It doesn't follow that not acting means not caring about what happens, only about which of this or that may or may not happen.
It's my birthday. You bring me a present. I throw away the present. Thus I am affirming that I have received it, because I couldn't have thrown it away without first receiving it. See what I did there?
Freedom would only reside in God. Any emanation from him would be an imperfect reflection through the broken mirror that is the human heart. Our freedom is coincidentally being restrained because we're not "God", thus we act under restraint, which isn't free.
We should encourage people away from indifference and apathy, and towards facing the anxiety of freedom, and making a choice, being who they are.
I disagree. As I said in my last post, if we force people to make decisions based on knowable future outcomes that are either moral or immoral, we'll therefore see people performing a higher rate of moral deeds, but also immoral ones, too. This can't be seen as being better, in my opinion.
My biggest problem is that it's the bad guys who are out there batting, while the good guys don't do anything. Men of real moral value and character sit down.
If being moral were as easy as being immoral, then we'd see a lot more love in the world.
Can you explain why you think such a "moral fog" exists?
Because most people don't understand love, which has them serving only their own ego. Although that sort of service might bring about the good, it more often than not brings about both amorality and immorality. I'd say that most people have the intention to do good for themselves and not others, which really isn't a good in the end.
The moral fog I only mean by saying that outside of good or ill intentions, most decisions made by everyone are done without the distinct knowledge of what moral outcome will come about as a result of their actions.
And did I say overcoming your base instincts isn't a choice? Of course it is! That's in fact what choosing is all about.
Your claim though, is that to not choose, which is actually to exercise the will power, (and this is often necessary to resist the temptation of making the wrong choice), is contrary to the use of free will. From this, you proceed to conclude that not choosing is worse than making the wrong choice, because this is to make use of the free will.
So you premise that using the free will is good. But you incorrectly premise that resisting choice is to not use the free will. Then you conclude that not choosing is worse than making a bad choice. Your argument is unsound because your premise that to resist choice is to not use the free will, is a false premise.
The blind follower is the one who still hasn't risen to the level where freedom can be used to choose either good or evil. He is "worse than the sinner" only because the sinner is at least human - but the one who rejects freedom outright, he is less than human.
See, you clearly express your unsound logic right here. You claim that to refuse to choose is to reject freedom, when actually it is an act which expresses freedom. So you wrongly insist that refusing to choose is less than human. Therefore you claim that the individual; who allows others to choose, and simply follows the others, is worse than the one who leads, but has chosen the wrong direction.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 20, 2016 at 17:30#342410 likes
So you think Clinton's reference to Trump supporters is that she really just meant some were deplorable, as in maybe 1%, maybe 90%, she just needed to clarify?
That was what Tiff said Hillary said. I merely said that if that is so, then that's correct.
I think it's pretty obvious such a statement applies to every candidate's supporters. If I were to find a convicted racist who supported Clinton would I be similarly correct in implying he typified a Clinton supporter, much in the same way you used the Mike Tyson example? I mean that was your point, right?
Me? No, I'm innocent. O:)
I did cherry pick some of the worst. And they are indeed deplorable. If you want to read more into it than that, be my guest.
And Tiff is right that many Clinton supporters are terrible losers.
I haven't denied that. As would have Trump's been - and possibly, arguably, more so. If the shmuck they voted for is anything to go by, then hell yeah they would've been! There probably would have been protests with protesters chanting nonsense like "Lock her up!" or perhaps "It was rigged!".
Tiff's comment about bad sportsmanship seemed to be directed at Hillary Clinton, rather than her supporters. And that's what I was responding to.
Indifference can't be evil or immoral in itself by this logic.
Indifference is evil - it's not that indifference can be used for evil - there just is no possibility for indifference to be good. So how come you see that being analagous to freedom?
Freedom would only reside in God. Any emanation from him would be an imperfect reflection through the broken mirror that is the human heart. Our freedom is coincidentally being restrained because we're not "God", thus we act under restraint, which isn't free.
Interesting, please expand on this conception. How do you define God's Freedom? And how does our freedom relate to God's Freedom?
As I said in my last post, if we force people to make decisions based on knowable future outcomes that are either moral or immoral, we'll therefore see people performing a higher rate of moral deeds, but also immoral ones, too.
This to me just means that people would be more alive.
Because most people don't understand love, which has them serving only their own ego.
Okay, what do you mean by love here to be more precise? The Christian commandment with regards to love applied amongst humans is "love your neighbour as your own self" - that commandment presupposes equal love between yourself and your neighbour. That means that you and your neighbour become like two components of one organism. Let's take 2 arms as a metaphor. If you love, then if one of the arms has to be sacrificed to save the organism, the one which is going to be sacrificed depends on which of them it is best to sacrifice in that circumstance for the organism. This doesn't necessarily mean you'll sacrifice yourself to save your neighbour. It could very well mean that you sacrifice your neighbour, because in that circumstance saving yourself is overall better than saving your neighbour. But this is not necessary - you should be ready to sacrifice yourself to save your neighbour if that's what's more important given the circumstances. It seems to me that today's progressives ignore this very important aspect, and they say "oh yeah always sacrifice yourself for your neighbour" - that's false and un-Christian. They peddle a false and nonsensical, supra-altruistic version of love, and they wield it as a moral club to destroy the real kind of love.
The moral fog I only mean by saying that outside of good or ill intentions, most decisions made by everyone are done without the distinct knowledge of what moral outcome will come about as a result of their actions.
Yes, we move with fear and trembling in our decisions.
Your claim though, is that to not choose, which is actually to exercise the will power, (and this is often necessary to resist the temptation of making the wrong choice), is contrary to the use of free will.
No will power is not "not choosing". When i overcome my instincts I choose to overcome them. I choose a higher good in other words, and sacrifice a lower good for it. That's not "not choosing". There is no temptation in a vacuum. I'm not just tempted to have sex with my friend's wife - that doesn't occur in a vacuum. It occurs within the framework of my entire life, including my moral values. So it's not that I resist having sex with my friend's wife by not choosing, as much as I choose not to, because I choose to respect the commandments of God and maintain my own and her own dignity, and the two are not mutually compatible.
I can't believe this guy calls himself a Christian...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Wills
Let's see... he thinks there's nothing wrong with abortion (but there is something wrong with the folks who think there's something wrong with abortion - he thinks killing the developing fetus is like killing sperm >:O - next he'll tell me that killing someone is no big deal, just re-configuring the atoms, you know what I mean... )... he thinks pre-martial sex is nothing wrong... he thinks priest celibacy (and any other kind of celibacy) is something terribly wrong and abnormal... wait... he actually thinks that priests shouldn't even exist... How for Christ's sake can this guy call himself a Christian and a Catholic? And then he actually quotes polls saying how most lay Catholics (stuff like 80-90%) actually agree with these inanities. He hasn't yet heard that the polls are all wrong, and they're all crooked, made as they are precisely to be biased and twist society a certain way >:O And even if he was right, that would only mean we have to kick those 80-90% of "Catholics" out, the Church would be far better off without them. Unbelievable. No wonder a progressive recommended this author to me. The Catholic Church should excommunicate him - the drawback is that he'd get more attention, so unfortunately we'll have to let him bark for awhile.
Oh and I forgot to mention he thinks Crooked Hillary is a nice old lady, whose followers are there not because they are compelled by their financial interest, but because they love and respect her, and they've been by her side her entire life >:O - and clearly he thinks Donald Trump is the devil incarnate
I also found out that for once I agree with Zizek:
Indifference is evil - it's not that indifference can be used for evil - there just is no possibility for indifference to be good. So how come you see that being analagous to freedom?
Why is there no possibility? You've yet to show that.
Please explain, I don't understand your point here.
You've been ruling out indifference as being completely devoid of care or concern, which I don't think is quite the whole story. Consider us both in the car. It's about dinner time and we're both famished. You ask me where I'd like to eat, and I respond, "I don't care." Now, does this mean that I don't care about eating at all? No, it means that I don't care where we go and eat, not that I don't care if we eat. Not in this universe at least have I done or said something evil by being indifferent to the means of attaining the good of an end.
How for Christ's sake can this guy call himself a Christian and a Catholic?
Says the man who takes the Lord's name in vain.
Also, let's not forget James 4:11-12:
"Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?"
Reply to Bitter Crank BC boss, you should bring that conspiracy video back, it was interesting! Do you think that there is a ruling financial elite? I'm asking because it seems absurd that money interests are mutually beneficent that there would be unity instead of discord at the very top.
Further, do you think it's difficult to become rich? I'm not talking about really really rich. But having a net worth of 2-5 million USD. I think that's possible for really anyone, it's more about character than anything else. Most people aren't rich simply because they don't have the patience, they are overcome by their anxiety, they don't think for themselves enough, or they simply don't want to do what it takes to be rich (run their own business or work for themselves) and they get involved in things which make it more difficult - marriage, children, relationships, etc. I mean if you dedicate your life to your work and forget about the other concerns, it's eminently possible.
But many people from what I see are more scared about "not living their life", whatever that means, that they aren't willing to dedicate themselves to work, for work's sake.
Do you think that there is a ruling financial elite? I'm asking because it seems absurd that money interests are mutually beneficent that there would be unity instead of discord at the very top.
If you are asking whether McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Pizza Hut get together to decide how to divide up the fast food market, no. (It's not inconceivable, however.) There are clearly competing interests. But if you are asking about whether the various trade groups, Chambers of Commerce, investment groups, National Association of Manufacturers, franchisers, and so forth form a more cohesive elite with common interests, then yes.
More importantly, however, is the "sociology of wealth". Various scholars have examined how wealthy people socialize, educate their children, recreate, and engage in self-interested politics, off center stage, mostly. In the social sphere, common interests can be recognized and acted upon across competing business interests. The elite -- not merely millionaires, but people with many millions and then billions of dollars -- also engage in organized social grouping across business interests. G. William Domhoff has written extensively on this matter.
Further, do you think it's difficult to become rich?
One has to desire riches, to start with. Honestly, I didn't. Besides that, I have rarely if ever recognized a good business opportunity even if I tripped over it.
But many people from what I see are more scared about "not living their life", whatever that means, that they aren't willing to dedicate themselves to work, for work's sake.
I started a thread on Work. Let's discuss this matter there. Perhaps "Living their life" should, whatever that means, have priority. And I'm not sure that "work for work's sake" is worthwhile.
(Speaking of work for work's sake... time to go across the street to church and continue the on-going cleaning. This is an unpaid activity--soli Deo gloria!) See you in the work thread.
Robert LockhartNovember 21, 2016 at 18:35#344100 likes
Good to see that the Shout Box - complete with its' attitude of disregard for the tiresome proprieties of civilised debate - has been ‘imported’ here from the old ‘Philosophy Forum’ site (just before, it seems, the latters’ old unmaintained circuits finally gave out!) Poor old ‘Hal’ though...How many former would-be-great philisophical speculations have thus likewise perished in oblivion!
Ehmmm didn't you post a Carlin video that you took off and replaced with the post I replied to?
Oh sure... but it was supposed to start in the middle, not at the beginning. That's why I took it off. There's a bunch of Carlin on YouTube. I used to not like him that much; now I think he is kind of vox comedia vox deo (vox populi vox deo).
Who Rules America G. William Domhoff The Higher Circles Domhoff WhoRulesAmerica Domhoff's web site
Some of his books, or earlier editions, are out of print but can be had through various channels--used book stores, and such. I haven't read the newest edition, so I don't know what data he cites in the current studies.
Also
The Rich and the Super-Rich: A Study in the Power of Money Today (1968) by Ferdinand Lundberg is one of the first BIG studies of the ruling class. After Lundberg got done with studying the rich he felt compelled to write The Natural Depravity of Mankind.
The first of these studies was America's 60 Families which looked at the 60 leading families around the turn of the century (19th to 20th). Amazon (???) has reprinted the study, but it is currently out of stock. I read it at one point; it is moderately interesting.
The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills (excellent)
The following has been gratuitously added for your further annoyance.
More importantly, however, is the "sociology of wealth".
— Bitter Crank
What kind of social interests would the wealthy have in common apart from ensuring that their wealth isn't taken away?
The ruling class (essentially made up of the very wealthy) have "class consciousness" and consequently they recognize their common interests.
They are interested in the concentration and/or continuation of family wealth. To that end, their children tend to be schooled at elite institutions (from pre-school on up) so that they learn how to be a member of the ruling class, and meet potential mates from the same class.
They are interested in the social amusements which go with ruling class status. Very wealthy people don't play golf on municipal golf courses, for instance. They don't go the mall to hang around. They don't eat at McDonalds or White Castle. They don't go on Carnival Cruises with 3,000 of their neighbors in adjacent (or distant) zip codes. They amuse themselves among each other.
They are interested in politics, but aren't going to attend big rallies at the county fair grounds or go door knocking. They prefer to meet with candidates at socially restricted events, out of sight.
Of course they are interested in business IF their family wealth is tied to current business activity. Some rich families are not closely connected to industrial activity. If they are 'rentiers" they own the land on which money-making institutions are sited, but they don't have any connection to the actual business, normally. So, they need to be concerned that their urban land maintains enough value to keep producing income. Rentiers of much of Detroit's land are presumably not collecting much from land on which derelict factories and gutted department stores are sitting.
The following has been gratuitously added for your further annoyance.
U.S. upper classes more likely to lie, cheat and think greed is good, study finds
Hahaha! That depends. It's a very interesting subject. Having lived amongst both rich and middle class I now know that the rich are generally a lot more immoral, selfish, greedy, and even sexually immoral >:O than those with lower incomes. Part of my distaste for sexual immorality comes from having been surrounded by it. I've always hated most of the rich. However - there are exceptions. John D. Rockefeller Sr. is someone I've always admired for his commitment to his business/work, his unyielding character, and his faith. He was perhaps the richest man of the past 200 years. I remember reading his biography, Titan, as a teenager. He donated 10% of his profits since he started working, even as he became a millionaire and then billionaire. He always attended Sunday Church. I admire that man, quite profoundly, despite reading the accounts of Ida Tarbell. It's true that some of his oil practices were unfair - but he did provide the best product at the lowest price. He did better than the others. This caused all of them to lose out. But John D. was just 100% dedicated to his work, he did little outside of it. Of course he'd do better than them. Never gambled, never drank, loyal to his wife and family. I have great admiration for such a person, though not for his family as they are today.
I guess, that wealth, like power, takes great character to handle, and most people don't have the character. So I'm not sure if the poor really are morally better than the rich on average. My hypothesis is that the majority, in both cases, is equally immoral. The only difference is that the rich have the luxury to show it, and the poor must hide it. But if you suddenly made that respective poor person rich, then they'd become immoral too. So I think it's a matter of character. A poor person with character will not be immoral even if they become rich.
I've known quite a few middle class and working class folk who dream about being rich and go on a yacht with many women, etc. I don't think those folks are moral, even though they quite possibly act like it - because they're not rich yet :P
John D. Rockefeller Sr. is someone I've always admired for his commitment to his business/work
You might be interested in reading about his son. Great Fortune: The Epic of Rockefeller Center by Daniel Okrent. It's about John D. Rockefeller Junior's great building project, but there's also a good deal about J. D. Rockefeller Jr. personally. I don't know if you are familiar with Rockefeller center... it isn't a building, it's a 6-block, 22 acre development with about 8 million sq. feet of office space. It was started in the 1920s, and some of the buildings were ready to open in 1930--not the most opportune year to start renting a lot of space. It was eventually quite economically successful.
This was interesting, but it's clear that the author is on the Left :P It's interesting - personally I'm on the Right, and I can see the exploitation claims of the Left - that which they call evil, I also call evil, although it's not what would concern me most simply because it's out of one's control in many situations. The only thing that truly matters for me is character, because character is always under your control. The difference as I see it, is that the Left can very rarely, if at all, see the moral concerns of the Right. They're more likely to attribute it to a means of exploitation, than to a real concern. I think this asymmetry guarantees conflict. Unless the Left is willing to compromise on the moral concerns of the Right - regarding behaviour, social values, sexual values, etc. - the Right will not be willing to collaborate in the fight against exploitation, simply because they cannot give up on their other values.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 22, 2016 at 00:11#344780 likes
In learning of Japan sustaining another Earthquake and a Tsunami warning, my heart and mind travel back to Mars Man and my hope that I was right in our debate, that our 'souls' do move on and he is somehow above his family and students, watching, making sure they are safe. (L)
I don't know much about his son, but I don't imagine he had the same morality as his father did.
Well, J. D. Jr. did not live in exactly the same world that J. D. Sr. did. For one thing, the regulatory environment his father worked in during the 19th century did not exist in the 20th century. Even if oil could have been a new discovery all over again, J. D. Jr. would not have been allowed to operate the way J. D. Sr. was. And Jr. discovered he didn't have any desire to focus his life on profit making.
Second, because a truly vast fortune had been made, and now belonged to the children of J. D. Sr., there was no reason to find a new virgin field to operate in. Indeed, managing the Rockefeller fortune was a great challenge.
Third, J. D. Jr. was enormously pained by the Ludlow Massacre. Colorado Fuel & Iron Company camp guards fired on a tent colony of 1,200 striking coal miners and their families at Ludlow, Colorado, on April 20, 1914. Some two dozen people, including miners' wives and children, were killed. The chief owner of the mine, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., was widely criticized for the incident. By the end of the strike, almost 200 people had been killed. I don't think J. D. Sr. or Jay Gould (the co-owner) would have lost much sleep.
Fourth J. D. Jr. was an educated man, was faithful to his father's [northern] Baptist religion, and was as circumspect in his behavior as it was possible to be. But he lived in an a much more modern urban age. When he began searching for some purpose to put his share of the fortune to work, he settled upon major philanthropy and the great urban renewal project that bears his name (Rockefeller Center). His wife was interested in modern art, and even though Jr. loathed much of the art, he funded it--and gave his wife free reign with it.
Rockefeller Sr. and Jr. began their philanthropy before Sr's death. Among their works:
conserving natural landscapes,
preserving historical landmarks
collecting fine art
fostering international cooperation
promoting the cause of Protestant Modernism (and were very much against fundamentalism)
the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (1901) (now Rockefeller University)
the General Education Board (1903),
the Sanitary Commission for the Eradication of Hookworm (1909),
the Rockefeller Foundation (1913)
Helped in creating or contributed to
Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming
Acadia National Park in Maine
Colonial Williamsburg (restoration)
Yosemite National Park
Humboldt Redwoods State Park
Shenandoah National Park
Mesa Verde National Par
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Restoration of Versailles
the restoration of Notre-Dame de Reims
Reconstruction of the main library of Tokyo Imperial University (now Tokyo University),
Grants to the American School for Classical Studies helped archaeologists excavate the Ancient Agora of Athens.
he launched the Palestine Museum (now the Rockefeller Museum), the first institute in Jerusalem devoted to archeological preservation
He brought medieval art and the Cloisters to New York (by pillaging art in Europe--an old tradition)
Contributed the land on which the United Nations was built in New York
He was a founder and major contributor to the Council on Foreign Relations
He created the International Education Board and provided $28 million to fund graduate studies and institutions in 39 countries
Large contributions to the University of Chicago
and more...
Jr. and Sr. Rockefeller donated $537 and $540 million dollars, separately. (Obviously, a half a billion dollars in the early 20th century was quite a pile of donations. Later, in mid-century, half a billion was a lot.)
Carnegie and the Rockefellers both recognized that once you have made an enormous fortune, there isn't much you can do with it but give it away, and giving away a vast amount of money is hard work, they found.
Why is there no possibility? You've yet to show that.
Well to see why there is no possibility that indifference is good, one just has to understand the definition of it. To be indifferent, simply means not to care. If you're indifferent about X, then it means you don't care about it. Now that is either neutral - if for example you don't care which restaurant we go to - or evil - if for example you don't care about the suffering of, say, your brother or sister. We cannot conceive of a situation where indifference is morally good - and likewise we cannot conceive of a situation when caring is morally deficient. If you can, then please enlighten me with a single example :P
God must be absolutely free. Although, such is a paradox.
Why must God be absolutely free? For God to be absolutely free, it would mean that He is free of his own essence as well - of his own "structure" so to say, and thus isn't God.
I called Heaven last night, and I spoke with them, and they told me that we must toil futilely because there just isn't anything better to do. Have you found something better? :P
Now that is either neutral - if for example you don't care which restaurant we go to - or evil - if for example you don't care about the suffering of, say, your brother or sister...We cannot conceive of a situation where indifference is morally good
If you've just admitted that one act of indifference is neutral and not "evil", then indifference cannot only be "evil" if it can also be neutral - or as I've said, amoral. Again, indifference in itself is necessarily amoral. What matters morally, however, are the fruits of being indifferent - whether one chooses to be a good Samaritan, for instance.
I simply mean that when one is compelled to do something, whether it's by a gun to the head, or by social pressures, one isn't free - in most cases.
People still choose, regardless of there being a gun pointed at their head. Think of some of the Christian martyrs who chose to die for their faith instead of relinquishing it or fighting against their captors. They chose God over themselves. To suggest that they didn't have this choice would be absurd.
I called Heaven last night, and I spoke with them, and they told me that we must toil futilely because there just isn't anything better to do. Have you found something better?
Agustino, this is not an argument. Indulge my question with a proper answer, please.
The ruling class (essentially made up of the very wealthy) have "class consciousness" and consequently they recognize their common interests.
They are interested in the concentration and/or continuation of family wealth. To that end, their children tend to be schooled at elite institutions (from pre-school on up) so that they learn how to be a member of the ruling class, and meet potential mates from the same class.
That certainly paints the picture of some wealthy people, but not all, and I doubt the majority. Your view of the wealthy is that of very old money, of people living in the cocoon created by generations of exclusivity. Some rich are flamboyant, some elegant, some deeply concerned about society, some useless parasites. It just seems you've chosen the easiest stereotype to describe, and I'd suspect that many who are born to old money find it stifling and unacceptable. They're sort of just people, you know.
unenlightenedNovember 22, 2016 at 17:27#345890 likes
If you've just admitted that one act of indifference is neutral and not "evil", then indifference cannot only be "evil" if it can also be neutral - or as I've said, amoral. Again, indifference in itself is necessarily amoral. What matters morally, however, are the fruits of being indifferent - whether one chooses to be a good Samaritan, for instance.
I think he is mainly implying can indifference be morally good? Which you didn't answer as well. Something can have the possibility of being amoral (neutral) and/or evil, but not good. However, Agustino did provide a counter-example to his second last statement in the first paragraph.
...Now that is either neutral - if for example you don't care which restaurant we go to...We cannot conceive of a situation where indifference is morally good - and likewise we cannot conceive of a situation when caring is morally deficient...
Agustino might have thought deficient means evil or something worse than neutral (amoral).
People still choose, regardless of there being a gun pointed at their head. Think of some of the Christian martyrs who chose to die for their faith instead of relinquishing it or fighting against their captors. They chose God over themselves. To suggest that they didn't have this choice would be absurd.
Yeah, but these Christian martyrs were influenced by expectations from their former societies (social pressures). Otherwise, not defending one's faith wouldn't truly be faithful or the way of a strong believer, right? In a way, they had no choice but to die with their faith because it would go against their expectations of not just their faith but their character.
I simply mean that when one is compelled to do something, whether it's by a gun to the head, or by social pressures, one isn't free - in most cases.
I think using the word "free" in that sentence was poor word choice. A person does have the ability (freedom) to fight against social pressures. Hopefully you aren't that weak, Agustino.
Why must God be absolutely free? For God to be absolutely free, it would mean that He is free of his own essence as well - of his own "structure" so to say, and thus isn't God.
A true God has absolute power. If a God is restrained in any way it would contradict this definition of a God. However, a God does have a role to play out, which I would regard as responsibilities or expectations. However, a God is an amoral term, thus a God can be neglectful or evil. Just because you have a child doesn't mean you have no choice but to take care of the child well. However, doing so would be a responsible and good way of being a parent or guardian. Also, it wouldn't make much sense to me that a God without free will would make humans with free will?
The mistake is to define God with respects to absolute power, instead of to define absolute power with respect to God. Since God has ontological primacy, absolute power simply is what God is capable of through His own essence.
If a God is restrained in any way it would contradict this definition of a God
Well God is "restrained" by his own Being. God cannot make a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it, and then lift it. He can't do either the first - making such a stone - or the second - lifting it. Those are impossibilities.
Well God is "restrained" by his own Being. God cannot make a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it, and then lift it. He can't do either the first - making such a stone - or the second - lifting it. Those are impossibilities.
True, didn't think of that, but the terms "restrain" and "power" are relative terms. If God wanted to, it could be too weak to lift a rock, but strong enough to carry a mountain. The problem is that judging power is a relative way of analyzing something.
We are restrained by our own natures, but at the same time we have freedom of choice or free will. We just aren't 100% restrained from everything outside of our existence in the environment. Everyone, including God, which you proved, has limitations, but at the same time has "some" little room for free will.
The mistake is to define God with respects to absolute power, instead of to define absolute power with respect to God. Since God has ontological primacy, absolute power simply is what God is capable of through His own essence.
This kind of supports my first response of this post and you're correct.
We are restrained by our own natures, but at the same time we have freedom of choice or free will. We just aren't 100% restrained from everything outside of our existence in the environment. Everyone, including God, which you proved, has limitations, but at the same time has "some" little room for free will.
Yes, agreed.
Barry EtheridgeNovember 23, 2016 at 13:07#347310 likes
Reply to Barry Etheridge
By what logic could God grant free-will to mankind if He Himself didn't have it? Can one give what one doesn't have? That would be silly.
Contributing to a discussion on some moral/ethical discussion with what appears to be a general point but has the chief function of demonstrating the superior virtuousness of the writer. Or, as the Urban Dictionary puts it ..
Advocating a political or philosophical position, and/or taking up a public cause, from a position of vanity, for the primary purpose of demonstrating your conformity with fashionable pop culture values.
Barry EtheridgeNovember 23, 2016 at 17:45#347590 likes
Of course one can put into a creation that which one does not have. It's the very definition of creation in God's case. At the very simplest level, God the immaterial creates material!
Basically it's what people without a brain do when they lick up to the prevailing culture - in this case, to Hollywood-driven Leftism. I'm sure many of the folks on facebook do precisely this when they post for example regarding transexual bathrooms and stuff like that. I must state that I hate this "virtue signalling" more than anything when I see it - even if it were used to support something that I support. I found that folks who virtue signal have no shame generally.
Of course one can put into a creation that which one does not have. It's the very definition of creation in God's case. At the very simplest level, God the immaterial creates material!
I'm unsure that the distinction material/immaterial has a role to play from God's POV. It's a useful distinction for us to separate, for example, our thoughts from the world around us. I suspect that from God's point of view, matter too is immaterial ;)
Reply to Bitter Crank Interesting! Thanks for sharing that. I've ordered the Rockefeller Center book. He seems to have been a good man from what you say!
It seems a bit weird to call caffeine a drug, but that's what it is. I've been drinking an energy drink, and I don't feel great. I associate the feeling with the feeling I would get from a comedown on ecstasy - maybe because the ecstasy was mixed with caffeine. And both are stimulants with some similar effects.
Basically it's what people without a brain do when they lick up to the prevailing culture - in this case, to Hollywood-driven Leftism. I'm sure many of the folks on facebook do precisely this when they post for example regarding transexual bathrooms and stuff like that. I must state that I hate this "virtue signalling" more than anything when I see it - even if it were used to support something that I support. I found that folks who virtue signal have no shame generally.
But how can anyone tell the difference? Let's say I support black lives matter because of the sanctity of life. How can you, or anyone, tell whether I'm being vocal about it because I'm trying to demonstrate my moral superiority or because I actually believe it's the right thing to do?
Reply to Agustino Yep, it's the duty of the political leadership to take over private property on television, not the judicial branch to intervene if something illegal has happened. Better example of fascism is hard to be found.
But how can anyone tell the difference? Let's say I support black lives matter because of the sanctity of life. How can you, or anyone, tell whether I'm being vocal about it because I'm trying to demonstrate my moral superiority or because I actually believe it's the right thing to do?
Well I think it's about the whole way in which you approach it. If you post something informative about black lives matter, that contains your own argument/explanations, and you're willing to discuss peacefully with others then I will probably consider that you're doing it because you believe it's the right thing. As you are an intelligent person - relative to the majority I'm speaking here - you will most likely post something intelligent as well.
But if you are some Casanova who spends all his time seducing women, but otherwise when you get on Facebook you post all the pop-culture stuff relating to POMO propaganda regarding race, gender, sexuality, etc. - then obviously you're demonstrating moral superiority - whether you're conscious about it or not. Because the fact of the matter is that most people who virtue signal are so stupid they don't even understand what they're doing. They post some shit about Kim Kardashian (or Amy Schumer) and feminism for example. And they do that frequently, without much commentary, input, or thinking. They do that to be among the "cool" people - they do exactly what I hate, licking up. The only reason they think X is the right thing is because X is cool
Yep, it's the duty of the political leadership to take over private property on television
Actually I think it is. I don't want leaders to bow their heads to the big money interests and treat them like servants. That's not dignifying for a leader. Think of Obama... supposedly the most powerful man in the world bows his head to the big banks and big corporations. That's embarrassing. He should be disciplining them, in public, so that others like them learn that they cannot steal whatever money they want or abuse their consumers in whatever way they want. They learn who the leaders are, and that they stand up for the people.
Guys, please, I'm trying to talk about caffeine here. What's more important?
I would talk about caffeine with you but I have no experience in that. I stopped drinking coffee in highschool, and never drank it since except on extraordinary occasions. Energy drinks - never. Ecstasy - never. + I don't get addicted that easily to things - I used to smoke a few years back, I quit in one day - I was too lazy to light up cigarettes, take care to throw them, etc. such a hassle.
I can still remember when I went to Holland... my aunt drank "Mann Pis" - she thought it was juice >:O - so no, I don't think i would take the chance with those offerings...
West Palm Beach Thanksgiving
Sun & Clouds frame the day
Aromas waft my nose
Happy Thanksgiving!
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 24, 2016 at 14:19#349530 likes
Fellow thinkers and friends~
Thank you once again for being a part of my life~ For some of us, we are working on our second decade of having the pleasure of thinking together and I look forward to a few more~ So as we in the USA celebrate Thanksgiving, I raise my glass to you, in a toast of gratitude~
Cheers~
Tiff
Fellow thinkers and friends~
Thank you once again for being a part of my life~ For some of us, we are working on our second decade of having the pleasure of thinking together and I look forward to a few more~ So as we in the USA celebrate Thanksgiving, I raise my glass to you, in a toast of gratitude~
Cheers~
Tiff
Are you an alcoholic? I mean, what time is it over there? :-O
Well I think it's about the whole way in which you approach it. If you post something informative about black lives matter, that contains your own argument/explanations, and you're willing to discuss peacefully with others then I will probably consider that you're doing it because you believe it's the right thing. As you are an intelligent person - relative to the majority I'm speaking here - you will most likely post something intelligent as well.
So basically it's an ad hominim because it doesn't really address whatever virtue a person is extolling? If the above weren't (substantive arguments) the case you can argue that their argument is vacuous, instead of virtue signalling. The latter, like champagne socialist, is a statement about someone else's character.
For example, I suppose Dicaprio is virtue signalling with his documentary on global warming. Seems like a bad reason to ignore the content of the documentary though.
The phrase strikes me as one of those conversation stoppers like "whatever" and "talk to the hand".
[quote=The Guardian]Hawkish trio – Jeff Sessions as attorney general, Mike Pompeo as CIA chief and Michael Flynn as national security adviser – have made inflammatory statements about race relations, immigration, Islam and the use of torture.[/quote]
Dilemma. Both are the same price. Do I go with the one I prefer the style of (red, faux leather) or the one which will probably be more comfortable (charcoal, fabric)?
Reply to Wosret Argh, I really don't know. Grey is a bit boring. I could buy cushions for the red one, but the back is low, and it looks like the seat goes quite far back.
Comfort is definitely important. I'm going to spend a lot of time on the couch, and I'll need good back support.
Reply to Sapientia the gray one isn't a couch, it's a "love seat" and the problem with love seats is that they are not long enough to stretch out on (except for the cat). As for the cat, whatever it uses as a scratch post will eventually be messed up.
Have you actually sat in either of these? Are you familiar with the brands? Ordering chairs on line does present the problem of sight unseen and the sit unsat.
Grey is always a good color, and leather is better than plastic. Unfortunately, leather costs more. How firm is the stuffing? Neither of them look very comfortable. I have a very dark blue leather couch (it was half-price). It's long. It's very comfortable to sleep on. It's also very hard to get out of. The older I get, the harder it becomes. I suppose I'll die on the couch someday because I was unable to get up out of it. (It's too soft, one sinks down too much.) You probably don't have to worry about dying in your chair yet.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 27, 2016 at 13:03#354920 likes
During a Thanksgiving conversation, my Step Dad from age 8 on was arguing with my Mom, that my brother was my Father and not my brother being my biological brother.
It was a confused thought, similar to some of the thoughts my Mom has been expressing to me that my Step Dad is having but one that I hadn't heard for myself.
How much time?.....
I loved Cuba the only time I visited, fifteen years ago. The public transport system had almost broken down at the time - they were oil-poor after the Soviet collapse and before Venezuela went crazy over its oil supplies - so when, by a miracle of negotiation by then partner, we hired an old jeep, we ended up giving loads of local hitch-hikers rides. People we met were very welcoming, and mostly had a melancholy affection for the regime, and so did I. What they'd achieved in health and education was marvellous, and even now I think their primary health care is probably better than the USA's. But the cost of four decades of ideological authoritarianism was great. Still there was socialism with sex and music, a far cry from Russian communism :)
The gray one isn't a couch, it's a "love seat" and the problem with love seats is that they are not long enough to stretch out on (except for the cat).
Why single out the grey one? They're both the same size. And neither are named or described as love seats, which are even smaller.
I don't mind if I can't lie down fully on it or don't have as much room as some of the larger sofas. It's mainly going to be for myself alone, and for sitting, and I'm constrained by a limited budget and limited space.
Have you actually sat in either of these? Are you familiar with the brands? Ordering chairs on line does present the problem of sight unseen and the sit unsat.
No and yes. It had to be online because they're a lot cheaper than furniture stores. It doesn't have to be ideal, and it looks sufficiently comfy.
How firm is the stuffing? Neither of them look very comfortable.
Not sure, but I reckon firm enough, and I reckon the sofa I'll get will be comfortable enough. I could let you know at some point in the future once I have it.
I have a very dark blue leather couch (it was half-price). It's long. It's very comfortable to sleep on. It's also very hard to get out of. The older I get, the harder it becomes. I suppose I'll die on the couch someday because I was unable to get up out of it. (It's too soft, one sinks down too much.) You probably don't have to worry about dying in your chair yet.
Long and very comfortable are good features, but I can't afford that luxury. I could have gone with a very comfortable looking two-seater, but those ones seem to be priced at around double what I spent.
And yeh, hopefully neither of us will die in our sofas anytime soon.
Too late, and it would've been a lot more expensive that way.
The price difference is relatively large between the value online-only websites and sofa stores. For example, the cheapest online being about £150 compared with the cheapest in-store being around maybe £399. (Maybe more, I'd have to check again. I checked once already, and it just confirmed what I expected. I'm not willing to part with several hundred pounds for a sofa).
Fact-checking website says there is "zero evidence"...
This is very concerning coming from someone in a role such as President Elect.
As opposed to Leavers and Remainers sticking to the facts?
It's "Some people say ...." and that's that. Nobody gives two shites about the facts. Not even newspapers, because reporting a quote is a fact in itself. The content of the quote is irrelevant. And people lap up celebrity opinion like water, because they're ever so curious what the rich and famous think and feel, trying to live the big life vicariously.
I didn't have space for, and couldn't afford a long couch until the late middle ages. Before that it was a mish--mash of sometimes ratty and/or uncomfortable junk. The long couch was especially welcomed by the dog who could take up as much space as me or Bob. She appreciated not having to wedge herself into insufficient room or drape herself over bony, uncomfortable legs.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 28, 2016 at 14:30#358290 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank It's really good to hear you speak of Bob. I think of you often and where you would be if Bob was still alive. My guess is that you wouldn't be with us and I do so enjoy your presence that I wish both could have existed together.
Warmest wishes of the season to you {{{BC}}} ~ (L)
The long couch was especially welcomed by the dog who could take up as much space as me or Bob. She appreciated not having to wedge herself into insufficient room or drape herself over bony, uncomfortable legs.
That probably won't be a problem for me and my little cat. Her favourite place is inside my backpack. Here she is in a draw which I forgot to close:
"Really, I more look at life like an airplane trip. It's great if there is a decent movie on or something, but what you mostly want is for nothing horrible to happen."
Reply to Wosret Maybe if you didn't do bullshit work and actually nailed down the shingles, your slack ass face wouldn't get cut. It's not a race to get done. There are real life people living in that house that need to stay safe. Think of them instead of just trying to earn a paycheck.
Yeah, yeah. I was being lazy though, it was cold and light snowing all day, and 5/12 pitch so nothing was staying put... and I was doing the second story of a duplex, only one side, so had to tie them into the other side, and neighbor didn't like that very much, lol. Anyway, instead of carrying the bundles up to the second level, I just opened them and threw half up, and then the other half, and I was going to do it with a second bundle when I heard the shingle coming, so I of course looked right at it, and did catch it, but it also hit me in the face. Just a small cut, but it was more blunt force than a scratch, so it will likely be bruised tomorrow.
Reply to Mongrel How will American totalitarianism look? The Statue of Liberty saluting, in a military hat? With every square inch sponsored by the makers of something inessential to life?
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 01, 2016 at 11:55#364140 likes
Hanover, would you even get on that roof yourself while it is lightly snowing? Please...check to make sure your Home Owners Insurance will cover your ass, that will quickly be planted on a patch of snow, on the somewhat frozen ground. Better to find out before you go to the Hospital because once you are there you're at the mercy of Obama Care. :-O
Wosret, you amaze me and made me laugh but I gotta tell you, if you hear something falling from above you, take two steps to the left and then look up. ;)
The two of you would make a great team! It would be such the comic relief I need!
lolololol :D
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 01, 2016 at 12:04#364170 likes
How will American totalitarianism look? The Statue of Liberty saluting, in a military hat? With every square inch sponsored by the makers of something inessential to life?
Possibly. I think Godzilla is actually an image of the US.. walking around eating cars...
Robert LockhartDecember 01, 2016 at 21:27#364700 likes
Consoled lately while drinking alcohol – amidst the intrusion of a perennial sense of guilt into the pleasure thereby gained - by the retrospective realisation that, over the years, my intemperate habit has nonetheless enabled me to regularly witness an example of the most profound type of interaction occurring in the Universe, one related to the nature of consciousness itself and inimical to being described by the scientific method – the interaction occurring between Sensorial and Non-Sensorial entities, represented in this case by my landlord’s ‘Pint of the Best’ and the ensuant attitude of insouciance it then engenders within my mind. – Seems, looking back, it was all part of my researches! ;)
CiceronianusDecember 02, 2016 at 00:05#365070 likes
How will American totalitarianism look? The Statue of Liberty saluting, in a military hat? With every square inch sponsored by the makers of something inessential to life?
It will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross, as Sinclair Lewis said fascism would come to America. And it will look much like Anthony Comstock, U.S. Postal Inspector who championed and rigorously enforced the laws named after him prohibiting the use of the mails to convey obscene and indecent information, like that related to birth control.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 02, 2016 at 11:34#365630 likes
How come when you lose weight that you lose it in all of the wrong places?
btw that is a rhetorical question and I am PMSing, so I am capable of going from 'sweet and sassy' 8-) to 'TOTAL Bitch' >:) in less than two seconds flat.
Now....who here has Chocolate?
~~searching Benkei's stash~~
You know. You inherited comedy from Moses or whatever. Everyone knows that "let my people go" was a running gag like "take my wife", but then got took all seriously.
Little known fact though! There were originally 586 commandments, but most of them were about bagels and shit, or jokes that only he got.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff I'd pray for a light dusting if I were roofing. Wosret would die within minutes of standing on a roof in the hot Georgia sun. He'd die because he's a weak Canadian who wears those puffy capri pants like the mounted police and his pasty Nordic skin can't take any heat. That's why.
Lol, it's true. My special racial ability is being the best at getting sunburns. Also over absorption of iron, as we're super awesome at bleeding a lot too.
There were actually three tablets! Mel Brooks got it right, though most people think he was just joking. Look at thirdtablet-truther.com! Unless that site has been shut down by "you know who". Moses dropped the third tablet, breaking it completely. But he had read it beforehand. Some say that the extra commandments included "don't harsh thy neighbor's buzz without good reason" and "thou shall not vote a jackass into office". However, later commentators were divided as to whether that meant a literal jackass (donkey) or just a person as ignorant and stubborn as one.
What do you think the missing tablet actually said?
The missing tablet was just some shit God scribbled down, like directions to Mt. Sinai and a shopping list. He was supposed to buy Ms. God some angel hair pasta for the dinner guests.
The third tablet was created by Satan, and as it ascended the heavens, it predictably burned, thus explaining the current ban of such tablet devices on airplanes.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 04, 2016 at 13:00#368160 likes
From what I can tell, it is safe to say that Banno is alive and doing well. He has been in a verbal joust with another 'thinker' about two topics: The ramifications of Trump being elected. :-} and Australia making a deal with Obama and Kerry to send 1,200 to 2,500 refugees, to the USA. Humans that the Australian government refuses to accept and places them in detention camps where 'humane' is not a word the refugees know, nor dignity. If a refugee gives birth to a baby in a detention camp, they are issued a number not a name. If women are raped and they report it to the detention center Doctors? The Doctors are not allowed to report it.
Banno is not happy with his government's solution but for me? It is so unbelievably mind boggling because the Australia I know is not a third world country and it is not as if the USA doesn't have it's own immigration issues. But go ahead, send your huddled masses but when you do, I request that they send the Grannies that have been caring for the refugees and the Doctors that give care to these souls. I have been following the Refuge Asylum seekers of Australia for two years now and this is the best solution the Australian government can come up with?
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 04, 2016 at 13:42#368230 likes
Okay this may sound hokey but I would love to challenge my fellow thinkers to: Each day, perform one act of kindness with no expectation in return. It is an awesome feeling and you can choose how involved you are. If you don't want to be known as the kind person, when the clerk gives you back a $5 tell him to apply it to the next person that was coming up short.
We have roadside crosses that mark the death of someone and many are very, very personal in their makeup. Well, this time of year, I like to leave an ornament on the cross or a mini Rosemary tree with a little garland in the lights of all the candles or all those that are not lit.
I gave $5 to a Salvation Army Bell ringer and apologized that I wish it could be more. To which she answered, any money is worthy. She said did you know we can feed 7 people for one dollar? I was floored and thought, maybe someone is eating because of that donation.
Next year I want to volunteer for Wreaths Across America for all the soldiers graves at Arlington National Cemetery. They cost $15 and in today's world? I think I can make the case to purchase one as my Uncle who served 33 yrs in the Army, insists on a place setting be laid out, a chair reserved, for the soldier that cannot be with us. The "NEXT" generation needs to know the why we are so very fortunate.
Trump foreign policy in 140 characters. Nixon was famous for his Madman Theory of International Politics. The unpredictable response of a madman has to be reckoned with carefully...
BuxtebuddhaDecember 05, 2016 at 22:17#371040 likes
Forget the sofa and the flat for it go in. I don't even need a stool. A barrel will do.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 06, 2016 at 11:55#372020 likes
Who wants to help me bake cookies?
I need just a little help: baking homemade Oatmeal Rum Raisin cookies for corporate gifts of 2 dozen each.
I also need help with packaging and delivery.
2 dozen cookies x 20 corporate gifts = 40 Dozen
Hmmmm......come on, you know you want to!
Terrapin StationDecember 06, 2016 at 12:02#372030 likes
I'd love to be there, but that's a bit too far for me to go to help you make cookies--I'm in New York City.
Aww Thank you for your offer, as the intention is often more important than the result.
Speaking of results the cookie baking was interrupted by a holiday event for a client so I am already behind. :-} It's beginning to feel like Christmas here in the Sonoran Desert! No more need for AC!
Yippie! 8-)
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 08, 2016 at 11:35#374860 likes
I am pretty sure "he" is a she.
Mongrel, did I just change your gender?
Oops! In that case, my apologies for assuming. Since I hadn't had my bottle or nap at the time, i forgot to use the more inclusive "they" pronoun. That seems to be more acceptable recently, as an alternative to he/she pronouns. Which is a good thing, imho. Language might be as much a living organism as it is a physical tool. (L)
Robert LockhartDecember 08, 2016 at 15:32#375530 likes
Re some comments on Nietzsche recently: The current fashion for attributing credibility to Nietzche's casuistic ideological ramblings is really just an example of how silly fashions can be! He argued for ex that the status of a Roman slave - merely in that he endured his state of enslavement - was proof that his master, in being such, was therefore innately a higher order of being...in which case an effet sybaritic Roman enabled to procure as a slave via the Roman army's military prowess, of which he was merely a passive beneficiary, a former warrior who had fought hopelesly to preserve his tribe's liberty was relatively then the intrinsically greater being!
Reply to Mongrel
Yeah, I do sometimes get Bagles and Beagles confused though. :P
Robert LockhartDecember 08, 2016 at 15:59#375780 likes
On the subject of philosophy, my own favourite buiscuit is a ginger snap - sometimes wonder though, as I dunk them in my tea, whether this appetite of mine is determined or innately autonomous...
Robert LockhartDecember 08, 2016 at 16:26#375860 likes
Wonder why there currentlly exists a popular angst - albeit tacit - that some day pretty soon there will be panic in the world? A feeling that the end of the world is imminent has regularly occurred in many cultures. The German artist Albrecht Dürer gave famous expression to that notion, current in his own culture, via his Apocolypse series of engravings - this work even giving the additional modern meaning of the word as involving terrible destruction over the soley biblical reference the word had previously had. - Would be an effective 'Zeitgeist' title for a movie that, I think - 'Panic in the World...' The contagion of all contagions!
Wonder why there currentlly exists a popular angst - albeit tacit - that some day pretty soon there will be panic in the world?
Anxiety is a chemical imbalance. It may be produced by a fear of something, or it may be produced by something else. If it is produced by something else, then it will produce a something feared. Where do you get your chemicals from, good honest emotions, or a synthetic source?
I'm Spartacus! Unless... of course... you are planning on hurting me or torturing or causing bodily harm of some variety. In which case... He's Spartacus! Nice soldier!
:D
Happy 100th birthday Kirk! (L)
The most beautiful part of the human form is the male nipple.
This is true, and oddly enough, the male nipple has only been mentioned only 3 times so far on The Philosophy Forum (this makes the fourth).
I chalk this up to many philosophers' discomfort with the facticity of their bodies. Many seem to think they are not embodied. And are tits on a boar beautiful precisely because they are so useless? One wonders.
There are some details in the body which are there simply for aesthetic reasons, and for no practical purpose--for example, the nipples of a man's chest, and the beard on his face, the latter being clearly for a masculine ornament, not for protection. (Augustine, City of God 22.24; trans. Bettenson)
Not sure about beauty, he didn't say the nipple is an ornament. Well, have you ever seen male nipples that kept you in awe (non-pruriently)? I don't think I've seen any, maybe David's but then again all of him is awesome.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 12, 2016 at 11:09#381470 likes
The most beautiful part of the human form is the male nipple
How about: The most beautiful part of the human form is the nipple.
Seems to work, yes?
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 12, 2016 at 11:24#381500 likes
Good Lord Hanover, is this another 2 cops shot serving a warrant? (N)
Robert LockhartDecember 12, 2016 at 16:55#381840 likes
The mail nipple is of course just a redundant vestige of the nascent process occurring in the womb prior to sexual speciation beginning. We were all originally femail it seems - even Arnold Swarzenegger - though, rather than mamaries, his chest sometimes looked maybe like he got born with two buts! :)
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 13, 2016 at 11:21#383060 likes
[quote=BBC News]There's a certain amount of irony in Mr Perry's selection, given that he is slotted to head the Department of Energy, which he famously forgot the name of when listing Cabinet-level posts he'd cut during a 2008 Republican primary debate.[/quote]
The Netherlands never had a female prime minster either and progressives had a recent setback in that area as well; we're no longer ruled by a queen. But at least we're still surrounded by dykes.
Reply to Benkei I would rather the U.K. had never had a female prime minister than the one we had, and the one we've got. Be careful what you wish for.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 17, 2016 at 11:29#391190 likes
Snarky Dutchmen I tell ya...
So my Mother In Law is looking for a property near us (less than 5 miles) after selling her paid off home to buy a Motor Home to tour the country. Well after exploring the NW for the last 6 months, SHE"S BACK!!!!
Lord grant me the serenity ....to not ....mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......
Robert LockhartDecember 20, 2016 at 17:18#397650 likes
Some say that, effectively, great Art enables us to look out of other people’s eyes - thereby permitting even the astonishing feat of enabling you to live in the past...Macaulay’s history of Victorian Britain for example is famous for its’ insight into that society but nonetheless his medium was in principle incapable of objectively communicating - in the manner accomplished by Dickens - the zeitgeist of that particular era.
Robert LockhartDecember 20, 2016 at 17:19#397660 likes
The perhaps most revelatory indicator of how incomprehensible to the human mind is the actual nature of our Human Condition? - even if the unthinkable were never to be realised – that it is such that the occurrence of the nihilism Thermo-Nuclear war is in principle possible...
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 21, 2016 at 12:05#399730 likes
Snowbirds are much more fun Mongrel! They drive in the right hand lane with their turn signal on, you can barely see that someone is driving because many cannot see over the dashboard and they BELIEVE that when the light turns red ALL lanes of traffic stop REGARDLESS of the lagging left turn arrow.
Grumbling can be heard "Welcome to Arizona! Now PLEASE go home!" 8-)
Before the next election 5-Star's 135,000 members will choose their prime ministerial candidate in an online vote. The date of the vote, the regulations and the candidates have not yet been fixed. So far only Di Maio has confirmed he will run.
Reuters today
Sounds good to me. Why not let the party vote online for candidates...it would level the playing field somewhat. It might get more people involved in the process and it should be cheaper and more democratic.
Over 90 million eligible voters did not vote in the Nov 8 election in US
I've been doing a lot of spinning lately. I bought a Navajo Churro fleece for cheap. It makes a coarse yarn good for rug making. I started thinking about Ghandi and his thoughts about spinning as a way to maintain independence. Independent why? I think it must have been the same notion Thoreau had.
We're socializing creatures. We're better when we come together to feed, clothe, shelter, and defend one another. When does this dependence become slavery?
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 21, 2016 at 17:11#400880 likes
When what you are doing is not by choice and you begin to build up resentment, against those whom are making you do it, including but not limited to yourself.
The GOP out thought the DEMs plus the DEMs screwed themselves by rigging the results of their primary against Bernie. I think Bernie would have appealed to a broader spectrum of voters than HRC. The problem I see is the lack of viable candidates, very few people on either side liked the Trump/HRC choice.
I think Trump's time in office will be filled with lawsuits and many States will assert their right to say no to the Feds.
Identity politics is good topic for discussion. Some think that the DEMs lost because they did not pay attention to working class white voters who make up the vast majority of voters.
Identity politics is good topic for discussion. Some think that the DEMs lost because they did not pay attention to working class white voters who make up the vast majority of voters.
Upper class people (like the Clintons, worth only what, 100 to 300 million) and Trump (worth a few billion) do not live the same kind of lives that white working class people do. Even if they were born in a shack and their mothers were common street whores, which is rarely the case, ambition and financial success soon separate the upward bound and peak dwellers from the working class.
The top bananas don't mix with working class people--white, black or asian--and their knowledge isn't all that deep. Sometimes it seems limited to slogans and buzzwords. 99% of the the upper class do not do the Eleanor Roosevelt program of up-close-and-personal-investigation of life among the working classes.
I have no doubt that Sanders would have had broader appeal. Not sure he would have won, but he would have done more for the future of the Democratic national party than Hillary could do. And yes, I think you are right about the next four years being very litigious. I want to see The Resistance that In These Times and The Nation have been talking about come into existence. Occupy America.
Reply to Michael When I hear "equivocating" I think that we started out with one meaning and covertly flipped to another. Conflating means treating two meanings as one.
Robert LockhartDecember 22, 2016 at 15:55#405400 likes
Without looking it up - I've always understood conflation to mean the lazy and presumably unconscious combining of unrelated ideas, like some atheists seem to think that if there's no God then when you die you therefore cop your whack for eternity - as if somehow it is a given that the question of whether human consciousness is material in origin is contingent on whether there's a Big Man up upstairs. Whereas - I've always understood equivocation as meaning behaviour indicitive of a 'hedging your bet' type reticence regarding committing yourself to a particular thing. Or maybe I should be bothered to look them up? - And compromise my concepts? Fat hope! :)
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 23, 2016 at 14:11#407310 likes
Away in a manger no crib for a bed......
Yesterday afternoon in the pouring rain, I saw a pair of dogs running free. Knowing they would try to cross our 'seasonal creek' we set out to catch them. One is a very well cared for, loved and well behaved Pit and the puppy he is with is a lab mix of some kind with big puppy paws but more than 30 lbs underweight. You can not only see his ribs horribly defined but his spine is barely covered by fur. They stayed the night in our warm and dry garage and now to find the Pit's home but the lab...I just don't know if I can A) take the animal to the pound on Christmas Eve :’( B) try to find the neglectful owner, if he has one or C) keep him till he puts on some weight and then try to find a forever home. Thoughts?
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 23, 2016 at 14:16#407330 likes
Oh and I might be growing attached to him as he hugged on me in the garage after chasing/coaxing him for a couple hours. My youngest Indian's dog passed away last January at 14 and he hasn't wanted another and he was helping me yesterday with 'Comet' (had to call him something ;) ) so there is a chance he will work to earn his trust but my Rottie is suggesting that it's going to be a while before he is accepted into our ranch family. I just cannot see him surviving the Coyotes at night....oie
You know that moment when you know you are falling in love with something/someone and you keep telling others that you are not getting attached?
If I can care for a hoarders horses for a year, I can certainly take care of omg Comet....
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff My partner in life met a little puppy today, on its way to a new Christmas home. The woman-owner said 'There's still another in the litter.' I have warned our two cats to be on guard for unexpected visitors. (Had to call him something, indeed)
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 25, 2016 at 12:10#410710 likes
Reply to mcdoodle Merry Christmas mcdoodle!
Did you get an addition to the family? 8-)
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 25, 2016 at 12:14#410720 likes
Merry Christmas & Happy Harmonia !
Once again a year has passed and we are still together. I know that I can be viewed as the emotional one but hey...there has to be one over sympathetic, over empathetic, over emotional, over happy, just full of love for all of you! (L)
I stayed up all night, and soon I have to go Christmasing... I'm used to Christmas just being another day... but nothing fuels my delusions of grandeur like never sleeping. Who needs it? Functional brain? Decadence.
Well, it's a good greeting in itself. Got the Blues for Christmas.
Witt's 'Culture and Value' came from Santa today. It's surprising how, in these notes from Witt's notebooks about culture, his Jewishness - or at least, observations on 'the Jew' - feature so largely. There must have been something particularly strange and nauseating in the 1930's about a patriotic Austrian/German speaker - for Witt was a Great War veteran, and had been a PoW for his pains - finding himself supposedly excluded from being German. Especially as he placed such store in one's language.
Merry Christmas/Bah humbug, everyone! I haven't been online recently because I've moved house and I don't have broadband yet. But I'll be more active again once my broadband is installed, which is due to happen on the 29th of this month. :)
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff One runs the local railway station. The sign behind the ticket-seller reads 'HAPPY Christmas from Garfield and his staff' and when I bought a ticket on the 23rd, Garfield the live ginger cat was sitting on the shelf above the sign, looking managerial as he licked his paws.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 29, 2016 at 13:12#421410 likes
I must disagree. There is that curve where the top of the thigh meets the buttock.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 30, 2016 at 12:45#423300 likes
We saw this coming and they pshaa those who choose to become Philosophers! HA!
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/technologyinvesting/self-driving-cars-are-already-deciding-who-to-kill/ar-BBxI6mq?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp
wiki:A golden rectangle can be constructed with only straightedge and compass by four simple steps:
Construct a simple square.
Draw a line from the midpoint of one side of the square to an opposite corner.
Use that line as the radius to draw an arc that defines the height of the rectangle.
Complete the golden rectangle.
I was eating Ramen for dinner. Two don't-know-anything-about-Moore-idiots took a shit while I was having dinner. I cleaned up the dung heap they produced.
Reply to mosesquine No they're not. I still say the same thing, and Wittgenstein would agree with me. In what sense is it an argument if it doesn't follow the structure of other arguments? Single premise arguments necessarily beg the question - regular arguments don't necessarily beg the question. That's one structural difference.
Reply to Agustino
I am certain that some members of this forum who are good at logic know that you are a stupid idiot. Either you never opened any textbook on logic or you are a blind man. Many exercises in logic textbooks contain one-premise arguments. You are stupid, indeed.
Reply to mosesquine :-*
Another bookworm who likes to parrot books instead of think. Tell me, how does a single premise argument avoid begging the question? What is the difference between a single premise argument which begs the question and one which doesn't?
Your definition of 'begging the question' is screwed up.
There are many one-premise arguments.
Ok so please explain to me, using your big head, what the difference is between a single premise argument which begs the question, and one which doesn't. Go ahead.
Reply to Agustino
'Begging the question' is irrelevant to the number of premises. Arguments can be valid with one premise. 'Validity' is related to structures of arguments. So, it is not relevant to how many premises are contained in.
'Begging the question' is relevant to fallacies. Logical fallacies can occur with any number of premises.
This is why your concept of 'begging the question' is seriously screwed up.
'Begging the question' is relevant to fallacies. Logical fallacies can occur with any number of premises.
This is why your concept of 'begging the question' is seriously screwed up.
I never claimed that begging the question can't occur in multi-premises arguments - only that it doesn't necessarily occur. You seem to have reading comprehension problems. Now stop being a a coward and avoid answering, and answer me:
How does anyone distinguish between a single premise argument which begs the question, and one (single premise argument) which doesn't? And we'll probably see who is the idiot now, who only knows about parroting what he reads in logic books that he doesn't understand.
Reply to Agustino
Single premise arguments which do not beg the question are structurally formally valid. Logic is only concerned with forms, not with contents. This is why it is called 'formal logic'. The argumentative form 'A, therefore, A' is called 'tautologous', and not called 'begging the question'. 'Tautologous' is different from 'begging the question'.
There are some informal arguments, like "A, therefore, B'. 'Begging the question' occurs in informal arguments. But not all informal arguments are begging the question.
The argumentative form 'A, therefore, A' is called 'tautologous', and not called 'begging the question'
No it's not. A tautology is something that logically cannot fail to be the case. A, therefore A can fail to be the case, if the premise, A, isn't the case. Something like "It is raining or it is not raining" is a tautology (in most systems of logic) because it is true regardless of how matters stand in the world.
Now you tell me that single premise arguments which do not beg the question are structurally, formally valid. Now show me a single premise argument which does beg the question please. Just write out the argument. And no, please don't just say it will be structually, formally invalid - because multi-premise arguments don't have to be structurally, formally invalid to beg the question, and thus you would be admitting to what I've been saying all along that single-premise arguments aren't even arguments in the usual sense, because they do not share the same structure with regular multi-premise arguments.
Reply to Agustino
Anything true regardless of how matters stand in the world is called 'logical truth'. 'Tautology' is a kind of logical truths.
Many arguments are offered as informal ones. Consider: You are stupid. Therefore, you are a bad student of logic.
Formal validity is only concerned with forms. Daily conversation including informal arguments is sometimes concerned with contents. They are two different areas.
Here's an example of single premise arguments which does beg the question.
Premise: Anything said in Bible is true.
Conclusion: God exists.
This argument does not provide us with good reasons to accept conclusion. So, it is the fallacy of begging the question.
Premise: Anything said in Bible is true. [God exists is said in the Bible, so you could simplify this to God exists - and you have to do it, otherwise the argument is invalid unless you add this as a premise]
Conclusion: God exists.
This argument does not provide us with good reasons to accept conclusion. So, it is the fallacy of begging the question.
And the argument
Premise: A
Conclusion: A
does provide you with good reason to accept the conclusion? What's that good reason that exists in this latter case, and doesn't exist in the former?
C: Therefore, there are no virtuous circular arguments.
The challenge is to explain, if there are virtuous circular arguments, what is wrong with P1 being used to support C. Of course, the author doesn't get to say that P1 begs the question.
Reply to Agustino
Such an argument is formally valid. In logic, formally valid arguments are *good arguments*. Again, formal logic is only concerned with forms.
Let's say what makes arguments valid is called 'the metaphysical concept of arguments'. In formal logic, 'the metaphysical concept of arguments' is formal validity.
Such an argument is formally valid. In logic, formally valid arguments are *good arguments*. Again, formal logic is only concerned with forms.
Let's say what makes arguments valid is called 'the metaphysical concept of arguments'. In formal logic, 'the metaphysical concept of arguments' is formal validity.
Yes, so is your argument. That's also formally valid (or it would have to be if you want to present it as formally valid).
Premise: Anything said in Bible is true. [God exists is said in the Bible, so you could simplify this to God exists - and you have to do it, otherwise the argument is invalid unless you add this as a premise]
Conclusion: God exists.
This argument does not provide us with good reasons to accept conclusion. So, it is the fallacy of begging the question.
Reply to mosesquine
So I am asking you a very simple question, which your very big, intelligent brain should be able to answer, but I see instead that you're trying to be a coward and run away, and confuse matters. So let's get back to the point:
1. Multi-premise arguments can be formally valid AND beg the question at one and the same time
2. Single-premise arguments, according to you, can't be both formally valid and begging the question because in logic, a formally valid argument is a good argument.
3. If (2), then either (1) is false, or else single-premise arguments have a different governing logical structure than multi-premise arguments, and thus aren't arguments in the same sense.
If you claim that (1) is false, then you're a lunatic, because I'll give you a formally valid multi-premise argument which does beg the question:
1. Anything the Bible says is true
2. The Bible says God exist
3. Therefore God exists.
It's formally valid, and yet it begs the question. So as you see, in either case, you're just an idiot, and there's no escaping that - all you can do is parrot logic books, but your understanding is nil. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Reply to Agustino
I think that you are an idiot. I repeatedly say that 'begging the question' is irrelevant to how many premises are, over and over again. I have explained correctly, but your brain is too damaged to comprehend the whole explanations. You repeatedly re-formulated my explanations. You are an idiot.
Mayor of SimpletonDecember 31, 2016 at 14:59#427100 likes
I repeatedly say that 'begging the question' is irrelevant to how many premises are, over and over again.
*facepalm* if begging the question is irrelevant to how many premises there are, then how come it can happen in valid multi-premise arguments, and it can't happen in valid single-premise arguments? If it can happen in valid single-premise arguments, then please give me the argument in which it can happen (AND IT MUST BE A VALID ARGUMENT) and explain to me why it occurs in that argument, and not in, say,
A
Therefore A
And as we have already established, it has nothing to do with it being an informal (ie invalid, hidden premise argument). The fucking argument which you gave me before is informal and INVALID! You're hiding a premise.
1. Everything the Bible says is true
2. The Bible says God exists
3. Therefore God exists
If you hide 2, as you shamelessly did, you don't offer me an example of a circular, valid single premise argument. I'm still waiting, because I won't let you go on this so that everyone sees what a loser you are.
I think you should be ashamed of yourself for supporting someone who repeatedly and without reason or provocation resorts to insults in multiple threads, instead of to argument. Just serves to show who you really are.
What is the difference between begging the question and having a valid circular argument?
How is that argument an example of one but not the other.
For me, the fact that an argument is circular (ie begs the question) is sufficient for it to qualify as fallacious. I'm not going to listen nor bother with arguments which are circular - that by definition disqualifies them from my interest. Furthermore, I don't waste my time with irrelevant puzzles which don't lead to anything else. A question has to be significant for one to bother answering it.
Reply to mosesquine Thanks for proving once more that you don't have an answer, and yet you think you know it all. Shameless. Has your mother not taught you how to behave? She forgot that lesson methinks ;)
Mayor of SimpletonDecember 31, 2016 at 15:45#427260 likes
I think you should be ashamed of yourself for supporting someone who repeatedly and without reason or provocation resorts to insults in multiple threads, instead of to argument.
That's a strange question, why should I care what you think for that matter? Maybe because you're on a philosophy forum, and you should apply critical thinking? Has that not occurred to you? If you don't care about what I say, it's simple, don't reply.
I think mosesquine's point was that it was not a formal fallacy.
It is a logical fallacy which is termed "informal fallacy", but applies to formally valid arguments as well, contrary to what mosesquine thinks. In fact - one doesn't even know what he thinks because it's incoherent. I asked him for an example of a single premise argument which does beg the question, and he gave me an informal argument with a hidden premise - and without that premise it wasn't even valid. Shameful.
I am not sure how it applies to formal arguments in symbolic form.
How would you be able to distinguish it from valid forms?
There can't be a single premise argument which doesn't beg the question - that's my point.
A
Therefore A
Begs the question regardless of what A is. Maybe there would be some exceptions if you plug a tautology instead of A, but that's giving the troll too many ideas.
unenlightenedDecember 31, 2016 at 16:03#427400 likes
p1. Everything it says in the bible is true.
c1. If it says in the bible that Moses was a basket case, then Moses was a basket case.
I propose that this is a non-circular, valid, non-question-begging argument with a single, but unfortunately false premise. Note that one can reform any syllogism in a similar manner by incorporating the minor premise into the conclusion in conditional form, without changing the meaning.
c1. If it says in the bible that Moses was a basket case, then Moses was a basket case.
1. Any element of X is true
2. If B is an element of X, then B is true
I think this is the case I specified above, where you're still doing:
A
Therefore A
To wit: "Any element of X is true" just means "If B in X, B is true"
So the conclusion is a re-statement of the premise, merely in a different logical form, but with the same sense. Is that begging the question, or no? Technically speaking, the conclusion is still included within the premise of the argument, merely under a different logical form.
The telling factor for me is that your argument doesn't tell us anything about the world. It doesn't tell us what is in the Bible or anything. It gives a purely logical truth, and bears a resemblance in structure with the tautology.
I could give an argument like:
A
Therefore ~(~A)
But that's merely repackaging the contents of the premise in a different logical form. I think still begging the question. If I told you:
1. It is raining
2. Therefore it is not, not raining.
What would you say? Would you say the argument is sound and valid, if it's actually raining outside, and it is valid but not sound if it's not raining outside? Is the conclusion any different from the first premise? Does it offer any new information? It seems to me that the conclusion merely takes the first premise and says "is true" after it - that's all the conclusion effectively adds to it. Thus it begs the question.
Notice the other peculiar feature. If I take your argument, I can swap premise and conclusion:
1. If B is an element of X, then B is true.
2. Therefore any element of X is true. (I guess this premise/conclusion could be rephrased like there exists an element B such that if B is part of X, then B is true)
This again points to the identity of the two, and therefore to the fact that the only difference is logical form, and not sense. Therefore such an argument begs the question.
Wittgenstein was right - logical form doesn't say anything about the world. So merely changing logical form doesn't alter the content. And in terms of the content, the argument presumes the truth of it by putting it as a premise once, and then as a conclusion.
However - if I say:
1. (A or ~A)
2. Therefore (A or ~A)
Am I still begging the question? The premise cannot ever fail to be true. So in what sense am I assuming the truth of the conclusion in the premises? I'm not, as in other arguments, putting a premise, and then adding "is true" to it in the conclusion, because the premise cannot fail to be true. In fact, I cannot conclude anything else but its truth! So the only single-premise arguments which are not question-begging would be those whose single-premise is a tautology.
So the conclusion is a re-statement of the premise, merely in a different logical form, but with the same sense. Is that begging the question, or no?
Here is the classical logical syllogism:
p1. All men are mortal.
p2. Socrates is a man.
c1. Socrates is mortal.
And here is the single premise form:
p1 All men are mortal.
c2. If socrates is a man, Socrates is mortal.
And here is the same thing with no premises:
c3. If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.
It is the essence of validity that the argument shows that the conclusion is contained in the premises. This is not begging the question. The syllogism does not beg any question, and the restatements do not beg any question. What happens is that as one removes premises the conclusion becomes weaker.
There is a question to be asked of any premise, whether it is true or false, but this question is entirely separate from that of the validity of the argument. If it turns out that Socrates is a demon or a cat and not a man, then all bets are off and the argument fails, but it fails on the facts not on its validity.
The reason why you claim such arguments work unenlightened, is because you are inserting specifics in it, and therefore, in fact, adding premises to what you call the conclusion. If you take away the specifics, and speak in logical general form only, you'll see that they are begging the question - and inevitably doing so.
p1. Everything it says in the bible is true.
c1. If it says in the bible that Moses was a basket case, then Moses was a basket case.
I cannot write:
p1. If it says in the Bible that Moses was a basket case, then Moses was a basket case
c1. Therefore everything it says in the bible is true.
However, I showed that it is possible to do this when we're looking only at the logical form of the argument you're suggesting.
unenlightenedDecember 31, 2016 at 17:36#427710 likes
What I am doing is replacing premises with conditionals, as I said. And in so doing, I weaken the conclusion - making it conditional. The argument has the same validity in all forms. Feel free to replace the specifics in each case with arbitrary letters. It makes no difference to the validity.
But I'm done here, you don't even know what a premise is.
1. Any element of X is true
2. If B is an element of X, then B is true
I think this is the case I specified above, where you're still doing:
A
Therefore A
1 is not just 'A'. That's a misrepresentation of the logical argument.
p1. All A = C
p2. B = subset of A
c. Therefore B = C
(All A) does not equal (subset of A)
It's quite clear with numbers:
p1. all numbers divisible by 2 are even
p2. 2 is divisible by 2
c. Therefore 2 is even
Following your interpretation you'd be saying 2 equals all even numbers, which of course is a bit silly.
unenlightenedJanuary 03, 2017 at 12:35#437590 likes
RIP John Berger, damn commie, and general trouble maker.
If you haven't and are interested in art, society or almost anything, have look at Ways of Seeing.
unenlightenedJanuary 04, 2017 at 00:42#440400 likes
If only folks would accept that Britannia rules the waves, the fish would be exploited in a controlled and sustainable way, by the Prince of Wales, probably,and all you messy foreigners would pay dearly for all the rubbish you dump in them.
Getting tired of posters who think it's OK to rudely insult interlocutors who politely disagree with their interpretation of whatever-it-is. At best your posts will be deleted, folks.
"...you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted)."
For those who find this difficult to understand:
"That's stupid" - Expressing yourself strongly. Not necessarily flaming.
"You are fucking thick" - Flaming.
(Notice I didn't say "you are fucking thick" if you don't understand that as that would be flaming.)
c3. If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.
— unenlightened
It has two premises; "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man". It's just a one-line syllogism.
I missed this folly. It does not have those premises, which I can demonstrate by adding them.
c3. If A and B, then C.
p1 & p2. A and B.
c1 Therefore C.
c3 does not assert the (truth of) premises of the syllogism, they have to be added to arrive at the conclusion of the syllogism. All it asserts is the validity of the syllogism, not its soundness.
Similarly, "If wishes were horses then beggars would ride." does not assert that wishes are horses and does not conclude that beggars ride.
Reply to unenlightened So if I were to say "if you're a man and you're from Wales then your name is Bob" you wouldn't respond by saying that the conclusion doesn't follow (from the premises)?
So if I were to say "if you're a man and you're from Wales then your name is Bob" you wouldn't respond by saying that the conclusion doesn't follow (from the premises)?
No, because there are no premises or conclusion. It's a statement, and it's false, despite the facts that I am a man and from Wales and named Bob, because my neighbour is also a man from Wales and he's called Glyn."
Inversely, "If unenlightened lives in London then he lives in England" is true despite that he lives in neither.
Metaphysician UndercoverJanuary 04, 2017 at 20:25#442540 likes
So if I were to say "if you're a man and you're from Wales then your name is Bob" you wouldn't respond by saying that the conclusion doesn't follow (from the premises)?
No, because there are no premises or conclusion. It's a statement, and it's false, despite the facts that I am a man and from Wales and named Bob, because my neighbour is also a man from Wales and he's called Glyn."
That seems wrong to me. Interpreting the statement logically, the conclusion would be after "then", the first premise would be after "if", and the second premise would be after "and".
Although, that's taking it in isolation, whereas I suppose you could use the whole thing as a premise in a larger argument, e.g.
P1. If A and B, then C.
P2. A.
P3. B.
C. Therefore C.
What's the difference, if any, between a car and a bicycle?
unenlightenedJanuary 05, 2017 at 17:02#443940 likes
Reply to Sapientia "If I chuck a brick at the window it will break" does not make the claim that I chuck a brick. I find it very odd that so many folks do not seem to understand the word 'if'. But alas I am unable to make it any clearer.
"If I chuck a brick at the window it will break" does not make the claim that I chuck a brick. I find it very odd that so many folks do not seem to understand the word 'if'. But alas I am unable to make it any clearer.
Yes, I understand that. But I wasn't talking about the statement as an assertion. I said [I]"Interpreting the statement logically..."[/I]. It has a logical form, involving logical connectives, a premise, and a conclusion. Nor did I say or imply that it makes the claim that you chuck a brick. I didn't say that there is a single premise without the logical connective "if" connected to it, and preceding it. It's the material conditional (if... then..) and the blanks are filled in by a premise and a conclusion.
unenlightenedJanuary 05, 2017 at 17:48#444010 likes
One last time.
It does not conclude what you say its conclusion is, because it does not assert what you claim its premise is, and that is how "if" functions. Your 'interpretation' is flat wrong.
It does not conclude what you say its conclusion is, because it does not assert what you claim its premise is, and that is how "if" functions. Your 'interpretation' is flat wrong.
Again, I'm not talking about any assertion. A premise isn't the same as an assertion, and a premise need not be asserted. If discussing validity, i.e. whether B follows A, then A is the premise and B is the conclusion. If you say "If A then B" then it makes perfect sense to talk about B as the conclusion, and to question whether it follows.
Thanks for the condescension, but I think that it is you who is mistaken, and who does not seem to understand what I am saying.
unenlightenedJanuary 05, 2017 at 18:21#444050 likes
It makes perfect sense, If you bracket off the 'if'. But the 'conclusion' is not the conclusion of an argument that is being made. If you will look back a page or two, you will see the confusion that results from talking about a conclusion to an argument that has not been made. The validity of a conditional argument can very well be discussed, but for god's sake analyse it as a condition and a conditional conclusion. and not a premise and a conclusion.
"If A then B" appears to be a conditional statement, not an argument. A is the antecedent and B is the consequent (not the premise and conclusion). Un seems obviously right to me.
"If A then B" appears to be a conditional statement, not an argument. A is the antecedent and B is the consequent (not the premise and conclusion).
Yes! Antecedent and consequent. You have done a better job at clearing this up for me than unenlightened has, just by using those terms. That is the correct terminology, and that is actually what I was trying to convey. There is obviously a similarity in the meaning of those words. I was just using the wrong terminology. Just as a conclusion is supposed to follow a premise, the consequent is supposed to follow the antecedent. The latter is supposed to be a logical consequence or implication of the former.
But cannot also a conditional statement [i]be[/I] an argument? I get that it can be a statement, an assertion, a premise as part of an argument, and that it's conditional, but I see no reason why it cannot also be an argument.
[I]If the Bible is true, then God exists.[/i]
That certainly looks like an argument to me, and one with which it does indeed, as I said, make perfect sense to discuss the validity of. Un's criticism about me not understanding the "if" misses the mark, I think. I [i]do[/I] understand that. He should give me [I]some[/I] credit.
It's not really antecedent and consequent as that does imply that the latter must follow from the former, but "conditional" basically means "contingent", so this isn't the case. A conditional statement is true if the conclusion is true, it need in no way follow logically from the hypothesis.
For instance "if I don't eat this sandwich, then my dog will explode", the conclusion doesn't follow from the hypothesis, but that doesn't mean that it isn't true. It's true if my dog explodes, even if it had absolutely nothing to do with my sandwich eating.
Reply to Wosret In any case, with implication, such as material implication, "antecedent" and "consequent" are the correct terms to use. Otherwise encyclopaedias on the topic have got it wrong.
The important thing is that the "then" doesn't mean "therefore" suggesting a logical connection, but simply "also", so that one doesn't require any logical, empirical or causal relationship from one to the other.
Consequent means "following as a result or effect", and is thus misleading, as you went on to suggest there must then be a logical connection.
I don't care what other people believe, being wrong is their inalienable right.
Reply to Wosret Whether there is or isn't a logical connection, that is its purpose, function or meaning. How can it not be? And if you say otherwise, then I think that you have not understood. We're talking about [i]material implication[/I]. If A, then B. That is [i]stating a logical connection[/I] between A and B.
A conditional statement is true if the conclusion is true, it need in no way follow logically from the hypothesis.
For instance "if I don't eat this sandwich, then my dog will explode", the conclusion doesn't follow from the hypothesis, but that doesn't mean that it isn't true. It's true if my dog explodes, even if it had absolutely nothing to do with my sandwich eating.
That's bringing soundness into it, but I was just talking about validity. If the conclusion doesn't follow, then it's invalid. I said nothing of truth or falsity.
Comments (61561)
I know she doesn't exist, which is one good reason not to have a problem with her.
But actually, I choose French.
But if you want really what I think, I choose Russian.
Well sir, my father is still alive, sorry for the loss of your father.
>:O Yes the power groups. The military men will support the king so long as the king gives them power and lets them do as they wish. They are satisfied this way, I imagine they get to have quite a lot of power over the rest of the public - no wonder they are very loyal and zealous.
I also imagine that most of the public is too dumbed down to do anything.
If Thailand became a democracy same thing would happen I would guess. The press would be controlled by the use of direct threat. The military men, and the underlings of the king would become your politicians. Your people would still be kept dumbed down - not that the leaders are much better either - they're all living by the law of the jungle. Install whatever laws you want - adopt the US of A constitution - anything. Who cares that the law, for example, says you need an approval for your coal-mining business? You bribe the one who verifies you. He doesn't give a shit about the state, and he'll be happy with a little bit more money. He'll sign your certification without even bothering to check anything.
Many of the folks on these boards don't even understand this it seems to me. They think the world is all regimented by laws, etc. The truth is those in power everywhere don't give a fuck about the laws. Crooked Hillary is the same - doesn't give a fuck about the law. They just pretend and their public is so stupid that they buy it. They actually think that those people who have found themselves holding the reigns of power will let them do anything. And more importantly the academia has been turned in a mass-propaganda machine. All their research and studies are applicable only within the borders of the law - but the real deals - all of them - take place outside those borders. So folks with big heads think they actually know what's going on - they've read all the research >:O
Mother Machree, I think. Or maybe Rosie O'Grady.
Her eyes they shone like diamonds
I thought her the queen of the land
And her hair it hung over her shoulder
Tied up with a black velvet band
http://www.celtic-lyrics.com/lyrics/55.html
Or Rosie O'Donnell
All I wanted to do was start some light multinational monarch shit-talk banter to celebrate the occasion.
Sometimes the world is wrong.
[quote=The Guardian]Clinton goaded Trump as easily as an older sister drives her brother into a full-blown tantrum. She called him a puppet of Vladimir Putin. His response? “No, you’re the puppet.”
She said the intelligence agencies blamed election-related cyberattacks on Russia. His response? “She has no idea whether it’s Russia, China or anybody else,” said the puppet. “You have no idea.”[/quote]
[quote=The Guardian]He bristled when Clinton recalled his referring to former Miss Universe Alicia Machado as an “eating machine”, but soon after, he was interrupting to call Clinton not just the usual “liar”, which has by now become banal, but “such a nasty woman”, an even more baseless character attack.[/quote]
And also when Clinton took a rare moment to brilliantly play Trump at his own game by interrupting his speech about how great his self-named hotel is with the comment "made from Chinese steel", which provoked laughter from the audience. Trump is such a massive hypocrite.
And, of course, he still refuses to release his tax returns, setting a precedent. His defence for having paid no federal income tax is terrible: "Well, you allowed me to" and "That makes me smart". It makes him reprehensible.
"We have undocumented immigrants in America who are paying more federal income tax than a billionaire," Hillary Clinton said at the third presidential debate.
I find Trump's stance on the Second Amendment and Roe vs. Wade utterly repellent. How can anyone object to Hillary's reasonable, moral, common-sense reforms on gun control?
Quoting Agustino
Ha!
I do hope you're paid to troll these sorts of remark, Agustino. Otherwise I'd take them to undermine everything else you say, as when we're talking serious philosophy. Vision for America, indeed.
Don't feel like starting a thread for this, but I am cringing so hard here.
(Screenshot courtesy of the Alex Jones Channel).
US State Dept says ok.
Maybe I laughed too quickly. While the State Department says fine, the individual states of Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana (because of flooding issues and effects on their staffing) say no.
Nice theme tune ;)
I'm a fan of anything that presents as the antithesis of the piped pop of the day, which in the climes I now inhabit is of a deeper stratum of insidiousness than from where I originate. Black metal will do although I don't know much about it and tend to listen almost exclusively to Napalm Death when out and about. This makes me a musical snob, I suppose, which is something I've argued against being in the past (but whatever, I am large, I contain multitudes :) ). Anyway, I'd rather seal myself within a discordant dome of unhappy noise than be forced to imbibe the aural syrup that pervades the outside air.
[quote=BBC News]TAXES
According to the Tax Foundation analysis, the top 1% of earners would [according to Trump's current plan] see their income increase by double-digits...[/quote]
[quote=BBC News]CLIMATE CHANGE
Donald Trump has issued no position statements on environmental issues on his website. In speeches and debates, however, he has said he opposes what he views as economically damaging environmental regulations backed by "political activists with extreme agendas". He says he supports clean water and air, but wants to slash funding to the Environmental Protection Agency. He has also called man-made climate change "a hoax" and said he would "cancel" the Paris Agreement and other international efforts to address the issue.[/quote]
No, I don't. I don't drive. Never have.
My predictions:
Clinton 47.5-48%
Trump 43%
Stein 3%
Johnson 6%
Other 0.5-1%
>>Easy electoral college win for Clinton.
Senate goes to Dems
House stays Republican
What say ye?
Don't care. :P
You must have an actual life or something. I may try that some time :B
Happy Birthday! Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Martyr Patricio Clito Ruíz y Picasso
Btw, I wonder if this thread deserves to be pinned. I don't know which tab it's under.
Judging by the polls, Hilary Clinton is set to win, unless perhaps something drastic happens, and the lines in the graph come close to realignment, like they did in July.
Also, stats show that most swing states will likely vote for Clinton.
The Lounge.
The categories aren't visible on the mobile version of the site, but one which contains a given discussion should be visible in bold on the left of the full version (you may have to scroll to see it).
Religious experience has rendered atheism null and void to me: :-}
Would you like to live forever? And if so, why? No, of course not.
Is there any value to honesty? Yes, it tastes nice and it gives the bees something to do.
I was looking at this "20 advertisements with subliminal messages", and wendy's was on there, but they said that the SM is that her collar spells out "mom" giving a homey look (the few I looked at were all stupid and probably nonsense), but what's more interesting to me is that one of me sees her with an open mouth and narrow lips and she looks younger, and the other sees her with a closed mouth and big lower lip, and she looks older.
Someone also linked a picture of someone's legs with some lines of like cream on them, and they asked which you see like if they look shiny with the white lines, or just white lines. I again see both, but I know that it is in fact not shiny, even though that is my initial perception, until I pay attention and see that it isn't. My initial impression of the Wendy's girl was also open mouth and childish, making me think that the other is actually the case, or intended.
That [I]is[/I] weird.
The subliminal message [i]I[/I] received was to worship Satan, and to sacrifice a young, smiling, pig-tailed red-head in his honour.
Well, it's too late now. The deed is done.
The devil is in the details. The expression actually used to be "god is in the details", but people hate those... so...
That button is not visible in Chrome mobile browser though it is in Firefox. It does work if you click on that space in Chrome though.
Mine has no buttons.
Seems like a double standard.
I wonder what Comey was promised and by whom because he didn't supplement the record with his "there might be but there might not be e-mails that are relevant". Maybe the FBI can investigate that.
No. What we need is a new independent bureau of investigation to investigate the FBI. And then another one to investigate that one due to corruption. And then another one to investigate that one. And so on, and so forth, [I]ad infinitum[/I].
I wrote my son's name in for sheriff. I think he'd do a fine job maintaining law and order.
What else was on that ballot? I can't seem to recall.
How about this: Admit that (1) Clinton is a corrupt lying criminal and (2) Trump is a misogynist egocentric buffoon. That way you don't need to support either of them and you don't have to be morally outraged if you think one is getting treated poorly.
Interesting that you attribute "lying" to Clinton rather than Trump. That decision must have been based on something other than who the bigger liar is.
Correction: (1) Clinton is a corrupt lying criminal and (2) Trump is a lying misogynistic egocentric criminal buffoon.
(Y)
Except you left out "corrupt".
[Quote=Salon]As Media Matters laid out on Monday, Trump is currently facing 75 different civil lawsuits for matters including fraud, breach of contract, nonpayment, sexual harassment and defamation. He has three pending Trump University fraud suits and is suspected of perpetrating a “pay-for-play” scheme with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and possibly others to shut down a state investigation into the same fraudulent enterprise.
Just last week Trump was ordered to appear in federal court on Dec. 16 for a status conference in a civil lawsuit brought by a woman who accused him of raping her when she was 13. (According to the latest blockbuster investigative piece by Kurt Eichenwald in Newsweek, Trump has destroyed emails and other documents in circumvention of court orders for decades.)
Everyone knows that last month Donald Trump was revealed on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women and that shortly thereafter women began to come forward by the dozen to allege the same. A number of such women are now represented by legal counsel, a problem with which a President Trump would surely have to deal. (The Supreme Court set that precedent with former president Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones case.) One can only imagine how many others might come forward.
And I have written before about the literal impossibility of Trump extricating himself from the Trump Organization’s foreign entanglements. He would have massive conflicts of interest all over the globe, no matter how much Trump and his family try to divest themselves from the business — which they have no intention of doing. American foreign policy would be held hostage to the president’s business interests, and that’s assuming we even knew what those interests were.
The only thing we do know is that Trump has dealings with shady characters in various countries around the world that would greatly complicate American national security and its relationship to its allies. At the moment he has refused to give any information about his foreign holdings and media outlets have been strangely passive about asking him about it.[/quote]
Whether Trump actually did the things to women he advocated remains a question and his tax issues have never been suggested to be criminal. Clinton's email use was criminal.
I thought they concluded that it wasn't, which is why she wasn't prosecuted. Whether or not these new emails are criminal is yet to be decided. Also, I didn't say she wasn't a criminal.
Quoting Hanover
From what I understand Trump's been involved in 3,500 court cases, so it's not just about the things he's said about women and his tax issues. I don't know how many of them were criminal cases and how many times he was found guilty, but I'm OK with calling him a criminal all the same (as an aside, are you a criminal if you lose a civil court case?).
Yes, they do both lie, but as for the rest, I beg to differ.
I think that this is so true:
[quote=Politicus USA]In the end, it matters less why Trump lies than that he does, especially since he is busily convincing his base that Hillary Clinton is the dishonest candidate. And it is working. This is a trope frequently repeated by Trump’s supporters. You can correct them as often as you want; it will have no effect.
The lie has taken hold – one of many – many more than you likely expected, and observational bias takes care of the rest.[/quote]
Trump may have lied but he did not commit treason like Mrs. William Clinton.
In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's nation or sovereign
Or would she better be described as a traitor? :s
He actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent, and then they did just that. He also seemed to encourage assassination of his political opponent, not once, but twice. He has also denied climate change multiple times, and has refused to accept the result of the election if he loses.
Who's Mrs. William Clinton? And what was the treasonous act?
So far, yes. You have to believe that she's an idiot to say she's innocent. I guess Hanover thinks she's smarter than she pretends.
My response to that is the same as my response to pretty much everything Hanover says and thinks: hummana hummana hummana.
I could tell that he respects her because in the time-frame around the first two debates he kept using the term "big league." Ahhw.... they're so cute.
This one is interesting, because even if true, it doesn't redeem Trump in any way. It damns him as well as many others. That's fine with me.
And why have you moved the goalposts by switching to questioning? He hasn't just questioned it, he has denied it.
I actually gave up following it about a week ago before the latest email controversy (which I heard about first in the Shoutbox).
Tiff, you're still welcome in the Netherlands. Hanover, we have a conservative (and xenophobic) party like the GOP doing quite well too so you'll feel right at home voting for them in a year or five when you can get voting rights. Confusingly for US citizens though, they market themselves as a liberal party.
Quoting Sapientia
Ohh you mean Edward Snowden
Quoting Sapientia
Also seemed? That sounds convictable. Ahem.
Quoting Sapientia
Climate change is a political football in the USA so there will always be a "them" and "us" mentality.
Finally considering the life Trump departed from to run for President, I feel fairly confident that he will be okay. In fact, much like in his past, he will land on his feet and make a HUGE buck to boot!
Benkei, Thank you for keeping the Netherlands open and welcoming for me, a true friend you are! It might just be sooner than later as my eldest Indian met his first love and she is a Van Dyke from Holland. They both want to travel to Europe next summer to see her homeland and family and I worry that he might just want to stay there. He and his friends can clearly see the USA is in it's sunset years as far as the next two generations are concerned.
Funny where life takes us when we dare to dream!
lmao! I said the EXACT same thing! LoolOlOlOloloolOloolllOLOLlloLlL :D
I thought Dykes were into women...
If he didn't ask first, probably Trump.
I didn't want to imply you were but the GOP certainly is. ;)
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Ah, I see. So, given that he hasn't been convicted, climate change is a political football, and you feel fairly confident that he will be okay, then I guess there was no cause for concern.
And your judgement on political matters such as these can of course be relied upon, as we well know, given your views on, say, gun control... :-|
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
In fact, much like in his past, he will create MASSIVE amounts of debt. FAR MORE than Hillary Clinton!!!!!!
(If you're going to add emphasis to exaggerate your point, you might as well go all out).
Heister? You might have influenced my choice for President.
;) Thinking, thinking, thinking.....hmmmm
So now should I consider writing in Comey? Sapientia, my dear feathered friend, why don't YOU just tell me who to vote for? It would be a lot easier, eh? :P
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
OKAY. You should vote for Mrs. William 'the Conquerer' Clinton.
How embarrassing to see how far the party of "family values" has deteriorated, and the contortions some of its adherents will go through in order to defend Trump. So, Trump can talk about grabbing women by the pussy and so forth, but as long as he didn't actually do so, it's all fine and dandy. (Never mind that he's also bragged about walking in on beauty pageant contestants in various states of undress, an account which was confirmed by at least one pageant contestant herself.) I can see why the evangelicals continue to back him. No hypocrisy there. Of course, Bill Clinton gets a consensual blowjob while in office, and gets impeached for it (whoops, I forgot: he was impeached for lying about it. Of course...)
Trump in fact lies far more often than Hillary ever did, and if his lies aren't as "significant," it's only because he hasn't yet been placed in a position where they can have national ramifications. Just admit you'll pull the lever for anyone with an "R" after their name, because that's become abundantly clear in this election.
BTW, please fill me in on what crime Hillary's been convicted of? Has she been sentenced yet? If so, that will certainly put a damper on things if she must take the oath of office from a prison cell if she's elected President.
No, he means the Russian government, whom Trump encouraged at a press conference to hack into (additional) DNC emails. Trump is the traitor to our country: Clinton is a dedicated civil servant who's served her country admirably.
Can you blame them? All of those sweet, sweet lettuce picking gigs have gone to swarthy Mexicans, rendering GOP voters' aspirations to perform backbreaking labor in the sweltering sun null and void.
You won't be laughing then... You won't be laughing big league...
Perhaps it is time to take off my ecclesiastical hood and really confirm my identity....
Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky were engaged in a consensual relationship. Is your dime-store psychoanalysis about Bill wanting to humiliate Monica based on the Freudian nature of said cigar? People do insert objects into their lovers' vagina as part of sex play you do realize? (Had it been, say, a dildo, I'm sure you would have found the act more acceptable :-} ). And, in all likelihood Bill lied to Hillary about the affair, just as he lied to everyone else.
Please, Republicans: don't start pretending that you care about the welfare of women. It just doesn't suit you.
Hey now, not all Republicans are pigs.
Oh no! Please don't tell us you are really the Easter Bunny. :o
I don't think that all Republicans are pigs. As a group, I have no reason for thinking that Republicans are any more boorish than are Democrats, independents, or members of the Green Party (ok, probably not that last one). I just think that, as a party, they're largely indifferent to the welfare of women (probably due in no small part to the fact that single women are a reliable Democratic voting bloc).
Of course, when it comes time to "protect" them from "unsafe" abortions or from the depredations of Bill Clinton on fresh, nubile White House interns if and when he assumes his position as First Man, then Republicans suddenly become gravely concerned about the female gender.
~
Quoting Arkady
How so? You do realize that women, past and present, make up a large portion of the Republican Party, right? >:O
Yes, married women tend to prefer Republicans. But, as I said, single women are a Democratic constituency.
Yeah, mang, but what's your point? It doesn't follow that because you think the Republidumbs don't respect women's welfare, that the women who belong to the party also don't care about their own rights.
I was thinking about this earlier. Is that what he'd be called? First Man? How Westerosi.
So, Parliament must vote. Queue the appeal and then hopefully the Supreme Court agreeing with the ruling and enough Conservative MPs breaking rank. There's a way out @Sapientia. ;)
Why not? They support a party which has made it its mission to, for instance, severely curtail womens' access to abortion (for which married women with at least one child already are major users), and have made defunding Planned Parenthood (a major provider of womens' healthcare, including preventative care) something of a legislative obsession of late (just to name two examples).
People vote against their self-interests in all manner of ways; there's no reason to think that married women who vote Republican can't do the same. Perhaps they're taken in by the same wedge issues that galvanize Republicans in general these days: God, gun, gays, and the flag (to which one might add illegal immigration from Mexico and terrorism in recent years).
I'm not sure that's been worked out yet. He may be "First Gentleman" (more in keeping with its female complement in the Unites States, "First Lady.") Or, maybe he'd just be called "Bubba."
*cough* Brexit *cough*
Quoting Arkady
I also heard he might just be President Clinton.
I think it's entirely possible that he will just be a giant pain in the ass for Hillary if she's elected. He was a star campaigner in 1992, but I think that star has faded somewhat, as he doesn't seem to have had much of a presence on the campaign trail (which is not that surprising, given that he's 24 years older, and with a heart condition). And his lurid past with women has only been a hindrance to Hillary in the 2016 Presidential election (she herself is largely squeaky clean, so the right must lie, fabricate, and exaggerate in order to attack her, and also harp on the fact that Bill - who is not running for President, you will recall - had sexual indiscretions in his past).
Will he want to sit in on Cabinet meetings? Will he want to give press conferences? Will he stick his nose into Presidential business, thinking he can do it better than Hillary? Time will tell (or this speculation will all be moot if Trump is elected).
Mmmmmm......I just don't think I can do it.....
If Parliament has to vote, will a one-off vote satisfy the court or will the court require a legal bill?
No formal Act is required. It would take years that way. This would be a vote to approve (or not) the Government's intention much like the one to approve involvement in the Iraq war way back in the days of Labour government. There will of course be a comprehensive Act required to change laws, powers etc. once full exit has been achieved but we're a long way from that - even longer after today.
That was different, though. Declaring war is a Royal Prerogative and Parliamentary approval wasn't legally required.
So you might be right that an Act isn't required (I'm no expert), but that was a bad example. ;)
Pffttt the hack happened to Podesta whom held a Yahoo account not a Government email or server. Podesta should never have been communicating on an unsecured server nor should the head of our State Department. What happened after they opened the door? Foreign governments tried and the FBI has said that with a 99% chance, 5 have successfully hacked into their accounts. All of which happened longggggg before Trump was nominated.
Even if you have nothing but doubt about Trump, do you really think that Putin would deny having anything to do with the DNC hack if they had successfully hacked into it? Not likely.
Trump may not have a political history to show but Hillary does and if she is voted into office, it will be another run of the same Clinton movie that we saw with Bill.
No thanks. Been there. Done that. Got Burned.
Or Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Or
Or
Or all the other clichés that we use when we realize we have allowed ourselves to be screwed over again by the same people we trusted the first time around.
Arkady, do you have any idea what happens under the Obama administration, when ICE encounters "swarthy Mexicans" here in Arizona, a national border state?
ICE follows their Oath to protect our border by catching those who choose to come over illegally, only to have their supervisors order their release because that is what our Commander in Chief has instructed them to do. Talk about frustration. I can only imagine the rank and file of the FBI who were told to stifle it can relate to ICE like no other.
But we didn't actually ever declare war on Iraq. With his usual slipperiness Blair deliberately avoided a declaration of war (for which he alone could be blamed!) and instead sought Parliamentary approval for joint action in the invasion of Iraq (for which he could not). This is why the charge persists that UK was involved in an illegal war (and incidentally how Blair has avoided being indicted on war crimes).
I TOTALLY agree with you! (Y)
Isn't that exactly what your Supreme Court will be asked to decide, i.e., whether or not legislation is required to Brexit. How did the UK enter the EU? Perhaps it needs to unfold the same way it folded into it.
Really? I don't. If they had then all you Americans would still be living in Europe. Maybe Trump would be leader of the Conservative party. :-O
Oooo low blow
This is a red herring. The fact remains that Trump encouraged Russia to hack further emails, and thus we have the gruesome spectacle of a presidential candidate from a major party encouraging a foreign power to meddle in our election for the sake of his political gain. The fact that cyber attacks did not originate in tandem with the Trump candidacy is irrelevant to this fact, and renders it no less egregious. (Imagine for a moment that the roles had been reversed, and it had been the RNC's or Trump's campaign chair's emails which had been hacked, and a foreign power such as Russia was the prime suspect. Further imagine that Hillary suggested to said foreign power that they hack more emails. Would you be so blase about it? I have a hard time believing so.)
Of course I do. Putin is a serial liar, just like his buddy Trump. He lied about having troops in Crimea for Chrissakes.
What, exactly are you referring to by being "burned" by Clinton? The strong economy when he left office? The balanced budget (which is a conservative hobbyhorse)? The absence of major, ongoing wars?
8-) A Trump World
In some ways, Obama has outstripped his predecessors in deporting illegal immigrants; in other ways, he has probably been less aggressive (likely moreso with illegal immigrants who are already living in the country, as opposed to being caught at the border). Given the shifting terminology over time, it's hard to compare different administrations' records on border enforcement. (Some of the gory terminological details are described in the linked-to article.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/
Does a blue dress ring any bells? How about the word impeachment?
The Clinton's lie. Period. Full Stop.
It doesn't matter to whom, about what or who it affects, as long as it advances their plan. Lately it has been more about lining their pockets than helping others. The Clinton Foundation showed preferential treatment to those that stepped up to help out Haiti. In addition to helping out their friends with those contracts, they themselves, the Clinton Foundation utilize .09 cents out of every dollar for the cause and .91 cents goes to administrative costs. Please.... stop with the bs. The Clinton's left the White house broke and now she alone is worth an estimated 32 million?
Come on, let's at least be able to call bs when it is bs.
The blue dress? Monica's dress which Bill ejaculated on? Is this a matter of national concern? We know in advance that Trump is a lech who has bragged about committing sexual assault, so if you're so concerned about such matters, let's bar him from office from the start, and not have to worry about stained dresses.
As for impeachment, let me get this straight: the highly partisan Congressional Republicans impeach a President for getting a blowjob (I know they say they impeached him for lying about it, but that's just some of the BS which you speak of, below), and it's Clinton's fault? The impeachment was a national embarrassment, to be sure, but it's Republicans who ought to be embarrassed.
Trump lies, full stop, at about 3 times the rate of Hillary. Please check the fact-checkers' work on this and get to know your candidate.
Come on, Tiff. I expect more of you than repeating the right-wing lie that the Clinton Foundation only pays out 10% of its money towards charitable causes. The figure is closer to 88%. Please step away from the right-wing blogosphere and read some real news.
As for the Clintons' worth, how much has Trump made in scamming his business partners, stiffing contractors, and so forth? How many debts did he shed when he declared bankruptcy multiple times, leaving others holding the bag? Give me a break.
Edit: and I will say that the Clintons have been transparent in releasing their tax returns, and the Clinton Foundation's financials are a matter of public record, which is more than I can say for Trump, who has refused to release his tax returns, no doubt in part because he's a known liar when it comes to his wealth (much in the way he lies about nearly everything else, from the number of illegal immigrants in the country to Ted Cruz's father being involved in assassinating JFK. It just goes on and on).
Yes, there is a way out. But it is through a mine field.
But... the mine field.
(Need that raised eyebrow smiley. Must add to the top of the list of feature requests as a matter of urgency).
Also, I'm OK with some MPs losing their limbs to ensure that the price of Marmite comes back down.
You mean green[i]er[/I] grass.
Quoting Michael
X-)
Erm... dunno, to be honest. Would have to look it up.
And how does likely death by explosion compare to green?
They can technically vote for someone other than the popularly-elected candidate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector).
In any event, barring such unusual circumstances, a popular vote/Electoral College split is rare, but it does happen (perhaps most famously in 2000, when Bush v. Gore landed in the Supreme Court's lap, though that case didn't concern the constitutionality of such splits per se, but rather focused on vote counting issues).
There's an interesting scenario where McMullin wins Utah and the other two split, and he becomes President as a compromise candidate. Unlikely but possible.
Based on policy, she is the better candidate. Sure, Trump with his Second Amendment nonsense, for example, might appeal to you more, but what Clinton has said on that matter is very sensible, and Trump is guilty of attacking a straw man and scaremongering, as he has also done with regards to taxation, where Clinton yet again has the right approach.
Yes, however, I believe that would be a result of the House of Representatives voting him in, which would almost surely never happen (but possible, as you say, in that there's a nonzero probability of its occurring...).
>:O
Thank you for reminding me of this.
Who will (or would) be worse, Trump or Bush? The Republican party does have a talent for coming up with these... interesting characters.
Uhhh, yeah. Maybe my sexual experience varies greatly from yours, but inserting a cigar into someone's vagina is a bit different than a dildo. We also can't overlook the fact that this was THE most powerful man in the world basically doing whatever the hell he wanted to an ordinary college girl in his charge.
Theresa May would suddenly look like a saint.
Hah! Here we go again. This is a battle you cannot win. Bringing up lying is a losing strategy for any Trump supporter. At least in terms of the facts, rather than peoples failure to check them, and instead lap up what they're told by the likes of Trump and his supporters.
Of course it's different; no one would mistake the 2. However, my point is that inserting objects into a lover's vagina can be part of consensual sex play. You make an unwarranted assertion that this somehow implies that Bill had an intention to thereby humiliate or demean Lewisky, which is, as I said, just dime-store psychoanalysis. So, had it been a dildo, you presumably would have found that less egregious (though still unacceptable, presumably, as would I), since dildo = sex play and cigar = desire to humiliate?
You're really stretching here: I love witnessing these contortions that the party of "family values" goes through in defending Trump. Perhaps you'll next take the Ralph Reed line and say you can't judge what's in a man's heart, blah blah blah. Look, I get it: it's all partisan. Just admit you'll pull the lever for whomever has the "R" after their name and be done with it: that's what this is all about.
Again, it was consensual. How do you know he did "whatever he wanted?" Perhaps he wanted the relationship to go further (and have actual "sexual relations"...), but she refused.
Regardless, you would elect a man who has bragged about groping women, who has been accused of sexual assault by multiple parties, and who apparently divorced his first wife because (in part), her breast implants didn't "feel right." As I ask of Tiff, if you're so concerned by such matters, why are you electing Trump as our groper-in-chief?
Whatever. The age and power disparity in the relationship along with the cigar craziness is sufficient for me to exercise my common sense analysis to conclude the behavior was misogynistic. It's not dime store psychoanalysis. It's your not living in the real world.
Quoting Arkady
Now I'm part of the religious right? Quoting Arkady
Yeah, that's what happened. The two laid side by side dreaming of a future together where he'd divorce Hillary and follow his heart and he and Monica would buy a small house in the country where'd they'd bask in their love. This is so very stupid. My recollection of what really happened is that he broke it off with her suddenly and denied he ever had sexual relations with that woman. He then offered some contorted definitions of "sexual relations" so much so that he was impeached for committing perjury and then disbarred for it. The only reason he was caught is because Monica kept her semen stained sweater that linked her back to Bill's testicles.
If we're going to allow for the fact that certain women like cigars in their vaginas, let's at least allow that certain women like their vaginas suddenly grabbed. Both are equally stupid, but since they could happen in some theoretical universe, let's not let our common sense exclude them.
Well, according to this, "According to Ms. Lewinsky: '[H]e was chewing on a cigar. And then he had the cigar in his hand and he was kind of looking at the cigar in . . . sort of a naughty way. And so . . . I looked at the cigar and I looked at him and I said, we can do that, too, some time.'"
Please don't distort what I said in such a childish fashion. I said that the insertion of objects into lovers' vaginas is part of normal (i.e. consensual) sex play. I don't deny that said object being a cigar is unusual, but I'm contesting your unwarranted claim that this thereby implies that Clinton sought to humiliate or degrade Lewinsky. I'll ask again: had it been a dildo, you would have found it less egregious?
I'll also ask again: if you're so concerned with the predations of lecherous men in the Oval Office, why are you voting for Trump (answer, because he's the "R", of course!)?
There are a lot of kinky people out there doing all sorts of stuff that I'd never even dream of.
I don't have a sweetheart. And what's a vagina? If it isn't something to do with videogames, then I don't care.
I love The Onion article during the Bush administration, the headline of which was something like "White House celebrates Five Straight Years Without Oral Sex." (Because, you know, W restored the "dignity" of that office...)
Well, it's technically referred to as a "pussy," and it's the part of female anatomy which Trump professes to love grabbing without permission. (Such statements have cost him a sliver of the evangelical vote. Such rock-ribbed conservative Republicans stand on principle, and never put party before country.)
This is argument by assertion. You have no basis for your claim, with all due respect to your "common sense." (My "common sense" says it was not done with an intention to humiliate. Perhaps we should have a "common sense"-off to see who's the most common-sensical?)
And again, if you're concerned about age and power disparity, why are you voting for a man who bragged to Howard Stern about being able to walk in on undressed beauty pageant contestants because he was the owner of said pageant? Yea, no age or power disparity there. (More "family values" from the right.)
I didn't say that you were: but you're performing the same sort of contortions to defend Trump.
I agree, but this is all a red herring. You made the unwarranted claims that (1) Bill intended to humiliate or debase Lewinsky through his sexual actions, and (2) that Hillary defended him for it. Nobody thinks that Clinton exercised good judgment in having an extra-marital affair, especially while in office. Please stay on-topic. (I do notice you repeating the BS that he was impeached for "perjury". He was impeached because Republicans hated him, and that's it. It was pure partisanship, just as it's pure partisanship which is driving Republicans to vote Trump.)
This is a false equivalency. Trump bragged about making unwanted advances, saying he could do so because he was a big star. And again, Bill Clinton is not running for President. Please stay on-topic and continue to pretend that you're worried about Hillary's email servers or something.
Cavacava, if you don't mind, we're talking about vaginas here. Please get with the program.
>:O
See, if I were in charge, I'd give Genghis Khan a run for his money. In a thousand years I'd shoot for 10% being my descendants.
No. The courts are deciding on a question of how far the executive powers of the Government under royal prerogative may legally be extended. Today's decision says only that it is for Parliament to approve and therefore in effect to trigger any invocation of Article 50 not solely the Government. By what means Parliament reaches and declares its intention pursuant to this ruling is entirely for Parliament to decide.
Hi Barry thanks, since posing my question I've read this in The Guardian:
On Freud, because a new biography came out on him.
I started reading the article on Freud, the two biographies that came out, but the article is suggesting that Freud's theories are not vitaly active today, and that is not what I find:
New study examines Freud's theory of hysteria 7-4-16
Being Sigmund Freud' INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDIES (SISSA) Sept 1995
A neurotic personality increases the risk of Alzheimer's disease 2014 (Freud's Hysteria Theory)
Suppressing unwanted memories reduces their unconscious influence on behavior 2014
And so on..
There seems to be a steady steam of clinical studies & other investigations, some upholding some questioning his theories. But still I have to finish the article.
.
Yeah, reminds me of the less plausible sinister characterizations of Trump; sometimes being a dick is just being a dick. Thing is, do you want a dick for president?
That was just random weirdness related to the Freud cigar situation. For some reason it makes me laugh.
Don't know about a Trump presidency. I'd probably have to go back into news-blindness.
I miss Richard Cheney. The guy at least was honest in his treachery.
Hell, I'd vote him back into office if people didn't hate him so much. MUCH more competent than Trump.
And, yes, I am being serious.
My permanent state :-O
[s]English[/s] American, do you speak it?!
What? ;)
I mean, yes. I speak it big league. And if you don't, you won't get passed the wall.
>:O
OMG Yes! Please bring back Cheney!
And I too am being serious.
Maybe that is who I should vote for on a write in!
So close now. :o
I blame Clinton for fucking up, and Comey for fucking her over.
It's more concerning (in my opinion) if there are places, where that kind of political (and election) strategy actually works.
(They were formatted in html, tables, bold letters, colors, a few ! marks, etc; didn't think much of it at the time, though now it seems a bit odd.)
In all honesty, though it's against the US federal term limits, I'd rather have Obama take another round than the current candidates.
But I'm not a US voter, just an observer, with friends in the US.
I'm going by Pence's stance on a number of things, which, by my estimation, invalidates him for such a position.
Judge for yourself (I'm going to resist an urge to ridicule him).
In case he ends up in office, one can just hope he sticks to things that do not involve science, religions other than his own, various social concerns and tasks - well, or just politics.
Maybe Trump just picked him as a magnet for a sizable fraction of the US population.
Yes, Pence is what political scientists refer to as a "steaming shitbag" (a term first coined by Hugo Grotius, if I'm not mistaken. Or maybe it was Harvey Mansfield...).
Nowhere near as interesting as a bio of her namesake and predecessor, but it might be worth a watch. Unfortunately, I don't have Netflix, and I ain't gettin' it, so I'd have to watch it some other way.
Quoting Barry Etheridge
Bit before my time, but I get the reference. :D
Family Guy's before your time?
Family Guy doing a Dallas parody?
You helped convince me to buy Life Is Strange, and it really ain't that great a game - although I'm still only part way through. The story is interesting enough to make me want to continue, but... reading a teenage girl's diary and all that crap... (N)
Still, it was cheap as chips.
I am downloading Deus Ex: Mankind Divided and The Order: 1886 (both at discounted prices from the PS Store), and I also recently downloaded White Night.
Quoting Arkady
I see how you've phrased this, mister, *wags finger* Many of the women who belong officially to the Republican party are for severely curtailing abortion as a practice, not to impede upon a "woman's right" to have an abortion.
Huh? Sauce, please.
Of late? The Planned Parenthood kerfuffle has died down considerably since a few years ago.
Actually, it seems that you're more the sort who will become mildly infuriated when people out there disagree with what you think constitutes women's rights. Clearly you have this nicely, ready-made leftist idea of what women's rights stands for, and so when these silly "Republican" women come down the pipe, you throw out the red-herring of "they don undastan they being abused." Conservatism in America goes far beyond party lines. You need to realize that women who are opposed to abortion are not, therefore, opposed to women's rights. To suggest the opposite would not follow at all.
And hot-diggity-DAMN, for the love of baby Jesu please stop writing quips within paraphrases. I cannot follow what you actually want to say and what you're just insinuating...(but I realize now that because I've said this you'll continue to snicker in your brackets, sigh...)
Defunding Planned Parenthood is a conservative hobby horse, and extends beyond the most recent Republican primaries in which lies about what PP does were told almost unceasingly by the right (including, oddly candidate Carly Fiorina who refused to back down about having seen a nonexistent video purporting to show a PP staffer purporting to sell fetal body parts. Fiorina, for the record, favors defunding PP).
As for being "infuriated," I am at best lukewarm on supporting abortion rights, and believe that there are loads of bad arguments on both sides. Having said that, the utter duplicitous bullshit conservative legislators give on this issue about curtailing abortion access for the "protection" of women (e.g. requiring physicians performing abortion to have admitting privileges as nearby hospitals) is what angers me. If the case against abortion is so strong, then they should be able to make that case without lying and dissembling.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Huh? I wasn't aware that my quipping was excessive, but you seem strangely put off by it (one might even say "infuriated"). Could you point out some instances in which I've "written quips within paraphrases"? I think I've taken your posts pretty seriously.
Amen.
And the irony of deceptive and misleading info being continually generated by religious conservatives makes my head hurt.
That was quite a long time ago now, in my opinion. I'd also add that the only real contentious part of PP is its policy on abortion. Virtually everything else is supported by everyone, regardless of political leaning. You'll find outliers, of course, but that's moot.
Quoting Arkady
And there's a lot of lying and dissembling in the pro-abortion camp as well. Neither is indicative of anything, so stop pigeonholing.
Quoting Arkady
You stick perfectly good thoughts inside parentheses for absolutely no reason, instead of simply extending a sentence with a comma, or writing a fully new sentence, even. I've just noticed it of late, and find it rather annoying. I do realize everyone writes differently, though. Whatever, friend.
We are the chick-
The world is our egg.
If we don't crack the world's shell, we will die without ever truly being born.
Smash the world's shell.
And people are annoying. Having someone around so much, expecting so much from me, would be annoying.
I likes it.
So I keep telling her she's annoying.
Naive.
No, Arkady is right.
Defunding Planned Parenthood continues to be a primary political goal of conservative Christians. And although the PP policy on abortion is the primary objection, it is not the only objection. Providing contraception is another (because it condones, if not promotes, sex outside the "sanctity of marriage.") And there's always the underlying aspect of its demonically inspired left-wing "secular humanism" which rejects God's will and informs its ethos. PP is seen as firmly embedded in the camp of the enemy--Satan himself.
He was talking about conservatives in general.
That must be easier to say from the outside, then the inside.
So, the specific issue I addressed was Arkady's challenge to Eggcart's assertion that "The Planned Parenthood kerfuffle has died down considerably since a few years ago."
And as I said, it has not died down.
Indeed? Perhaps you have access to some sort of information which I lack, then. I was under the impression that, if elected, candidate Hillary Clinton would be sworn in as President Hillary Clinton once inauguration day rolled around. However, apparently, I was in error, as we are also (re)electing her husband, Bill.
Will he then serve as a sort of "co-President"? Or will Hillary simply be put out to pasture to tend the White House Rose Garden (or perhaps assist the kitchen staff), while Bill takes up his old role in the Oval Office to serve as "head" of state (wink, wink, you know what I'm talking about)? Do tell.
You could have fooled me, as anyone who wishes to run on the Republican side must whore themselves out to the religious right kingmakers. Even McCain, who once denounced Jerry Falwell as an "agent of intolerance" had to make the requisite schlep to Liberty University to pay homage to Jabba the Hut.
And never mind Trump's stumbling over "Two Corinthians." I give the religious right credit, though: they are people of principle, and that principle apparently consists of voting for whoever has an "R" after their name, even if they've, say, been married three times, have bragged about committing sexual assault, have mocked the disabled, have called Mexicans "rapists," have called women who criticized them "fat pigs," and so forth. You know, like Jesus would have done.
Yes, it does seem that way sometimes. Sometimes I think that Roe v. Wade was the best thing that ever happened to Republicans.
An excellent insight.
FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers Sunday the agency hasn’t changed its opinion that Hillary Clinton should not face criminal charges after a review of new emails.
How so? Republicans enjoy congressional majorities as well as majorities in many state legislatures and governors' offices. They have effectively dragged the country to the right since 1980 (or at least since 1994), whereas even moderately center-left politicians such as Obama can be denounced as radical socialists.
They have also pulled the levers of power to deny Obama his constitutional right to appoint Supreme Court justices.
You think voting for someone who shares your principles is wack? Okay.
A devastating rebuttal. I can see you've obviously given this subject a lot of thought.
So Republicans are getting the short end of the stick because...they nominated Trump for president, and he's a jackass? I'm not following.
It actually jibes quite nicely with my career as a candy apple impersonator, so very well, thank you.
Trump has the support of the vast majority of Republicans, for one thing, perhaps down slightly from other candidates, but the party and the electorate is pretty squarely behind him nonetheless. So, there's that.
Secondly, it is an odd statement to say that Republicans are getting the short end of the stick due to the self-inflicted wound which is the Trump candidacy. To me, saying that someone (or group of someones) "got the short end of the stick" insinuates that they've run into some bad luck, or got a raw deal somehow. But Republicans (as a party) did this to themselves.
Nah, I have to wear a suit for the apple part...but my steady diet of Crisco and deep-dish pizzas will help me to fill out.
Long wait times 3/4 hrs. and this is the early part of the voting.... :s
Oh really? The vast majority? Not even the vast majority of Republicans in Congress got on board the Trump train, nor even support him all that much now. To say that the scrubs off the street are the complete opposite would be hard to prove.
Quoting Arkady
Trump is not a classical Republican, nor even much of a classical Conservative, therefore the Party is getting the short-end of the stick precisely because Trump doesn't represent many of the values it has upheld for the last 70 years. Clinton represents more of the Democratic base than Trump does, this is just a fact if you parse policy.
Trump wouldn't be polling at nearly the numbers he is if he weren't backed by a vast majority of the Republicans. Last I checked, the figure was around 85 or 88% of Republicans backing him. (As far as Congressional Republicans, even Paul Ryan, moral coward that he is, voted for Trump even after their long-running dustup. A man who Ryan basically said was morally indefensible got his vote.)
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Oh, so the poor GOP, who has spent the last 50 years appealing to the lowest-common denominator of racial demagogues, Civil War revisionists, anti-intellectuals, and uneducated hillbillies doesn't like the candidate that the hoi polloi selected for them? Cry me a river.
Trump is the invasive species weed that blossomed in the decades of manure the party shoveled to its "base."
EDIT: let's not forget that Ghostbusters remake that had all women in it. That was doubtless the catalyst which vaulted Trump to power.
Quoting Arkady
I'd take a southern conservative over an SJW quack. Perhaps that's just me. There are depressing amounts of idiots on both sides, but only one party has been really uprooted, ideologically.
No, the left created the monster that is Trump.
I'm just going by the percentage of the party who are supporting him. A vote is a vote, whether it's done with the utmost eagerness or reluctance. And most Democrats are supporting Clinton, too, so this is largely just a party-line vote.
I'm not sure who is this SJW quack which you refer to, but if you think Hillary Clinton is any kind of leftist, you don't know much about her record.
Of course, that vast American left, who wields so much power in this country. All of those Congressional leftists! If only there were someone on the right to balance out that left-leaning ideology.
Don't throw garbage on your own lawn, and then complain that someone else put it there. The Republicans nominated Trump, and they have to own it.
Quoting Arkady
So only the GOP and Trump are guilty of targeting "the lowest common denominator"? You're nuts, >:O
No, but the GOP has in the last few decades had a decidedly anti-intellectual streak, with an almost vitriolic contempt for facts and reasoned analysis and discourse. They've also leaned on their "Southern Strategy" by garnering votes through race-baiting and xenophobia. Trump is just the culmination of this (except this time, the rubes didn't vote for a Ted Cruz or John Kasich, or someone the party might like. It's a dark day for the GOP when John Kasich is not sufficiently conservative for it).
It also doesn't help that they've so gerrymandered their congressional districts that most GOP congressmen needn't fear a challenge from Democrats in general elections, but instead fear being outflanked on their right by a primary challenger, meaning they're scared shitless to do anything which bears even a whiff of compromise with or capitulation to that black guy in the Oval Office.
No more so than Democrats.
Quoting Arkady
Republicans now are essentially olden Democrats. This strategy is one of the oldest in American history.
Quoting Arkady
As if the Democratic Party hasn't done the same.
No, this is not true. Republicans have demeaned intellectuals for decades now, and have an outright contempt for facts and evidence. (This was exemplified in the bizarre statement of Rick Santorum's, a man with a law degree and MBA, calling Obama a "snob" for saying that every kid should go to college). Trump is the culmination of this tendency, simply tossing out lies, half-truths, and outright fables at a rate greater than the fact checkers can debunk them. And his followers care not at all.
Yes, the KKK-lovers used to be mostly Democrats, and now they're mostly Republicans. Next you'll be telling me that the GOP is the "party of Lincoln."
Again, not true. And congressional Democrats have not been dragged to the left in the same way that congressional Republicans have been dragged to the right.
Quoting Arkady
You caught me, I've been purposely lying to you. Damn.
Off to fix myself some dinner now, toodles Angsty Arkady, :-*
I never said you were lying. I said what you said wasn't true. A person can be in error without lying. Though, to be honest, your empty tu quoque statements are oddly reminiscent of Trump's debating strategy, which seemed to largely consist of interjecting "No, you are," to Hillary while she criticized him...
(If I'm "angsty," perhaps it's because roughly half of the electorate thinks a monomaniacal, narcissistic demagogue with authoritarian strongman tendencies and zero knowledge of world affairs would be just dandy to occupy the world's most powerful office. Ok, I admit: that makes me a little cranky.)
http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-08-02/policy-expert-explains-how-anti-intellectualism-gave-rise-donald-trump
Exactly.
See "On Bullshit" by (Princeton? Professor) Harry Frankfurt.
That's what the Dems have been doing for a long time too. Two of the results of this are Trump and the alt-right.
Democrats have been race-baiting, and engaged in xenophobia? The party that nominated and elected a black president twice in 8 years? The party which overwhelmingly has the backing of blacks and Hispanics? The party which favors affirmative action? Forgive me for asking, but what planet are you living on?
(And remember what I said about that lawn and the garbage.)
To hell with intellectuals. You honestly think they're the standard bearers of facts and evidence? Get a grip, man.
Anti-intellectualism =//= anti-intellectuals.
Yup, read it. It even got a nod recently on Fareed Zakaria's show, GPS.
Exhibit A, everyone. Thank you, Thor. This is by far the most useful thing you've said on this thread.
Come now, Thor. "Fatty?" That's the best you can do? I'm not even fat for Chrissakes. Why not take a page from the Trump playbook, and call me a "loser," a "disaster," or "a nasty person?" C'mon man, dig deep!
Also, if I continue "debating" with you, I can imagine you will but result to thinking me a Trump supporter, as you have done with Thorongil, for my simply disagreeing with you. And I don't mean the following in any demeaning way, but just as an observation, you're one of a few people I've met who seem to put people's opinions in pre-packaged little boxes so as to avoid critical thinking. I saw this in that discussion about God, and I see it here. You're a bit like Agustino's antithesis. You each see things in a black and white manner, yet interestingly hold completely different view points. Can't say that either of you are better for it, though.
Thorongil opened our "discussion" by responding to a post of mine by saying only "naive," and when I rebutted him (albeit in a sarcastic manner, which was perfectly justified IMO given said post's content, or lack thereof, and condescending manner), he replied again by saying "still naive."
I then (again sarcastically) said that he'd obviously given this a lot of thought and moved on to something else. He then accused me of having a stick up my ass, and called me a "fatty" or something. If this is the general tenor of his engagement, then I would see no way to make the exchange anything other than "impenetrable."
And what makes you think I am not "impartial"? Because I don't brook false equivalencies about, say, the Democrats and the Republicans being equally xenophobic?
No, I don't think either of you are Trump supporters. Thorongil, in fact, has previously said that he doesn't like Trump or Clinton, and considers them both "evil," or something to that effect (more of that false equivalence I spoke of).
Wayfarer (formerly known as Circadian and jeeprs) and I have something of a history of debates about God stuff, so if that conversation seemed to have more of a personal bent to it, that may explain things.
Augustino? That's a low blow, man. :’(
With all due respect, I don't think you know me well enough to make this judgment. I hold a variety of views which would fall under both the left and right on the political spectrum, and I strive to be as non-tribalistic as possible (that is, I don't reflexively side with "my team" and attack the "other team" no matter what, which is partly the source of my anger over the GOP's Trump-supporting hypocrisy).
(For whatever it's worth, Thorongil has said many things with which I agree when it comes to foreign and domestic policy. By his posts, I also know that he's a thoughtful and intelligent person capable of reasoned discussion. That capacity of his was apparently on a coffee break in this thread.)
Hence why I don't feel the urge to respond. I'll just end up reframing my questions and answers a blue million times in the hope they're actually addressed on point. This was deteriorating, and why I felt like Arkady wasn't reading what I said and just shooting from the hip, rant style, because many of his answers were not direct corollaries to my own.
You're not Agustino's "antithesis", but I can't think of the word I want. I've written too much elsewhere, so my brain's fried. Suffice to say, it's like you're trying to be Batman, while Agustino is the Joker - you can tell I perused the superhero thread >:O
What crazy nonsense. This is politics!
"Nemesis"?
Oh my god... fools! That is about as wise as cutting off your nose to spite your face. (And I know a thing or two about wisdom. ;))
Bernie himself supports Clinton, and she is much closer to him in terms of policy than Trump - even adopting some of his policies. Bernie supporters voting for Trump is insane. If you can't bring yourself to vote for Clinton, then don't vote at all, or vote for someone similar, or cast a protest vote for anyone other than Clinton or Trump. I saw on the news that some states allow you to change your vote, so if your state is one of them, then it might not be too late for those two shmucks.
Says who?
Perhaps "counterpart" would be more apt. I think he meant to suggest that I was just like Augustino, except on the left side of the political spectrum, which is incorrect on at least 2 counts...
You mean like you have done, when, for example, you poisoned the well in the middle of an ongoing discussion?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I should have deleted that one, actually. (But if I had have, I wouldn't be able to use it against you now. X-))
Mate, I already spent my hard time in that thread.
It's all right. I forgive you.
But only because I like your name.
So hop in, we can travel the Threads together, causing mischief wherever we please!
Okay, that was pretty great.
How about I crack your shell and make an omelet? Not so clever now are we?
(S) for Trump. Clinton is a dire machine politician, granted. But Trump is an idea-less populist. If the USA vote him in, it will become a laughing stock.
There is no rational argument to understand. It's an entirely post-rational campaign. And there are plenty of people who don't give a damn about becoming a laughing stock as long as it's a grand ole American laughing stock!
As shows go, it is an excellent production about a group of people who make one think of guillotines, axes, and chopping blocks. And then there are her millions of admirers...
Maybe I'll write in the name of a socialist Jew.
I am wondering if this is actually the long-term consequence of the ubiquity of entertainment media, and the fact that a large number of people can no longer distinguish truth from fiction.
It has been in this situation before with George W. Bush, and it voted him in, not once, but twice. :o
A ubiquity of entertainment media is too simple an explanation. Dime novels ("trash"), popular music, radio, television, games, movies, etc. have been blamed for the moral rot of 5 generations.
Telling truth and fiction apart is, of course, tricky business. Distinguished intellectuals wrestle with the task of separating out the two, so of course so do the masses. Even here in these threads even we struggle sometimes.
If what pessimistic observers of the American scene say is true (and not a fiction) why wouldn't the average fucked over "working class slob" latch on to the most amusing politician who comes closest to expressing himself like they do? Why wouldn't the guys who are getting ratcheted down the economic ladder like somebody who proposes to build a wall and get rid of 10 million undocumented, illegal low-wage competitors? Why wouldn't they like someone who says they are going to bring back jobs from Asia?
60% of working Americans are not college educated, and if what pessimistic observers of American education say is true, high school graduates are practically uneducated. How would these barely educated, not very literate, people who don't consume lots of political and economic news and analysis parse out whether Clinton is really going to be better for them than Trump?
The TRUTH is that the American political system is working the way the entrenched establishment wants it to work (even if many Republics are displeased by Trump). It is a FICTION that people who support Hillary Clinton have much deeper insights into the state of the nation and its needs than those who support Donald Trump. The TRUTH of the matter is that it doesn't make any difference what people know or don't know about the long-range future of America. BECAUSE it is a FICTION that the entrenched establishment has any intention of asking The People what, exactly, they want them (the establishment) to do, and then just doing it.
The TRUTH is that the entrenched establishment plans on giving The People more of the same crap they have already received. Maybe Donald Trump is an embarrassment because he might not be sufficiently competent to deliver what the entrenched establishment wants. Maybe Hillary Clinton is going to steal a ladle of some entrenched establishment's gravy.
If you're not going to vote for yourself, vote Clinton for someone else from another country. Iff they have a reason box just write that in it
But there is something irrational about choosing the worst of two evils, i.e. Trump. ;)
Or, if one wants to see a supporter of conservative legislation and conservative nominations on the Supreme Court, but one thinks that Trump's flaws and extremities are not a price worth paying, then one ought to neither vote for Trump nor Clinton.
I think that that would be my position. Trump would be too far to the right. Similarly, if my views were further to the centre, and if Sanders had've beaten Clinton, then I might not have voted for him on account of him being too far to the left.
Having watched the debates, my view of Hilary Clinton improved. I approve of much of what she says.
But I think many think Trump is the price worth paying, especially in light of the Supreme Court nominations that might arise over the next four years. The effect of those nominations could last several decades, well beyond the nonsense that is occurring right now.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” H.L. Mencken
Trump's obnoxiousness is child's play compared to Andrew Jackson's:
"Observers likened him to a volcano, and only the most intrepid or recklessly curious cared to see it erupt.... His close associates all had stories of his blood-curling oaths, his summoning of the Almighty to loose His wrath upon some miscreant, typically followed by his own vow to hang the villain or blow him to perdition. Given his record – in duels, brawls, mutiny trials, and summary hearings – listeners had to take his vows seriously."
"On the last day of the presidency, Jackson admitted that he had but two regrets, that he "had been unable to shoot Henry Clay or to hang John C. Calhoun."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Temperament
It might be that Mencken also said this, or it might be apocryphal: "It can't be known for certain, but I believe it is the case, that no one every went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American."
In another version of this, it is underestimating the "taste" not "intelligence" for which one will not go broke.
The version I've seen substitutes "the American public" for "the average American." A fuller version of what I've quoted is this, which gives a better idea of the context of the comment:
"When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
He wasn't a fan of democracy, and had a disturbing (to me) fondness for Frantic Freddy Nietzsche; he had other views I thought objectionable, but is great fun to read. Especially in his coverage of the Scopes trial for the Baltimore Sun.
'Tis the night of elections, and from several hovels
Grave diggers are leaving to wield picks and shovels.
Someone will get buried, that is quite certain,
On whose campaign falls the black hole’s bleak curtain?
Should I be surprised?
I didn't vote, as I think Trump and Hillary are both equally evil scumbags, though a Trump presidency will be good for the supreme court at least.
One should have voted -- there were candidates to vote for down ballot, and there were a couple of 3rd party candidates that one could vote for, and maybe a local issue or two.
In the end, I liberal, couldn't bring myself to vote for Hillary. Sanders was better. The Greens got my vote, for what little good it will do.
We will have to live with the consequences, whatever they are with Donald T, or Hillary C. It's really the SCOTUS that worries me most with Trump. Maybe we'll have high tariffs on imports? Up until WWII we had very high protective tariffs.
Quoting Wosret
You've nailed it.
Nah.
I cannot believe Trump has made it this far. I thought Clinton had it in the bag. And I thought Trump would have been out of the race over six months ago.
I suppose this is what America "needs". If Trump doesn't get elected, it will blue-ball America.
Well, if I had to have voted republican, he would have been the best one, by far. Though I seriously thought that there wasn't really a chance of him winning... surely...
I've heard a lot of very smart, well-informed, professionals say this kind of thing. Similar to how they said he would never actually clinch the republican nomination; and then how he could never win the general election.
To compare.
(edit) I don't know how to make those work.
Anyway, we already know Trump is going to make other people do all the work. This was leaked from an email to John Kasich's staff earlier in the campaign.
10:50 pm
Our sprites have given the most collegiate of tries
Not least through constant and wanton spreading of lies.
Whether we play a trumpet or proclaim to be with her
The constitutional democratic republic surely shall wither.
The New York Times missed the boat, that's for sure. they've been predicting a Clinton win by wide margins.
Well, I've been disappointed before: [s]Nixon[/s]/Humphrey, [s]Nixon[/s]/McGovern, Carter/[s]Reagan[/s], Mondale/[s]Reagan[/s], B[s]ush, Bush, Bush[/s]. It mattered some, maybe on some points quite a bit. Well that's the good thing about getting old -- one won't have to put up with this crap tooooo much longer.
Dad to Kid: [bursts into tears]
------
I'm predicting a stock market crash which will initiate the next recession.
300 million made his bed
Down under the mountain and up above the sky
The withered laugh and the children cry
Seas wage war on tidal coasts
Titans haunted by their own ghosts
The end draws far, far and gone
The beginning sings a noteless song
This is it, grind teeth and grit.
The bulls's eye hit, another little shit.
http://www.businessinsider.com/canadian-immigration-site-crash-election-2016-11
:D
Lol.
And though you voted for that awful man
I would never refuse your hand
On Doomsday, on Doomsday
Now in all my wildest dreams, it never once was seen
That Doomsday would fall anywhere near a Tuesday
Read more: Elvis Perkins In Dearland - Doomsday Lyrics | MetroLyrics
Exactly. There were none. Certainly not Clinton who has expressed admiration for the mass murderer Kissinger. For that alone, she deserves to lose. (Of course, neither deserves to win...)
I think he will take the easy way out about this matter and have some sociopath Kissinger tell him what to do. If the guy is really that much an egomaniac and decides to lead the country on his own whim, well then God have mercy on us all.
Personally, I'm just happy marijuana is legal now in California. Not that I smoke it; but, rather want to see if prices for a compound called CBD can drop significantly enough for me to affordably use it for medicinal reasons.
Cheers, and same to you. I admire anyone who stuck to their principles in such a partisan environment.
I guess Terry Pratchett was right. Million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.
Spot on.
If only...
Maybe next time. (If he lives long enough :s ).
Donald Trump is moving to the White House, and liberals put him there
Then we best prepare for President West.
Oh well. I like the prospect of isolationism... backing out of NATO.. and that other crap the founder of Paypal was talking about.
Let 'em enjoy it... again.
I'm not surprised. This was clearly about any change at any cost - revolution rather than evolution. The trouble with revolution however is the day after when you wake up to realise that now you've ousted the 'aristocrats' you have absolutely no idea what to replace them with!
The Democrats don't need to be scratching their heads as to why Trump won. They need to ask themselves why they agreed upon such a poor candidate. I would agree with everyone who thinks America could do better. But, to those who actually think Clinton was this great candidate who couldn't carry the day, I don't get that.
Likability didn't really bother me. She's who she is because she's been battling assholes most of her life. Not a very engaging person? I identify with that.
I should add this: @Baden, and all of you other progressives who were so cock-certain that Crooked was going to win, what do you say now? Your big intellects clearly weren't very helpful in seeing this one coming were they? You got too used to conservatives sitting down and not voting, you would taunt us based on our principles just so that you would keep your candidates in power. Now you see that we are still many, and we can win. You don't own the world, and that's a very very good thing.
Not to worry. I did laugh :)
Question to all: do you think this will actually happen?
No. And Trump wouldn't want it to happen anyway as he's not a conservative. More of a selfservative.
No, it won't. There are no grounds on which to mount a challenge. Even if Trump appoints a Supreme Court Justice whose decision he can absolutely rely on it will take far longer than the duration of his Presidency to even bring a legitimate case which the Supreme Court is minded to hear. And that assumes that Trump seriously wants to challenge abortion law in the first place which I very much doubt. Really need to read the small print! Product may differ from that pictured on the box!
That'd be right. Staged and fake!
That's what I thought. And I'm inclined to agree. But then, I have thought a number of things that have turned out to be wrong. For example, I thought that Hillary Clinton was going to win. Although I wouldn't say that I was "cock-sure".
Quoting Baden
:D
Well, when I takes a position on a prediction, I takes a position. No half measures. And at the risk of being wrong again, I say with absolute cock-surety Roe v Wade stays. :-*
Actually, we'd taunt you based on your principles because your principles are ridiculous.
It wasn't overturned when Scalia's seat was filled with Scalia, and he disagreed with Roe vs Wade, so why would it inevitably be overturned if filled with a different pro-life Justice?
I don't think the Supreme Court would consider it unless public opinion was strongly against it, and according to this it isn't.
Same with same-sex marriage.
@Agustino
Ha! Stick that in your Trump and trumpet!
When I look back on our conversations about Trump, I realize something. I knew at the time she wasn't going into all the details of it the way she normally does. She just said something like.. "He has a lot of good ideas, but then he keeps talking.." I'm not going to ask her (because we don't really have that kind of relationship)... but I think she voted for Trump. I think people like her are probably how he was elected.
Ha! Yeah! Stick that in yo--
Wait, what? :-x
They want what they believe would be radical change. This doesn't imply that their belief was well thought out.
As I read somewhere yesterday, Clinton represented fine-tuning the system, Trump represented taking a sledge hammer to it.
Is Trump the solution to any of that? No. Was Clinton the poster-child of it? Yes. Where is conservatism in all this? Not even in the room.
Many of us confirmed in whisper that we were voting for Trump. From the check out lines at the grocery store, to across the table at Father's Day brunch, if you were voting for Trump, you knew whom else was voting for Trump.
It's like being able to sniff out a bullshitter because you yourself is a bullshitter. Ya know?
With a wing and a prayer he will know what he needs to know, by the time he needs to know it.
Mhhmmm go ahead and laugh for now, my friend.
Tell me something: Will the Netherlands be the next to Brexit? Or will the Dutch be the wealthy, gentle nation that gets caught holding the tattered and stripped bag of depreciated Euros?
One more thing...remember this? remember who remained steadfast that it was not an accident? Remember me saying that the Netherlands needed to hold the Russians accountable? Has time changed your inability to decide who was the criminal in this tragedy?
I think it's famous not so much for its basic story (which was daring and interesting for the time, when William Randolph Hearst was still around and controlled many newspapers), but for its cinematography, and the fact that it introduced techniques in telling the story and filming it which became common but were for the time revolutionary. For example, the use of flashbacks (which conflict as they're seen from different perspectives), low-angle shots, wide-angle lenses, ceiling shots, continuous sequences without apparent interruption like the one in which the camera pans up from the opera stage to the two workers high above it. It may be the most influential film of all time, as a result.
Not sure what that has to do with me enjoying myself at your expense. X-)
We'll be having our elections in 4 months or so and it's likely to be a farce too. I hope you'll be enjoying it as much as I will.
I think it's quite true that Trump was successful because his opponent was Hillary Clinton. I personally feel she would have been the lesser of two evils, but have no desire to see the Clintons back in the White House though I would likely have tolerated them better than I'll tolerate Trump.
But I also think it's quite possible that Trump won't follow through on many of his promises to those who voted for him. All politicians make promises they don't keep either because they can't or never intended to do so, but I suspect Trump may be especially inclined to renege, as that's been his practice either through the bankruptcy laws or otherwise. Also, as a salesman of the gross kind he seems to be, I doubt he'll feel much in the way of an obligation to do what he said he would do in order to make this particular sale.
Already his surrogates are giving signals he's backing away from the more extreme positions he took (like prosecuting Hillary). And he's complimenting Obama, thanking Hillary for her years of service, saying he wants to be the president of all, etc. Hypocrisy is hardly unusual in politicians, but given the particularly egregious statements he's made in his campaign, "hypocrite" may be too mild a word to describe him, now. Perhaps he'll disappoint the more rabid of his followers as a result.
I'm afraid that honor goes to Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl. Many consider it (devoid of its contents) a cinematographic masterpiece.
So I understand. But as it addressed a huge Nazi rally with hundreds of thousands of people, I think its focus on depicting a mass of people at an event responding to a leader makes it something of a different animal. Aerial shots and running camera views of people at a huge rally and speeches to the sound of Wagner overtures isn't something that one sees duplicated or imitated much in most films.
To the victor goes the spoils, which means getting to do whatever he wants, which won't include propping up his defeated opponents.
Well, it got the point across (to the lament and sorrows of countless people). That's the primary utility of such mediums.
To the victor go the spoils.
I wonder. Do you think Trump will dance to tune of the House and Senate or will he set the tune?
Here is his 100 day plan for the matter.
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf
"Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country of Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall... "
We can only hope, or it's going to be a very long four years.
Higher in the hyperbole he used to get elected? It's not a promise he can deliver on, short of starting a war, which I doubt even the Republican congress would go along with.
About 50% is pretty harmless and agreeable.
Brat >:)
Really?? It leaves me uncomfortable when I cannot offer some compromise. Trust me, as an attorney I am one of those clients that you hate to love! O:)
There it is again...where did you learn that phrase?
I have been down to the border where Mexico meets Arizona and I think it is pretty safe to say that he has underestimated the terrain of the border and what building a wall will entail. There are many ways to cross the border illegally and going over the wall is probably the hardest of all ways to get here. An unchecked trip across the border of Mexico up to Phoenix, takes half a days travel on a Coach bus for about 5k.
Combine that with the Federal MO for the last 7 years, anytime a group of illegal immigrants was caught across our State, the local law enforcement called ICE and were ordered to release those being detained. So all a wall would have done is made it take a bit longer to get here.
In all fairness, ICE has been livid with the Federal authorities which has tied their hands and made it impossible to enforce the laws that are on the books. It is also why Sheriff Joe Arpaio was running an illegally profiling, police department and is also why Sheriff Arpaio has been voted out of office and is facing Federal charges for lying to a Federal Judge about the profiling.
Now, if Utah, California, Washington, D.C., New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Florida, Colorado, Maryland, Washington, Oregon, Connecticut, New Mexico, Massachusetts and Maine ALL decide to give up their stance on honoring and hosting Sanctuary cities, Trump might have a card to play in removing Federal funding for each state but I just don't see that happening.
Erik, you are a pretty good speculator!
In some of Trump's interviews he explained that the wall would be paid for by Mexico, in that he is going to charge a 35% import tax on United States products being made in Mexico being brought back over to be sold here in the USA (Carrier being one of them as was Nabisco) and that collected tax will be Mexico paying for the wall.
An attempt at a Trump perspective
Unless the US wants to change its basic ideology that it is a consumer driven nation that tries to create the cheapest products, we're never going to get a handle on immigration or on shipping jobs overseas. If we care about the worker who has seen all the manufacturing jobs going to Mexico or China, we could easily stop that through regulations and tariffs. The net result would be more jobs and higher salaries for workers, but we'd then be paying far more for our electronics and homes.
If you really want to figure out why there was a sudden influx of Mexican immigrants in the 90s, look no further than the deregulation of the financial markets which allowed easier loans to unqualified home buyers, which resulted in a massive housing boom. All across America, we saw Mexican workers working from sun up to sun down on the homes we eventually bought (and then saw get foreclosed upon).
It's quite a well known saying. Apparently it originates from Senator William Learned Marcy in 1832.
OMG! You saw the same reality I did!
Oversea friends laughed at me when I said that almost everything at Wal-Mart is $5.00. You can go to Wal-Mart and get a 50" Plasma TV or a Family size bag of Doritos. Who wouldn't get the steal of a deal on a Plasma TV? Only a fool right? Of course it makes no sense on the surface but you cannot eat TV's, no matter what the price. So it quickly becomes acceptable to pay $5.00 for a bag of Doritos, because that you can eat. The upcharge gets lost on the consumer and the profit? It comes from the consumer that used to pay $3.50 for a Family size bag of Doritos and now thinks nothing of paying $5.00.
So then, Thank you again soooo much for following my kind email advice and electing my fellow bilionaire fine Meester Trumpet, as your next Presidenty! Like me in that respect, I’m thinking he’s just so much a, ‘Man of the People’ - as you Americans are so comically want to say! Seriously though Comrades, he is also a man who I think could provide even me with lessons on how to deceive the public with a diet of simplistic mob rhetoric – albeit that his public seems to have provided him with an even more gullible audience than my own countrymen ever did me!
Anyway: How glad I am that soon, once fine Meester Trumpet’s policy of abandoning those troublesome Nato allies of yours is implemented - like the Baltic states for example, who continue to use that pathetic excuse following decades of wonderful patronisation by my former Soviet Union that their economy somehow is unable to fund their Nato defence commitments – how glad I am, that soon, I will be able to relieve you of those ungrateful traitorous bastards!
No wonder my pseudo–parliament, when they heard the great news, seemed to clap unendingly! (Though I’ll let you into a funny secret... Their enthusiasm strangely enough reminded me of the good old days of Stalin - when everybody knew you daren’t risk being seen to be the first to stop clapping – or else!) Ah, such happy memories, Comrades! And you know what else? – Seems your Trumpet is shortly about to sanction my recent benign returning of the Ukraine to our happy Soviet fold. That is to say - to our happy democratic fold of course - you bourgeois dummies!
So maybe you can now imagine, Comrades just how eagerly I await being able to shove him our esteemed Medal of Honour which he has earned so well - once I've summoned him to our beloved Mocba! Sleep well, America - Sleep well!
“You’re holding a lot of homophobia in your lower back.”
No, the difference is that you can read reviewers that objectively quote the books and provide compelling reasons as to why the contents of the book are mistaken. That is the whole purpose of reviews, to help people make informed decisions so they don't waste their time and money.
Indeed it would be bullshit if Dennett simply said "nah, Harris is wrong, ignore him kk bye" but that's not what Dennett (and co) do. They actually provide reasons that anyone can understand as to why Harris' claims are bullshit.
Quoting ?????????????
Which I have.
Quoting ?????????????
But the difference here is that Aristotle, Aquinas, and co. all had something important to say that couldn't just be easily summarized and rebuked as is the case with Sam Harris.
Sam Harris is to philosophy what creation science is to evolutionary science. He's bullshit. Do I really need to read a book on homeopathy to know that it's bullshit? Do I really need to read a book on auras and crystals to know that it's bullshit?
The funny thing anyway is that Sam Harris is really the one doing the sweeping claims when he entirely rejects moral philosophy without a single good reason as to why other than that "it's boring".
What is nice about philosophy is that it doesn't really require public appreciation or acceptance to be done. Anybody can stand up on a podium and call philosophy bullshit, and it might work well with the general public because the general public doesn't know much philosophy or what philosophy even is. Philosophy shouldn't have to justify itself to those who cannot grasp its importance. The difficult thing about the public acceptance of philosophy is that anyone and everyone can attempt to do philosophy, including attempting to show how we do not need philosophy. And when the masses are so fucking ignorant as they are today, they'll eat this shit up.
And so those who criticize philosophy for being irrelevant tend to do so based upon prior assumption and agendas, and a steady dose of cultural scientism. It is nowhere similar to the rejection of homeopathy or whatnot.
What's nice about reasoned argument--in philosophy or elsewhere--is that it actually addresses the substantive content--the specific propositions, logic, presuppositions, entailments, and the empirical evidence offered in support of those propositions.
So are you going to actually address the substantive content?
Ah, his reviewers.
So now your contribution to philosophical discussion is to spread the good news that some reviewers with whom you agree criticized some books you haven't read.
I mean, should I have to read a book on homeopathy to know that homeopathy is bullshit? Why should Harris be an exception? Incredibly damaging points have been made against Harris.
Life is too short to build your own large hadron collider or read every philosophy book, so you have to take other's work on trust or live in the stone age.
Sure.
But if you're going to jump up on a soapbox and publicly rail against a particular author, and make blanket charges that are little more than name-calling, then it seems to me you ought to at least have read the books you're railing against. And perhaps even, you know, address some substantive content with a counterargument.
Absolutely no equipment, right.
Except our philosophy discussions require a computer of some sort; a wifi system, telephone system, cable system, or fiber optic system; server farms; large power generation systems; power distribution systems; satellites or under-sea cables; rockets and ships to launch satellites or lay cable; factories to manufacture everything; a table to hold one's tea cup; farms to grow tea; forests to grow wood for the table (and for the house in which we conduct our discussions).
No equipment at all.
Not at all. The joy of soapboxes is that they are freely available at small cost, and anyone can climb on one and pontificate about about what it seems to them folks ought to do.
Dodge.
This is an inapt analogy that somebody should've called you on long ago.
Harris's arguments are about areas of discourse that you accept as legitimate--ethics, the epistemic ground of religious belief, the condsequences of literalistic interpretation of religious belief, neurological evidence about spiritual experiences ...
If one is going to criticize abstract expressionism or atonal music, then one should have seen a batch of abstract expressionist work AT THE VERY LEAST, and heard a couple of hours worth of atonal music. I can say I don't like Wagner's operas, because I don't, and that's that. I can't criticize Wagnerian opera because I don't know very much about opera, and nothing about opera criticism.
So go ahead and fire away at Sam Harris; he is not that mysterious.
Yes, nut-jpbs do it all the time.
The point is, though, if your purpose is to persuade rational others to acceot your arguments, then you need to argue rationally--address substantive content with sunstantive counterargument--not just name call.
Yes, and he fails to provide anything useful to the debate. He begs the question by assuming consequentialism from the get-go and utilizes such a broad and alien definition of science as to make it utterly empty aside from a neat advertising trick.
I may not have held a copy of The Moral Landscape in my bare hands, but I have read bits of it by proxy, though interviews, blog posts, and most importantly reviews by professional philosophers who use direct citations in their reviews. What Harris says in his book is mirrored in these other outlets.
The analogy to homeopathy is apt. When criticizing homeopathy, we can use empirical evidence to show that homeopathy has failed to prove anything and is in fact in contradiction to established science. One does not need to read a book on homeopathy, nor have a degree in chemistry, to understand that homeopathy is bullshit. That's what objective reviews are for, and to ignore this in the case of Sam Harris is to beg the question. Objective reviews utilize the ethos of authority and the logos of evidence/argument to establish a claim about a work.
So it's not really that I have to provide reasons why one should not read Sam Harris, as it's already been done by the reviewers. Rather, it is the Harrisite that needs to explain why we should see Harris as some kind of authority on anything at all, because public approval doesn't prove jack shit.
OMG, this borders on actually addressing substantive content.
Everything else, just fog.
Yeah, well. Not that I'm trying to persuade any rational other here, but...
Is Sam harris worth reading? One needs to answer before one reads him, given that one cannot read every nut job. So does he appear on college courses much, is he cited in reputable journals, do the people one has read and found not to be nut jobs tell you he is not a nut job and worth a read?
Rather, the context is that somebody read reviews they judged to be insightful--and then jumped up on public soapboxes, announcing for the edification of all that he was about to submit "a post with the sole intent of destroying new atheism, specifically Sam Harris. It will be gloriously savage" and a reference to his "warmup" post from a different si\oepbox--all without actually reading the books.
Without actually reading the books, it's certainly possible to learn much about what an author proposes from competent reviews. But if one ia out to savage the author and destroy the whole movement, at the very least one ought to address the suthor's arguments, and present the reviewers' analyses and counterarguments--rather than give us what amounts to nothing more substantive than the brilliantly insightful Beavis and Butthead critique: "Harris Sucks."
I suppose you're right on that too. But having cogitated, philosophized in the divine stillness of our lonely hearts, and reached conclusions about our existences, we generally want to tell somebody about it.
It's not enough to decide that it would have been better to never have been born and endured all the sufferings of existence (see "how many harms can you name" et al") but we want to share our delight in measuring our suffering. Even those antinatalists who wish they had not been born like having company. We are social beings. Don't tell us vital secrets -- we like to share!
As for us pro-natalists, we just can't STFU.
One feature of Harris i've been thinking about is his loathing for social science, especially what he sees as the relativism of anthropology. This is a feature of most analytic philosophy: to act mostly as if social science isn't there, and as if physics chemistry and biology gave crisper answers than they actually do. There's a thread for another time.
Why not give one or two of your ideas a test run in a thread?
Indeed, each of the New Atheists has said things that can be analyzed and challenged with counterarguments. And if your primary gripe is Sam Harris, why not focus on one or two of his positions that you disagree with and savage it? For example, I agree that the consequentialism you mention is vulnerable to challenge.
But you need to realize that Sam Harris is not an uninformed boob shooting from the hip. He is well-versed in several areas, and has degrees from Stanford amd UCLA.
Or read one. By Sam Harris.
You're right, I've been careless. Apologies. I'll be more attentive
BTW, thanks for the editorial effort you do for the forum.
Oh, no problem. Thank [i]you[/I] for appreciating it.
Good to see you here, by the way, Brainglitch.
Well, it seems to me that a charge such as "he uses a vacuous definition of science" without demonstrating what his definition is and how it is vacupus is empty accusation, bluster. A very long way from the destroying and savaging you threatened to unleash. Same with the charge of consequentialism. Show how what he proposes is consequentialist, and explain why such a consequentialist position is a problem.
I don't understand what you mean here.
If you don't have a problem with his positions, then what's the substantive dispute?
By "the process," do you mean the logic of his arguments? The evidence?
And so no, I don't generally have a problem with his positions. He's an atheist, I'm agnostic. He's critical of organized religion, and so am I. He doesn't believe in free will, and neither do I. He is a utilitarian, and so am I (although I'm a negative utilitarian).
What matters, though, is the process he came to these beliefs. They are valid beliefs argued for in a very poor and shallow way, and without any respect for the surrounding philosophical literature.
If you're going to savage what Harris has actually argued and the way he's argued it, you might consider: (1) reading the books the arguments are presented in, and (2) taking a lesson from Harris about presenting the argument you're criticizing so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
It's not clear to me how that's a lesson from Harris. Has any of his opponents ever said that about something he wrote about their arguments or beliefs?
He did not originate the idea, but has promoted it. It's the main point in what's been called a "steel man" argument--as contrasted with the well-known straw man argument.
It seems to me that it's just a renaming of the well-known 'principle of charity'. This is a principle that one sees evinced by some old-school atheists like Bertrand Russell, for instance in his delightful discussion about the existence of God with Frederick Coplestone.
I'm absolutely in favour of the idea, but it seems incongruous to associate it with Harris, given his aggressive approach to philosophical and political discourse.
And I don't give him any credit for not believing in free will, because if he's right - he had no choice!
So you're OK with his substantive content, you just don't like his style and attitude.
Non seq.
Not to mention that you don't know that nobody has said it about him.
Your feeling about what Christian and Muslims would say hardly constitutes grounds for a sound conclusion that Harris misrepresents their arguments. Sounds more like a vague impression not supported by any actual evidence.
Sure, it's a variation of the principle of charity. One that emphases making an honest effort not to misrepresent others' arguments as straw man in debate just for the rhetorical effect. It a call to attend to offering genuine philosophical challenge rather than the pseudo-debate of a sophist.
Aggressive counter-argument and clear, vivid, fair presentation of the target argument are not mutually exclusive.
NicK and I were looking back over our 26 years together and were analyzing it in a good way.
I lovingly said "You bring balance to my life. It's like you are the Yin to my Yang." To which he said "Exactly! It's like I am the Karm and you are the .....oh shit!" 8-)
Ps. Living with perfect people can be a bitch sometimes ;)
There's a fine line between "you're misrepresenting my argument" and "I'm wrong but I don't want to admit it."
Subject to replacing 'aggressive' by 'energetically assertive' (which is like aggressive but without the element of hostility), I agree with that. Bertrand Russell is an example of somebody that can pull off that combination. But my observation is that Harris does not generally do the latter. Many of his characterisations of religious people, their arguments and beliefs, particularly of Muslims, strike me as unfair.
That's great.
Does he really think that this is going to help the gun crime of his city?
>:O He is going to fuck up so BIG league that even Barrack will find a new state to reside in.
Anyway, just listening to Molyneux, it struck me that he has the kind of gift of gab I most often have heard from gay guys when we are off on a rant. Just listen to the first couple of minutes, if you can't stand more. Tell me what you think.
How fucked are we? Good question, of course. In response to the "just you wait" theme, let me quote a leftist folk singer--Malvina Reynolds.
Do you think you've reached bottom?
Oh, no; there's a bottom below.
There's a low below the low you know
you can't imagine how far it goes...
D
O
W
N
There's the nightmare kind where you fall and fall,
And you wake to find you haven't been dreaming at all.
Do you think you've reached bottom?
Oh, no; there's a bottom below.
Re: Stefan Molyneux has some points, but he is mostly hyperbolic. Newspapers seem to spin the news more and more for the entertainment of their readership and I am not sure that's the newspapers fault, it's what their readership wants and the customer is king. Newspapers give us the ability to feel the full spectrum of emotions that engulf the events that they report. Sure they are bias, but so is their readership.
Also, and we have discussed this before, you are a Kale-hater. Like other things Kale tastes better when it's been damaged, it loses its bitterness.
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/edible-science-heres-secret-perfect-kale-salad/
Clinton's America
Trump's America
@Metaphysician Undercover, for arguing that there is not a world of difference between, say, [I]The Wonderful Wizard of Oz[/I] and [I]The Oxford Illustrated History of World War II[/I], because both are books, and that there is not a world of difference between, say, a human and a carrot, because both exist.
How much of a difference is a world of difference? You and @Metaphysician Undercover probably just draw the line at different places.
I mean ruling them out as irrelevant. But that is to superficially narrow the context. The differences matter in the context of the discussion, as well as in typical contexts. And if you have any doubt, you could put it to the test. Go ahead, ask people whether or not there are many important differences between the two. The results will be very predicable and in my favour.
And what does it mean to say that the differences are relevant or important? If you just mean that when deciding what to eat an informed decision will require understanding these differences then I'm pretty sure that Metaphysician would agree with you.
So, again, this seems like a trivial terminological dispute. You probably both agree that there is a physical difference between a human and a carrot, and that these physical differences play a deciding role in how we make use of them. You're just disagreeing over what adjective to use to describe these differences. It's all fluff.
Argumentum ad populum?
Mmmm I made it to 2:51.....liked the Norm reference but otherwise I need a drink
Oh, come on, Michael. Get real. You have to go to extraordinary lengths to attempt to justify denying what we know through common sense: that there is a world of difference between the two. The former misses the point. This kind of thing is why philosophers get lampooned.
Quoting Michael
No, it isn't fallacious. There are exceptions to that fallacy, and this is one of them. Importance (or relevance) is a relative concept, and by asking that question to people, you will get a typical response which indicates what is important to them, and that will obviously be the differences, and they will be of such relevance to them that the response will probably be one which suggests that they find the very question absurd.
Metaphysician Undercover has set that aside in order to superficially narrow the context so that he can deny that they're a world apart. Which is just silly. There are times when you should just concede, and this is one of them.
Do you really need me to explain this to you?
Right, and Metaphysician has responded with a "no, they're not important (to me)". So what's the problem?
Again, what does it mean for the differences to be a world of difference? That the differences matter? Then, again, what does it mean for the differences to matter?
And again, given that Metaphysician probably agrees that humans and carrots look different, behave differently, have a different material constitution, and that these differences are relevant when deciding what to eat, it seems clear that the only thing you and Metaphysician disagree over is the adjective used to describe the differences.
It's a pointless disagreement. Neither of you is going to mistake a carrot for a person or have human flesh for dinner (hopefully). What philosophers get lampooned over is their insistence that there's more to consider than just this.
The problem is that that is beside the point. Wayfarer wasn't making a point about what is important to Metaphysician Undercover. He was making a general point. Fortunately, any point that is made here does not of necessity depend on the standards of judgement used by Metaphysician Undercover.
Then by the same token you can't refer to popular opinion when justifying your claim that the differences are important. Hence my accusation of argumentum ad populum.
Yes I can, because it was a general point about how they are generally judged. So appealing to the general population makes sense.
So Metaphysician was saying that most people don't consider the differences important?
No, he was implying that [i]he[/I] doesn't consider them to be important enough for there to be a world of difference. Which is beside the point.
Right, but this circles back to what it means for the differences to be a world of difference. And if this is for the differences to be important then to take issue with what he was saying you need a notion of importance that isn't a relative concept. What does it mean for the differences to be important (rather than just important to me)?
But still, given that neither of you is going to mistake a carrot for a person or behave with one as one would with the other it seems that your disagreement is simply over the adjective used to describe the differences. Your disagreement isn't over what those differences actually are. Hence why there's no real substance behind your disagreement.
What are you talking about? There's a world of substance behind our disagreement.
Then what is the substance? What makes a difference a world of difference? What makes a difference important? If you both agree that carrots and people look and behave differently, then where exactly is the disagreement? It's not like he thinks that carrots can walk and talk or that human flesh is a suitable side dish.
If there are a number of differences that the general population would consider to be of much relevance, then I think that it's fair to say that there's a world of difference, which is to make a general and relative point, as opposed to a personal or absolute one. So any response that amounts to "Well, I don't personally consider the differences to be of relevance" is to miss the point.
I also think that to over-analyse this whole thing is a bit silly. There's a world of difference between a human and a carrot. Only in philosophy is this mole hill turned into a mountain. And yes, there is a world of difference between a mole hill and a mountain as well, irrespective of any form of sophistry which argues otherwise.
Quoting Michael
It's that he implies that the distinction is unimportant. Yet it's clearly an important distinction for innumerable reasons, including the one you just mentioned. Perhaps it isn't as important for him as it is for me and the general population. Perhaps he wouldn't be bothered if he accidentally ate a human or asked a carrot for directions. But even if so, that is still beside the point.
I'd say that you're over-analysing. It's only in philosophy that one would claim that there's more than "carrots don't walk or talk and people aren't food" to say.
There's no such thing as importance tout court. It has to be important to someone or towards some end. As you said before, it's a relative concept.
And given that I'm sure he agrees with you that the differences between people and carrots are relevant when deciding what to eat, he isn't disagreeing with you on any substantive issue.
"And even of two existing things, if 'existing thing' is the most general category, there is not a world of difference between them, because they necessarily have that in common."
In his terminology, "X and Y have a world of difference between them" means "X and Y have nothing in common".
If you agree that a novel and a biography have something in common then you agree with what he actually means when he says "a novel and a biography don't have a world of difference between them" even if you disagree with his choice of words.
No substantive disagreement; just a trivial terminological dispute.
But whether the differences are significant or insignificant, relevant or irrelevant, negligible or worlds of difference, etc. are judgments relative to a given context. And unless the context and the grounds for those judgments are agreed upon, there is no resolution for dispute.
Yes, but I blame you for that. :D
Quoting Michael
Nah, it isn't a complex philosophical argument to get from [i]there[/I] to "there's a world of difference between them". Lots of philosophical lay people would make that connection. In fact, it's hard to think of one who [i]wouldn't[/I] make that connection. So, it seems that Metaphysician Undercover is special in that regard.
Quoting Michael
Yes, important [i]in general[/I], like I said. It has a basis in the general population. It is [i]relative to[/I] the general population.
I hope I don't have to clarify each time that I make this point about importance.
Quoting Michael
Yes, he is, because I think that it is patently absurd to deny that there is a world of difference between the two, for that reason and for many others, and he thinks that there is nothing wrong with that.
And besides, isn't whether the disagreement is over any substantive issue relative in much the same way? Are you only going so for as saying that it isn't a substantive issue [I]for you[/I]?
Well? Huh? Speak up, laddy.
Which is just silly, to be frank. I suspect he's conjured that up because he didn't want to concede.
But when I asked you if he was claiming that most people don't consider the differences important you said he wasn't. So when he says "there isn't a world of difference" he isn't saying "most people don't consider the differences important". Bringing up the fact that most people consider the differences important to criticise his claim is thus a non sequitur.
And if "there isn't a world of difference" doesn't mean "most people don't consider the differences important" then referring to what most people consider important to explain what it means for there to be a world of difference doesn't work. So, again, what does it mean for there to be a world of difference?
Oh my god. I know that, Michael. We've been over this already. My criticism is that what he is saying is beside the point for that reason.
Quoting Michael
No, because you're missing out important factors I've already mentioned. Like what his claim was responding to.
Quoting Michael
My criticism is about what that phrase means [i]for him[/I] in contrast to what it means [i]in general[/I].
Quoting Michael
I've already answered that question.
What's more important to you, the fact that two things are both the same, in sense of both being books, or the fact that each is different, being a novel, and a book of history? I suggest that the difference between them, that one is called a "novel", and the other is called a "history", is completely meaningless, unless you already know that both are books.
And the same goes for "human being", and "carrot". unless you know that each of these words is referring to something, then the perceived difference between these words is completely meaningless.
So if "fear" is instinctual, does that make it "real"?
What about learned "fear"?
Is learned fear as "real" as instinctual fear?
Is it possible to rid yourself of the emotion of 'fear'?
It is obvious that they're both books, and that both a human and a carrot is a thing. That can be taken for granted, and go without saying. There's no need to even bring that up. In that sense, it is trivial.
What was controversial was how you seemed to be denying, or at least downplaying, the significant difference between the one and the other. You shifted the focus by taking what he was talking about and putting it in a different context, to unduly emphasise similarity over difference. Again, that would seem to miss the point, and again, that seems more like sophistry than philosophy - more like a convenient trick which could mislead the less discerning. But there is no controversy about the similarities. The controversy only arised as a result of your attempt to blur distinctions and equivocate terms to suit your argument.
Hell no. I am still as scared of the dentist as I was when I was 10. I went to the dentist once for emergency treatment, 3 years after being told I needed it. :-*
So are you saying that things which we take for granted are insignificant and trivial? I think the opposite is the case. The things we take for granted are the most important things, the fact that we can take them for granted allows them to become important. And the point I was making in the thread was that the reality of these things which are taken for granted (the sameness referred to) was being denied, for the sake of some slight difference, which really is insignificant.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Although, they [I]can[/I] be.
I'm saying that, in the context of the discussion, pointing out what is both obvious and uncontroversial - that both are books, and both are things - is pointless and beside the point.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, that wasn't being denied.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
And that is what I disagree with, and think is absurd and ridiculous. But if you skew your perspective, then yes, it will seem that way. Otherwise, no.
When one of the members of the discussion is claiming that the only important thing about the things being discussed is that which is not obvious, particular differences, then the obvious must be pointed out to that person! Don't blame me if you can't see the obvious. If you can't see the forest for the trees, such that the forest must be pointed out to you, then that's not my fault.
Everything's your fault.
I wonder what he has planned for Lex Luther.
It's been the greatest event in the last 30 years that Trump won, because finally it's become clear that the conservatives can win, and we don't have to live in a world where we are ashamed of being who we are, and where we have to be on the outskirts of society. Finally conservatives have the confidence to fight back against Hollywood, the Media, the Politicians and the other crooked organisations that seek to impose a progressive agenda on the whole world (while pretending they represent the majority of people - they don't, and this election has made that clear - it's just that they had us conservatives sitting down, and not doing anything, accepting it as they were taking our world away). That this guy you showed us is against feminism - well that's a great thing. I'm sick of seeing these whores and shameful human beings on the streets abusing their privileges - just look at this:
http://www.emandlo.com/amy-schumer-doesnt-feel-bad-about-your-abortion/
Now not only does she go around having abortions as if it was nothing, she also brags and jokes about it! That's just outrageous. I could agree with women having the right to have abortions, but because of asses like her, with such attitude, they don't deserve it. This mockery of the benevolence of others, and this abuse of one's privileges for purely selfish reasons - as if she was entitled to all this - this screams to the Heavens for justice. If they were humble about it - if they understood they were in the wrong - then I'd see no problem helping them if they needed an abortion. But when these good-for-nothings come with such attitude then they lose those rights. That's what progressives have never understood. They fight using mockery and disrespect for morality and greatness. If I was Trump, I'd throw people like Amy Schumer in jail until they learn to have respect. She can live however she wants - including have abortions as far as I'm concerned - but she should be humble about it - the world isn't here to satisfy her selfish desires. Instead she turns her vice into a virtue - oh how great she is that she can have an abortion whenever she wants as if it was nothing - no she's not great, we're great and she gets to have it because of our mercy - she should pay her respects - and she should be ashamed of herself for posing naked to elect Crooked Hillary Clinton - that alone disqualifies her from the rest of humanity.
Furthermore - and more importantly - Trump has exposed the lying politician class who would do anything to stay in power (just look at all the Republicans who hated Trump go and snuggle to him after he won). I am reminded of the story of Alexander and Diogenes. Alexander respected Diogenes - but he didn't respect those fools around him - because they were all licking up to him to have a share of his power. They would humiliate themselves in the worst ways for a little bit of power. Those are the lying politicians. Trump is Alexander. If Trump had lost, he would have been Diogenes - he would never have licked up to his enemies for a position - he would never have humiliated himself in order to win. There's something worth respecting in that, something that is almost non-existent in the modern world and I'm happy to finally see a glimpse of it.
By being one of them?
Quoting Agustino
He would have accused them of rigging the election. Actually, he already asserted that the election was rigged, so what does that say about his win?
Exactly - he wouldn't have gone to them begging for a position like Republicans are going to him now. What he would have done is spite them. That is infinitely better than licking up to them.
It was clear to me long before then. I, like many others, just didn't think that they [i]would[/I] (win the presidency in the recent election).
Also I will add that Alexander's reaction to Diogenes also shows his own greatness - he recognized in Diogenes one who was great - like him. One who wouldn't bow down the head for a little piece of meat - the same as him. While all those sitting around him, who had laughed at Diogenes' remark - they were all cowards, and Alexander knew. They weren't like him or Diogenes, they weren't great. Had he not been Alexander, they would have laughed at him too - they would have paid no attention to him. It was only his power they were hungry after - not his greatness, for if they were after his greatness, they would be after Diogenes as well.
:-O
Quoting Agustino
That was funny, man. Thanks for sharing.
Hey guys, have you checked out these funny jokes?
It's too bad that Trump is an other, who holds great power, and the voters who placed him in power are short-selling, foolish little peasants.
I see nothing funny about a good-for-nothing who does zero for society, and yet is living a millionaire lifestyle, all the while mocking and degrading important matters (while making rude and unbecoming remarks) as if they were nothing. There is nothing great about that - there is only shame in that.
:D
I don't think that that's what that means...
After being called "deplorable" without the person knowing me, I guess I can blow off being called a "short-selling, foolish little peasants" as well.
It's rather sad too because I try everyday to leave people feeling better for having interacted with me.
I think you might like Frankie Boyle.
And hey, didn't you vote Comey?
Clearly spite does not necessitate that one seeks to harm another. However, it is to wish that the other does meet harm, and that's why it's called an "ill will". This ill will towards another may or may not lead one into actually harming the other, and that is why it must be prevented as harmful. it is necessary that we prevent the emotions which incline us toward harmful actions, even if they do necessarily lead to us taking such actions.
Quoting Agustino
I see no indication here, that Socrates wished harm on the members of the Greek court. He just informed them of how he understood the situation, that to harm him was to harm themselves.
Quoting Sapientia
Augustino is using metaphors which I am not familiar with, "licking up", is that like "brown nosing"? How is this inherently bad?
“Let other complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is paltry; for it lacks passion. Men's thoughts are thin and flimsy like lace, they are themselves pitiable like the lacemakers. The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful. For a worm it might be regarded as a sin to harbor such thoughts, but not for a being made in the image of God. Their lusts are dull and sluggish, their passions sleepy...This is the reason my soul always turns back to the Old Testament and to Shakespeare. I feel that those who speak there are at least human beings: they hate, they love, they murder their enemies, and curse their descendants throughout all generations, they sin.”
At least Trump fucking sins, and does it properly. That's something worth respecting when people's biggest passions have become to joke about vaginas.
Fair enough but we had to make a choice. We couldn't stand at the cross roads forever hoping the perfect person would come along and be willing to serve.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Ha! True I said that but no, I voted for Trump. ;) But serious Kudos to you for remembering I said such! (Y)
I more or less agreed, but I specified I've used spite as:
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Not only that - he was defiant, he was arrogant in front of them, he thwarted their will, which was to see him cower in fear and renounce his convictions in order to be granted a few more years of life.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Licking up means prostituting oneself for power, prestige, money, and so forth. It's what Republicans are doing to Trump now. They said "Trump is the worst", and now that he won and has power, they all say "We would be willing to join his cabinet, we look forward to work with him etc." That's being servile - that's humiliating oneself. Trump wouldn't have done that if the tables were turned.
Yes, they mean the same thing, as far as I'm aware.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I doubt whether [I]anything[/I] is inherently bad. But it has negative connotations.
Sir, you and I will forever share that fear! :-O
Yeah, but she said you were in a basket, which I imagine to be a lovely little wicker basket with a red ribbon bow around it.
So it might have actually been a compliment! (Albeit a backhanded one).
Yes, I agree. She's like Kierkegaard.
And no - she's the farthest from Kierkegaard you could get.
But you don't know Kierkegaard like I did. He used to make abortion jokes all the time when he thought no one was looking. He would just say them out loud to himself when there were no other people around.
But what he didn't notice was the owl in the tree nearby.
There are days I find it difficult to believe that the human race has lasted so long. This is only one of them!
....
What is wrong with you, Agustino? Do you even know?
That's the 11th commandment, I think.
Edit: Oh, I didn't know about this: The 11th Commandment (Ronald Reagon). That wasn't what I meant, but it's interesting. Trump has definitely broken that one on many occasions. He is quite the sinner, isn't he?
In the spirit of Zoroastrian charity, let me say how glad I am that you can now come out from the shadows, come up from the underground, come in from 30 years in the wilderness, and go forth waving the banner Excelsior. Free at last, free at last. Thank Trump the mighty you are free at last.
Have you applied for a position in the Trump Administration? Maybe a cabinet position? Virtue Advisory Board?
btw, I didn't vote for Hillary or Donald.
Have you read the Kierkegaard quote? To sin is better than to live the cowardly life in which you neither sin nor are virtuous (the life of the worm). Of course to be virtuous is superior to both.
No. I could never work for Trump. It is true that his victory was beneficial granting the point when it came, but that's all there is to that.
To qualify for such a position, it would help if you've attended a respectable institution, such as Trump University.
I think this is a section of Either/Or which in its references to lace-making girls and Jews is not Soren's most edifying observation:
It is. It's better to be a devil, than to be nothing at all. At least the devil uses the gift of free choice, and chooses something. The man who is nothing at all doesn't even choose. Things are chosen for them. Indifference to the gift of God - freedom - that is the worst of sins - worse than choosing evil.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I think indifference to the gift of God - freedom - is worse than misuse of freedom. Thus, the one who neither sins nor is virtuous - the one who simply doesn't make use of freedom, the one who is indifferent to it - that is worse than having made a choice (whether it's for good or for evil). As Kierkegaard goes on to say it's the difference between despairing and not knowing that you despair, and being aware of your despair. The entirely evil person, who has chosen evil - is despairing but knows that he is despairing - there is a chance for him to be saved. Whereas the one who doesn't use his freedom at all, who makes no choice, and lets their choices be made by others - they are indifferent of their own despair, and they are hopeless. They cannot be saved.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
In comparison with his potential (represented by the rightful use of freedom) you could say he is worse than a worm, in-so-far as the worm fulfill its (more limited) potential and the man doesn't. But in comparison to someone who has this potential of freedom, but does not use it, either for good or for evil - in comparison to that person he is superior.
I call bs on your response my fine feathered friend. You know full well it was not intended to be a compliment, nor was it received as one. In fact, after a request for clarification, her only correction was the % of the "deplorables", not that she wished she hadn't have said the whole remark.
While I realize your response was crafted in jest, try and entertain the idea that when someone calls you deplorable, you can give it little to no weight because you know that you are not deplorable.
But when someone who wants to be the leader of your country says, that because of your choice to support her competitor, that you are "deplorable"?
That's just poor sportsmanship.
No, poor sportsmanship is claiming it's rigged... unless you win. And calling your opponents childish and insulting nicknames.
If she clarified by claiming that a certain percentage of Trump supporters are deplorable, then that's correct. They are. They include KKK newspaper The Crusader and convicted rapist Mike Tyson (which is hardly a surprise, given this), among others.
Revelations 3:16 I wish you were cold or hot. Because you are lukewarm I will spit you out of my mouth.
So purgatory is worse than hell?
You're trying to glean something positive from an evil, which is strange to me.
Wait, wait, wait. We're talking about a man that does nothing, not that he is nothing. Also, how is doing nothing not a choice?
By whom, and how? Does somebody other than the "player" roll the dice on the Candyland board, and if they the roll means you don't move anywhere, then oh well? Is this person still fucked even though they didn't roll and it's their fault that someone else rolled a perfectly available option in "the game"?
Choice is a curse, not a freedom, because one cannot always do the good, thus we are doomed from the start with broken legs to try and run life's race.
~
Going back, I just don't see how it's possible for an amoral "thing" to somehow be worse morally than an immoral "thing." I can perhaps see how an amoral "thing" is "worse" (although not morally) than what is moral, but the other way around? Nope.
Trump is here following Martin Luther's counsel, at least half way: "Be a sinner and sin?? boldly..." Old Trump grabs 'em by the gonads in ever so many ways, which probably counts as a sin, just for starters. My guess is that Donald and Martin part ways over the second clause of the sentence: "but believe and?? rejoice in Christ even more boldly.” I don't see the Boss Donald paying too much attention to the Good Shepherd. Jesus didn't say, "Fleece my sheep."
This was hilarious...
What does that have to do with whether it's better to be a devil than to be nothing at all? The indifferent man is the most distant from God as far as I'm aware, more distant than the devil.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Freedom is not an evil.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
No, I'm actually talking about someone who is nothing in the sense that he never truly chooses. All the choices are made for him.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
By the rest of their society. They tell them go to this school, study this in University, get yourself a job, etc. etc. Or they tell them, come smoke weed with us, come do this and that, etc.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Is this what the Bible says that "choice is a curse"?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
That's because indifference is not an amoral thing. That's a choice, the choice of rejecting the gift of freedom you have been offered because it's too hard to choose either good or evil.
All those people are in the Netherlands anyway. You ain't much if you ain't Dutch!
And Tiff is right that many Clinton supporters are terrible losers. Dealing with the reality and saying "we'll get you next time" would not only be true, but it would show the person actually has competed and lost before and has enough character to get up and dust himself off and fight the next round, as opposed to curling up in the fetal position and showing us just how bad it hurts.
Does anyone really think this loss hurt you more than Obama's second term hurt us.
:-|
Quoting Agustino
It can bring about evil, however.
Quoting Agustino
Truly chooses? And choices are made for him? What, how?
Quoting Agustino
Okay, so this fictional person we're talking about is being told what to do...but guess what? He's still choosing whether to do what he is told or not. Nobody and no thing is robbing him the choice between doing and not doing.
Quoting Agustino
Well, considering the fact that if one does not believe, they're fucked, that's kind of a curse, for if you use your "free will" not to believe, you're punished. That's not much of a choice, now is it? This is besides the point, though.
Quoting Agustino
How? Indifference is precisely not acting with moral or immoral intent, therefore it can only logically be amoral. Amorality is akin to apathy, which can be good, or it can be bad, but before that, it's amoral.
wat.
Rejecting the "gift of freedom" is in fact affirming the freedom through choosing to reject it.
Oohhhh, so you're admitting that we ourselves didn't even choose to be free through choice, it was offered us. Interesting, an offer that will kill you if you don't take it and do good. Hummm...
We very rarely get to choose between good or evil, instead relying upon good or ill intentions, with the idea that doing so will better bring about one or the other in the end. The choice between doing good or ill generally boils down to which future fog you'd like better to walk through. If it was so apparent what the right thing was to do or not do, I'd imagine we'd have far less amorally indifferent and apathetic people and more immoral and moral people.
You don't seem to understand Agustino, that to resist the temptation to choose is just as much an act of willing as it is to choose freely. This we call will power, and it is commonly represented as a suspending of judgement, a refusal to choose. The person who suspends judgement, and declines choosing is not a "nothing", but a person with a strong will power.
If such a person is necessarily a follower, like the proverbial sheep, how do you conclude that being such is worse than being a sinner?
Yes, agreed - however this isn't to say it is evil itself, only that it can be used for evil.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Yes - choices are made for him/her when he or she follows what others tell him or her to follow in order to avoid the anxiety that comes with having to make a choice by oneself.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
No he doesn't choose - doing what others tell him or her becomes a means of guarding against the anxiety that comes with actually having to use freedom, and thus in the process upset people, and disturb the status quo.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
No I'm asking you what the Bible says. You said you are a believer, so I don't want to consider what someone who doesn't believe thinks.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Only if you remove duty from the equation. You have a duty to care - if you are indifferent - if you don't care - you're neglecting your duty, and therefore you are immoral.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
It's my birthday. You bring me a present. I throw away the present. Thus I am affirming that I have received it, because I couldn't have thrown it away without first receiving it. See what I did there? >:O
Quoting Heister Eggcart
You can't choose to be free unless you already have the potential for freedom in you. Freedom is granted by God. Some waste it. Others use it, whether for good or for bad. We should encourage people away from indifference and apathy, and towards facing the anxiety of freedom, and making a choice, being who they are. Trump is who he is - he is evil in some regards. Congrats for him to sticking with it. Even Satan must play his role, and do it with utmost seriousness no? My biggest problem is that it's the bad guys who are out there batting, while the good guys don't do anything. Men of real moral value and character sit down. I don't want to get rid of the bad guys - that's God's job during the Apocalypse. I want us to be capable to fight them back and win. That's our job on Earth. It's not to get rid of evil - we'll never get rid of evil. That's the pipe dream that only Marxists and their ilk believe. But we do have to FIGHT evil - not look at it, not complain that it exists and wish that it didn't. We have to fight it back.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Can you explain why you think such a "moral fog" exists?
And did I say overcoming your base instincts isn't a choice? Of course it is! That's in fact what choosing is all about. Following the dictates of your impulses and instincts, much like an animal, isn't choosing. Following the conditioning of your society, that too isn't choosing. You have to rise above both of those in order to choose. The sinner - the real sinner - is the one who HAS risen above his impulses, conditioning etc. S/he freely chooses to sin - much like the devil - fully knowing what he or she is doing. The blind follower is the one who still hasn't risen to the level where freedom can be used to choose either good or evil. He is "worse than the sinner" only because the sinner is at least human - but the one who rejects freedom outright, he is less than human. The sinner feels his own sorrow and desperation. He despairs knowingly. That is superior to the unknowing despair of indifference. The sinner is much more likely to be saved than the worm. The worm's indifference is a silent killer.
Indifference can't be evil or immoral in itself by this logic.
Quoting Agustino
Nope. He still chooses whether to do or not to do what he is told. You're ignoring this point.
Quoting Agustino
When did I say I'm a believer?
I'm Christian, but not a Christian O:)
:-O
This explains a lot....
Quoting Agustino
No, no, and no. It doesn't follow that not acting means not caring about what happens, only about which of this or that may or may not happen.
Quoting Agustino
Mmm, no, not really.
Quoting Agustino
This suggests freedom to be a quality, which I'm not sure about.
Quoting Agustino
Freedom would only reside in God. Any emanation from him would be an imperfect reflection through the broken mirror that is the human heart. Our freedom is coincidentally being restrained because we're not "God", thus we act under restraint, which isn't free.
Quoting Agustino
I disagree. As I said in my last post, if we force people to make decisions based on knowable future outcomes that are either moral or immoral, we'll therefore see people performing a higher rate of moral deeds, but also immoral ones, too. This can't be seen as being better, in my opinion.
Quoting Agustino
If being moral were as easy as being immoral, then we'd see a lot more love in the world.
Quoting Agustino
To play devil's advocate here, why must we fight evil if evil will never cease?
Quoting Agustino
Because most people don't understand love, which has them serving only their own ego. Although that sort of service might bring about the good, it more often than not brings about both amorality and immorality. I'd say that most people have the intention to do good for themselves and not others, which really isn't a good in the end.
The moral fog I only mean by saying that outside of good or ill intentions, most decisions made by everyone are done without the distinct knowledge of what moral outcome will come about as a result of their actions.
Quoting Agustino
Good. I forget why I suggested you watch it, though, heh.
Your claim though, is that to not choose, which is actually to exercise the will power, (and this is often necessary to resist the temptation of making the wrong choice), is contrary to the use of free will. From this, you proceed to conclude that not choosing is worse than making the wrong choice, because this is to make use of the free will.
So you premise that using the free will is good. But you incorrectly premise that resisting choice is to not use the free will. Then you conclude that not choosing is worse than making a bad choice. Your argument is unsound because your premise that to resist choice is to not use the free will, is a false premise.
Quoting Agustino
See, you clearly express your unsound logic right here. You claim that to refuse to choose is to reject freedom, when actually it is an act which expresses freedom. So you wrongly insist that refusing to choose is less than human. Therefore you claim that the individual; who allows others to choose, and simply follows the others, is worse than the one who leads, but has chosen the wrong direction.
Mmmmmmm....maybe
That was what Tiff said Hillary said. I merely said that if that is so, then that's correct.
Quoting Hanover
Me? No, I'm innocent. O:)
I did cherry pick some of the worst. And they are indeed deplorable. If you want to read more into it than that, be my guest.
Quoting Hanover
I haven't denied that. As would have Trump's been - and possibly, arguably, more so. If the shmuck they voted for is anything to go by, then hell yeah they would've been! There probably would have been protests with protesters chanting nonsense like "Lock her up!" or perhaps "It was rigged!".
Tiff's comment about bad sportsmanship seemed to be directed at Hillary Clinton, rather than her supporters. And that's what I was responding to.
Quoting Hanover
Maybe. Don't know.
Indifference is evil - it's not that indifference can be used for evil - there just is no possibility for indifference to be good. So how come you see that being analagous to freedom?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Does a man with a gun to his head choose? Many folks don't have a gun to their head literarily, and yet, emotionally, they feel like they do.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
>:O That's just called Crooked - being a snake. Are you a snake? >:)
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Please explain, I don't understand your point here.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Correction: the potential for freedom is there, but you actually have to use it for it to be actualised.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Interesting, please expand on this conception. How do you define God's Freedom? And how does our freedom relate to God's Freedom?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
This to me just means that people would be more alive.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Because it's our duty to do it. Evil will never end in this world, that's what Heaven's for.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Okay, what do you mean by love here to be more precise? The Christian commandment with regards to love applied amongst humans is "love your neighbour as your own self" - that commandment presupposes equal love between yourself and your neighbour. That means that you and your neighbour become like two components of one organism. Let's take 2 arms as a metaphor. If you love, then if one of the arms has to be sacrificed to save the organism, the one which is going to be sacrificed depends on which of them it is best to sacrifice in that circumstance for the organism. This doesn't necessarily mean you'll sacrifice yourself to save your neighbour. It could very well mean that you sacrifice your neighbour, because in that circumstance saving yourself is overall better than saving your neighbour. But this is not necessary - you should be ready to sacrifice yourself to save your neighbour if that's what's more important given the circumstances. It seems to me that today's progressives ignore this very important aspect, and they say "oh yeah always sacrifice yourself for your neighbour" - that's false and un-Christian. They peddle a false and nonsensical, supra-altruistic version of love, and they wield it as a moral club to destroy the real kind of love.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Yes, we move with fear and trembling in our decisions.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No will power is not "not choosing". When i overcome my instincts I choose to overcome them. I choose a higher good in other words, and sacrifice a lower good for it. That's not "not choosing". There is no temptation in a vacuum. I'm not just tempted to have sex with my friend's wife - that doesn't occur in a vacuum. It occurs within the framework of my entire life, including my moral values. So it's not that I resist having sex with my friend's wife by not choosing, as much as I choose not to, because I choose to respect the commandments of God and maintain my own and her own dignity, and the two are not mutually compatible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Wills
Let's see... he thinks there's nothing wrong with abortion (but there is something wrong with the folks who think there's something wrong with abortion - he thinks killing the developing fetus is like killing sperm >:O - next he'll tell me that killing someone is no big deal, just re-configuring the atoms, you know what I mean... )... he thinks pre-martial sex is nothing wrong... he thinks priest celibacy (and any other kind of celibacy) is something terribly wrong and abnormal... wait... he actually thinks that priests shouldn't even exist... How for Christ's sake can this guy call himself a Christian and a Catholic? And then he actually quotes polls saying how most lay Catholics (stuff like 80-90%) actually agree with these inanities. He hasn't yet heard that the polls are all wrong, and they're all crooked, made as they are precisely to be biased and twist society a certain way >:O And even if he was right, that would only mean we have to kick those 80-90% of "Catholics" out, the Church would be far better off without them. Unbelievable. No wonder a progressive recommended this author to me. The Catholic Church should excommunicate him - the drawback is that he'd get more attention, so unfortunately we'll have to let him bark for awhile.
Oh and I forgot to mention he thinks Crooked Hillary is a nice old lady, whose followers are there not because they are compelled by their financial interest, but because they love and respect her, and they've been by her side her entire life >:O - and clearly he thinks Donald Trump is the devil incarnate
I also found out that for once I agree with Zizek:
...that that's ironic coming from you.
Quoting Agustino
Why is there no possibility? You've yet to show that.
Quoting Agustino
I'm not sure what you mean here. You're being vague.
Quoting Agustino
You've been ruling out indifference as being completely devoid of care or concern, which I don't think is quite the whole story. Consider us both in the car. It's about dinner time and we're both famished. You ask me where I'd like to eat, and I respond, "I don't care." Now, does this mean that I don't care about eating at all? No, it means that I don't care where we go and eat, not that I don't care if we eat. Not in this universe at least have I done or said something evil by being indifferent to the means of attaining the good of an end.
Quoting Agustino
I would contest if actualizing freedom is even possible.
Quoting Agustino
God must be absolutely free. Although, such is a paradox.
Quoting Agustino
Then I'd like rather to be more dead.
Quoting Agustino
Why is it our duty to toil futilely?
Quoting Agustino
I was writing a proper response to this, but it didn't come out how I wanted it to, so...
What's worse is that there's no time to think. Let Fox News do that for me.
Says the man who takes the Lord's name in vain.
Also, let's not forget James 4:11-12:
"Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?"
Further, do you think it's difficult to become rich? I'm not talking about really really rich. But having a net worth of 2-5 million USD. I think that's possible for really anyone, it's more about character than anything else. Most people aren't rich simply because they don't have the patience, they are overcome by their anxiety, they don't think for themselves enough, or they simply don't want to do what it takes to be rich (run their own business or work for themselves) and they get involved in things which make it more difficult - marriage, children, relationships, etc. I mean if you dedicate your life to your work and forget about the other concerns, it's eminently possible.
But many people from what I see are more scared about "not living their life", whatever that means, that they aren't willing to dedicate themselves to work, for work's sake.
Which enables a proportion of their political opponents to hold sustained organised protests. Thanks for footing the bill!
His views are not consistent with Catholic doctrine to be sure, but they are consistent with some more liberal Christian views.
Which video?
Quoting Agustino
If you are asking whether McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Pizza Hut get together to decide how to divide up the fast food market, no. (It's not inconceivable, however.) There are clearly competing interests. But if you are asking about whether the various trade groups, Chambers of Commerce, investment groups, National Association of Manufacturers, franchisers, and so forth form a more cohesive elite with common interests, then yes.
More importantly, however, is the "sociology of wealth". Various scholars have examined how wealthy people socialize, educate their children, recreate, and engage in self-interested politics, off center stage, mostly. In the social sphere, common interests can be recognized and acted upon across competing business interests. The elite -- not merely millionaires, but people with many millions and then billions of dollars -- also engage in organized social grouping across business interests. G. William Domhoff has written extensively on this matter.
One has to desire riches, to start with. Honestly, I didn't. Besides that, I have rarely if ever recognized a good business opportunity even if I tripped over it.
Quoting Agustino
I started a thread on Work. Let's discuss this matter there. Perhaps "Living their life" should, whatever that means, have priority. And I'm not sure that "work for work's sake" is worthwhile.
(Speaking of work for work's sake... time to go across the street to church and continue the on-going cleaning. This is an unpaid activity--soli Deo gloria!) See you in the work thread.
Ehmmm didn't you post a Carlin video that you took off and replaced with the post I replied to?
Quoting Bitter Crank
What kind of social interests would the wealthy have in common apart from ensuring that their wealth isn't taken away?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Interesting. Which works would you recommend?
Work for work's sake...
Like in a concentration camp?
Oh sure... but it was supposed to start in the middle, not at the beginning. That's why I took it off. There's a bunch of Carlin on YouTube. I used to not like him that much; now I think he is kind of vox comedia vox deo (vox populi vox deo).
Quoting Agustino
Who Rules America G. William Domhoff
The Higher Circles Domhoff
WhoRulesAmerica Domhoff's web site
Some of his books, or earlier editions, are out of print but can be had through various channels--used book stores, and such. I haven't read the newest edition, so I don't know what data he cites in the current studies.
Also
The Rich and the Super-Rich: A Study in the Power of Money Today (1968) by Ferdinand Lundberg is one of the first BIG studies of the ruling class. After Lundberg got done with studying the rich he felt compelled to write The Natural Depravity of Mankind.
The first of these studies was America's 60 Families which looked at the 60 leading families around the turn of the century (19th to 20th). Amazon (???) has reprinted the study, but it is currently out of stock. I read it at one point; it is moderately interesting.
The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills (excellent)
The following has been gratuitously added for your further annoyance.
U.S. upper classes more likely to lie, cheat and think greed is good, study finds
The ruling class (essentially made up of the very wealthy) have "class consciousness" and consequently they recognize their common interests.
They are interested in the concentration and/or continuation of family wealth. To that end, their children tend to be schooled at elite institutions (from pre-school on up) so that they learn how to be a member of the ruling class, and meet potential mates from the same class.
They are interested in the social amusements which go with ruling class status. Very wealthy people don't play golf on municipal golf courses, for instance. They don't go the mall to hang around. They don't eat at McDonalds or White Castle. They don't go on Carnival Cruises with 3,000 of their neighbors in adjacent (or distant) zip codes. They amuse themselves among each other.
They are interested in politics, but aren't going to attend big rallies at the county fair grounds or go door knocking. They prefer to meet with candidates at socially restricted events, out of sight.
Of course they are interested in business IF their family wealth is tied to current business activity. Some rich families are not closely connected to industrial activity. If they are 'rentiers" they own the land on which money-making institutions are sited, but they don't have any connection to the actual business, normally. So, they need to be concerned that their urban land maintains enough value to keep producing income. Rentiers of much of Detroit's land are presumably not collecting much from land on which derelict factories and gutted department stores are sitting.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Quoting Bitter Crank
Quoting Bitter Crank
I'll look into them, thanks! (Y)
Quoting Bitter Crank
Hahaha! That depends. It's a very interesting subject. Having lived amongst both rich and middle class I now know that the rich are generally a lot more immoral, selfish, greedy, and even sexually immoral >:O than those with lower incomes. Part of my distaste for sexual immorality comes from having been surrounded by it. I've always hated most of the rich. However - there are exceptions. John D. Rockefeller Sr. is someone I've always admired for his commitment to his business/work, his unyielding character, and his faith. He was perhaps the richest man of the past 200 years. I remember reading his biography, Titan, as a teenager. He donated 10% of his profits since he started working, even as he became a millionaire and then billionaire. He always attended Sunday Church. I admire that man, quite profoundly, despite reading the accounts of Ida Tarbell. It's true that some of his oil practices were unfair - but he did provide the best product at the lowest price. He did better than the others. This caused all of them to lose out. But John D. was just 100% dedicated to his work, he did little outside of it. Of course he'd do better than them. Never gambled, never drank, loyal to his wife and family. I have great admiration for such a person, though not for his family as they are today.
I've known quite a few middle class and working class folk who dream about being rich and go on a yacht with many women, etc. I don't think those folks are moral, even though they quite possibly act like it - because they're not rich yet :P
You might be interested in reading about his son. Great Fortune: The Epic of Rockefeller Center by Daniel Okrent. It's about John D. Rockefeller Junior's great building project, but there's also a good deal about J. D. Rockefeller Jr. personally. I don't know if you are familiar with Rockefeller center... it isn't a building, it's a 6-block, 22 acre development with about 8 million sq. feet of office space. It was started in the 1920s, and some of the buildings were ready to open in 1930--not the most opportune year to start renting a lot of space. It was eventually quite economically successful.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/left_and_right.html
This was interesting, but it's clear that the author is on the Left :P It's interesting - personally I'm on the Right, and I can see the exploitation claims of the Left - that which they call evil, I also call evil, although it's not what would concern me most simply because it's out of one's control in many situations. The only thing that truly matters for me is character, because character is always under your control. The difference as I see it, is that the Left can very rarely, if at all, see the moral concerns of the Right. They're more likely to attribute it to a means of exploitation, than to a real concern. I think this asymmetry guarantees conflict. Unless the Left is willing to compromise on the moral concerns of the Right - regarding behaviour, social values, sexual values, etc. - the Right will not be willing to collaborate in the fight against exploitation, simply because they cannot give up on their other values.
Well, J. D. Jr. did not live in exactly the same world that J. D. Sr. did. For one thing, the regulatory environment his father worked in during the 19th century did not exist in the 20th century. Even if oil could have been a new discovery all over again, J. D. Jr. would not have been allowed to operate the way J. D. Sr. was. And Jr. discovered he didn't have any desire to focus his life on profit making.
Second, because a truly vast fortune had been made, and now belonged to the children of J. D. Sr., there was no reason to find a new virgin field to operate in. Indeed, managing the Rockefeller fortune was a great challenge.
Third, J. D. Jr. was enormously pained by the Ludlow Massacre. Colorado Fuel & Iron Company camp guards fired on a tent colony of 1,200 striking coal miners and their families at Ludlow, Colorado, on April 20, 1914. Some two dozen people, including miners' wives and children, were killed. The chief owner of the mine, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., was widely criticized for the incident. By the end of the strike, almost 200 people had been killed. I don't think J. D. Sr. or Jay Gould (the co-owner) would have lost much sleep.
Fourth J. D. Jr. was an educated man, was faithful to his father's [northern] Baptist religion, and was as circumspect in his behavior as it was possible to be. But he lived in an a much more modern urban age. When he began searching for some purpose to put his share of the fortune to work, he settled upon major philanthropy and the great urban renewal project that bears his name (Rockefeller Center). His wife was interested in modern art, and even though Jr. loathed much of the art, he funded it--and gave his wife free reign with it.
Rockefeller Sr. and Jr. began their philanthropy before Sr's death. Among their works:
conserving natural landscapes,
preserving historical landmarks
collecting fine art
fostering international cooperation
promoting the cause of Protestant Modernism (and were very much against fundamentalism)
the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research (1901) (now Rockefeller University)
the General Education Board (1903),
the Sanitary Commission for the Eradication of Hookworm (1909),
the Rockefeller Foundation (1913)
Helped in creating or contributed to
Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming
Acadia National Park in Maine
Colonial Williamsburg (restoration)
Yosemite National Park
Humboldt Redwoods State Park
Shenandoah National Park
Mesa Verde National Par
Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Restoration of Versailles
the restoration of Notre-Dame de Reims
Reconstruction of the main library of Tokyo Imperial University (now Tokyo University),
Grants to the American School for Classical Studies helped archaeologists excavate the Ancient Agora of Athens.
he launched the Palestine Museum (now the Rockefeller Museum), the first institute in Jerusalem devoted to archeological preservation
He brought medieval art and the Cloisters to New York (by pillaging art in Europe--an old tradition)
Contributed the land on which the United Nations was built in New York
He was a founder and major contributor to the Council on Foreign Relations
He created the International Education Board and provided $28 million to fund graduate studies and institutions in 39 countries
Large contributions to the University of Chicago
and more...
Jr. and Sr. Rockefeller donated $537 and $540 million dollars, separately. (Obviously, a half a billion dollars in the early 20th century was quite a pile of donations. Later, in mid-century, half a billion was a lot.)
Carnegie and the Rockefellers both recognized that once you have made an enormous fortune, there isn't much you can do with it but give it away, and giving away a vast amount of money is hard work, they found.
Well to see why there is no possibility that indifference is good, one just has to understand the definition of it. To be indifferent, simply means not to care. If you're indifferent about X, then it means you don't care about it. Now that is either neutral - if for example you don't care which restaurant we go to - or evil - if for example you don't care about the suffering of, say, your brother or sister. We cannot conceive of a situation where indifference is morally good - and likewise we cannot conceive of a situation when caring is morally deficient. If you can, then please enlighten me with a single example :P
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I simply mean that when one is compelled to do something, whether it's by a gun to the head, or by social pressures, one isn't free - in most cases.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Why must God be absolutely free? For God to be absolutely free, it would mean that He is free of his own essence as well - of his own "structure" so to say, and thus isn't God.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I called Heaven last night, and I spoke with them, and they told me that we must toil futilely because there just isn't anything better to do. Have you found something better? :P
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Me too, that's why it took about 1 day to answer you >:O
If you've just admitted that one act of indifference is neutral and not "evil", then indifference cannot only be "evil" if it can also be neutral - or as I've said, amoral. Again, indifference in itself is necessarily amoral. What matters morally, however, are the fruits of being indifferent - whether one chooses to be a good Samaritan, for instance.
Quoting Agustino
People still choose, regardless of there being a gun pointed at their head. Think of some of the Christian martyrs who chose to die for their faith instead of relinquishing it or fighting against their captors. They chose God over themselves. To suggest that they didn't have this choice would be absurd.
Quoting Agustino
Because God would not be absolute being were his being restrained.
Quoting Agustino
Agustino, this is not an argument. Indulge my question with a proper answer, please.
That certainly paints the picture of some wealthy people, but not all, and I doubt the majority. Your view of the wealthy is that of very old money, of people living in the cocoon created by generations of exclusivity. Some rich are flamboyant, some elegant, some deeply concerned about society, some useless parasites. It just seems you've chosen the easiest stereotype to describe, and I'd suspect that many who are born to old money find it stifling and unacceptable. They're sort of just people, you know.
I'll call your gratuitous annoyance and raise you a provocation of fury.
MOURNING FOR WHITENESS By Toni Morrison
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I think he is mainly implying can indifference be morally good? Which you didn't answer as well. Something can have the possibility of being amoral (neutral) and/or evil, but not good. However, Agustino did provide a counter-example to his second last statement in the first paragraph.
Quoting Agustino
Agustino might have thought deficient means evil or something worse than neutral (amoral).
Quoting Heister Eggcart
Yeah, but these Christian martyrs were influenced by expectations from their former societies (social pressures). Otherwise, not defending one's faith wouldn't truly be faithful or the way of a strong believer, right? In a way, they had no choice but to die with their faith because it would go against their expectations of not just their faith but their character.
Quoting Agustino
I think using the word "free" in that sentence was poor word choice. A person does have the ability (freedom) to fight against social pressures. Hopefully you aren't that weak, Agustino.
Quoting Agustino
A true God has absolute power. If a God is restrained in any way it would contradict this definition of a God. However, a God does have a role to play out, which I would regard as responsibilities or expectations. However, a God is an amoral term, thus a God can be neglectful or evil. Just because you have a child doesn't mean you have no choice but to take care of the child well. However, doing so would be a responsible and good way of being a parent or guardian. Also, it wouldn't make much sense to me that a God without free will would make humans with free will?
The mistake is to define God with respects to absolute power, instead of to define absolute power with respect to God. Since God has ontological primacy, absolute power simply is what God is capable of through His own essence.
Quoting WiseMoron
Well God is "restrained" by his own Being. God cannot make a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it, and then lift it. He can't do either the first - making such a stone - or the second - lifting it. Those are impossibilities.
Quoting WiseMoron
We are also restrained by our own natures.
True, didn't think of that, but the terms "restrain" and "power" are relative terms. If God wanted to, it could be too weak to lift a rock, but strong enough to carry a mountain. The problem is that judging power is a relative way of analyzing something.
Quoting Agustino
We are restrained by our own natures, but at the same time we have freedom of choice or free will. We just aren't 100% restrained from everything outside of our existence in the environment. Everyone, including God, which you proved, has limitations, but at the same time has "some" little room for free will.
Quoting Agustino
This kind of supports my first response of this post and you're correct.
Yes, agreed.
Not even if the purpose of creation is to instantiate those 'goods' (love, for example) which otherwise cannot exist?
By what logic could God grant free-will to mankind if He Himself didn't have it? Can one give what one doesn't have? That would be silly.
Contributing to a discussion on some moral/ethical discussion with what appears to be a general point but has the chief function of demonstrating the superior virtuousness of the writer. Or, as the Urban Dictionary puts it ..
Advocating a political or philosophical position, and/or taking up a public cause, from a position of vanity, for the primary purpose of demonstrating your conformity with fashionable pop culture values.
Of course one can put into a creation that which one does not have. It's the very definition of creation in God's case. At the very simplest level, God the immaterial creates material!
Basically it's what people without a brain do when they lick up to the prevailing culture - in this case, to Hollywood-driven Leftism. I'm sure many of the folks on facebook do precisely this when they post for example regarding transexual bathrooms and stuff like that. I must state that I hate this "virtue signalling" more than anything when I see it - even if it were used to support something that I support. I found that folks who virtue signal have no shame generally.
I'm unsure that the distinction material/immaterial has a role to play from God's POV. It's a useful distinction for us to separate, for example, our thoughts from the world around us. I suspect that from God's point of view, matter too is immaterial ;)
Now that Donald J. Trump has been elected, we may see the US President doing similar things with big business, CEOs, and billionaires :D
I wonder if anyone else out there gets that.
But how can anyone tell the difference? Let's say I support black lives matter because of the sanctity of life. How can you, or anyone, tell whether I'm being vocal about it because I'm trying to demonstrate my moral superiority or because I actually believe it's the right thing to do?
Well I think it's about the whole way in which you approach it. If you post something informative about black lives matter, that contains your own argument/explanations, and you're willing to discuss peacefully with others then I will probably consider that you're doing it because you believe it's the right thing. As you are an intelligent person - relative to the majority I'm speaking here - you will most likely post something intelligent as well.
But if you are some Casanova who spends all his time seducing women, but otherwise when you get on Facebook you post all the pop-culture stuff relating to POMO propaganda regarding race, gender, sexuality, etc. - then obviously you're demonstrating moral superiority - whether you're conscious about it or not. Because the fact of the matter is that most people who virtue signal are so stupid they don't even understand what they're doing. They post some shit about Kim Kardashian (or Amy Schumer) and feminism for example. And they do that frequently, without much commentary, input, or thinking. They do that to be among the "cool" people - they do exactly what I hate, licking up. The only reason they think X is the right thing is because X is cool
Is that a neg? Agustino is trying to pick up Benkei.
Actually I think it is. I don't want leaders to bow their heads to the big money interests and treat them like servants. That's not dignifying for a leader. Think of Obama... supposedly the most powerful man in the world bows his head to the big banks and big corporations. That's embarrassing. He should be disciplining them, in public, so that others like them learn that they cannot steal whatever money they want or abuse their consumers in whatever way they want. They learn who the leaders are, and that they stand up for the people.
I would talk about caffeine with you but I have no experience in that. I stopped drinking coffee in highschool, and never drank it since except on extraordinary occasions. Energy drinks - never. Ecstasy - never. + I don't get addicted that easily to things - I used to smoke a few years back, I quit in one day - I was too lazy to light up cigarettes, take care to throw them, etc. such a hassle.
Oh yeah, Benkei is very sexy, that's exactly right... >:O
He is Dutch, after all. And we all know the Dutch are sexy. Case in point:
Would you like a smoke and a pancake?
I can still remember when I went to Holland... my aunt drank "Mann Pis" - she thought it was juice >:O - so no, I don't think i would take the chance with those offerings...
Sun & Clouds frame the day
Aromas waft my nose
Happy Thanksgiving!
Thank you once again for being a part of my life~ For some of us, we are working on our second decade of having the pleasure of thinking together and I look forward to a few more~ So as we in the USA celebrate Thanksgiving, I raise my glass to you, in a toast of gratitude~
Cheers~
Tiff
Are you an alcoholic? I mean, what time is it over there? :-O
So basically it's an ad hominim because it doesn't really address whatever virtue a person is extolling? If the above weren't (substantive arguments) the case you can argue that their argument is vacuous, instead of virtue signalling. The latter, like champagne socialist, is a statement about someone else's character.
For example, I suppose Dicaprio is virtue signalling with his documentary on global warming. Seems like a bad reason to ignore the content of the documentary though.
The phrase strikes me as one of those conversation stoppers like "whatever" and "talk to the hand".
[quote=The Guardian]Hawkish trio – Jeff Sessions as attorney general, Mike Pompeo as CIA chief and Michael Flynn as national security adviser – have made inflammatory statements about race relations, immigration, Islam and the use of torture.[/quote]
The Door.
I am an early riser and an early consumer of another sinly beverage! ;)
I'd go for comfort myself.
Comfort is definitely important. I'm going to spend a lot of time on the couch, and I'll need good back support.
You also, like, stick to faux leather when it's hot and humid... eeewww.
My sister got the faux leather kind, and on that argument. I got the comfy ones. Just don't dump scketty on them, not like you have hatchlings.
My cat is sooo going to use whichever one I go for as a scratch post. Goddammit. I won't always be there to stop her.
Edit: Now more people have replied (on Facebook) and picked the grey. The grey it is, then.
Have you actually sat in either of these? Are you familiar with the brands? Ordering chairs on line does present the problem of sight unseen and the sit unsat.
Grey is always a good color, and leather is better than plastic. Unfortunately, leather costs more. How firm is the stuffing? Neither of them look very comfortable. I have a very dark blue leather couch (it was half-price). It's long. It's very comfortable to sleep on. It's also very hard to get out of. The older I get, the harder it becomes. I suppose I'll die on the couch someday because I was unable to get up out of it. (It's too soft, one sinks down too much.) You probably don't have to worry about dying in your chair yet.
It was a confused thought, similar to some of the thoughts my Mom has been expressing to me that my Step Dad is having but one that I hadn't heard for myself.
How much time?.....
I loved Cuba the only time I visited, fifteen years ago. The public transport system had almost broken down at the time - they were oil-poor after the Soviet collapse and before Venezuela went crazy over its oil supplies - so when, by a miracle of negotiation by then partner, we hired an old jeep, we ended up giving loads of local hitch-hikers rides. People we met were very welcoming, and mostly had a melancholy affection for the regime, and so did I. What they'd achieved in health and education was marvellous, and even now I think their primary health care is probably better than the USA's. But the cost of four decades of ideological authoritarianism was great. Still there was socialism with sex and music, a far cry from Russian communism :)
Why single out the grey one? They're both the same size. And neither are named or described as love seats, which are even smaller.
I don't mind if I can't lie down fully on it or don't have as much room as some of the larger sofas. It's mainly going to be for myself alone, and for sitting, and I'm constrained by a limited budget and limited space.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, and hopefully that will be the scratch post, rather than my new sofa.
Quoting Bitter Crank
No and yes. It had to be online because they're a lot cheaper than furniture stores. It doesn't have to be ideal, and it looks sufficiently comfy.
Quoting Bitter Crank
It's faux leather, and the sofas cost the same amount.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Not sure, but I reckon firm enough, and I reckon the sofa I'll get will be comfortable enough. I could let you know at some point in the future once I have it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Long and very comfortable are good features, but I can't afford that luxury. I could have gone with a very comfortable looking two-seater, but those ones seem to be priced at around double what I spent.
And yeh, hopefully neither of us will die in our sofas anytime soon.
Too late, and it would've been a lot more expensive that way.
The price difference is relatively large between the value online-only websites and sofa stores. For example, the cheapest online being about £150 compared with the cheapest in-store being around maybe £399. (Maybe more, I'd have to check again. I checked once already, and it just confirmed what I expected. I'm not willing to part with several hundred pounds for a sofa).
Declined to release any evidence...
Fact-checking website says there is "zero evidence"...
This is very concerning coming from someone in a role such as President Elect.
As opposed to Leavers and Remainers sticking to the facts?
It's "Some people say ...." and that's that. Nobody gives two shites about the facts. Not even newspapers, because reporting a quote is a fact in itself. The content of the quote is irrelevant. And people lap up celebrity opinion like water, because they're ever so curious what the rich and famous think and feel, trying to live the big life vicariously.
I didn't have space for, and couldn't afford a long couch until the late middle ages. Before that it was a mish--mash of sometimes ratty and/or uncomfortable junk. The long couch was especially welcomed by the dog who could take up as much space as me or Bob. She appreciated not having to wedge herself into insufficient room or drape herself over bony, uncomfortable legs.
Warmest wishes of the season to you {{{BC}}} ~ (L)
Thanks, I intend to. I bought the grey one and I'll get it in about three weeks.
Quoting Bitter Crank
That probably won't be a problem for me and my little cat. Her favourite place is inside my backpack. Here she is in a draw which I forgot to close:
"Really, I more look at life like an airplane trip. It's great if there is a decent movie on or something, but what you mostly want is for nothing horrible to happen."
Perfect.
http://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/nietzscheHumanResources2.png
Twits are gonna Tweet.
Complete with blue meanies.
Yeh, icy, if drunken determination. Like Yeltsin on a tank.
Chinese totalitarianism is Szechuan and bright yellow.
French totalitarianism was lavender and juniper trees and their dictator wasn't even French.
Yeah, yeah. I was being lazy though, it was cold and light snowing all day, and 5/12 pitch so nothing was staying put... and I was doing the second story of a duplex, only one side, so had to tie them into the other side, and neighbor didn't like that very much, lol. Anyway, instead of carrying the bundles up to the second level, I just opened them and threw half up, and then the other half, and I was going to do it with a second bundle when I heard the shingle coming, so I of course looked right at it, and did catch it, but it also hit me in the face. Just a small cut, but it was more blunt force than a scratch, so it will likely be bruised tomorrow.
Wosret, you amaze me and made me laugh but I gotta tell you, if you hear something falling from above you, take two steps to the left and then look up. ;)
The two of you would make a great team! It would be such the comic relief I need!
lolololol :D
Possibly. I think Godzilla is actually an image of the US.. walking around eating cars...
So, essentially we have Christian fascism.
It will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross, as Sinclair Lewis said fascism would come to America. And it will look much like Anthony Comstock, U.S. Postal Inspector who championed and rigorously enforced the laws named after him prohibiting the use of the mails to convey obscene and indecent information, like that related to birth control.
Like an orange creamsicle.
I've always liked Hanover, he's funny. It's his racial passive.
btw that is a rhetorical question and I am PMSing, so I am capable of going from 'sweet and sassy' 8-) to 'TOTAL Bitch' >:) in less than two seconds flat.
Now....who here has Chocolate?
~~searching Benkei's stash~~
You know. You inherited comedy from Moses or whatever. Everyone knows that "let my people go" was a running gag like "take my wife", but then got took all seriously.
Little known fact though! There were originally 586 commandments, but most of them were about bagels and shit, or jokes that only he got.
Fuckin' Hitlers you two, I swear >:O
What do you think the missing tablet actually said?
:D X-) >:O
Thou shall not kill... other Christians.
Thous shall not commit adultery... without a prophylactic.
Thou shall not steal... incomes via governmental taxation.
From what I can tell, it is safe to say that Banno is alive and doing well. He has been in a verbal joust with another 'thinker' about two topics: The ramifications of Trump being elected. :-} and Australia making a deal with Obama and Kerry to send 1,200 to 2,500 refugees, to the USA. Humans that the Australian government refuses to accept and places them in detention camps where 'humane' is not a word the refugees know, nor dignity. If a refugee gives birth to a baby in a detention camp, they are issued a number not a name. If women are raped and they report it to the detention center Doctors? The Doctors are not allowed to report it.
Banno is not happy with his government's solution but for me? It is so unbelievably mind boggling because the Australia I know is not a third world country and it is not as if the USA doesn't have it's own immigration issues. But go ahead, send your huddled masses but when you do, I request that they send the Grannies that have been caring for the refugees and the Doctors that give care to these souls. I have been following the Refuge Asylum seekers of Australia for two years now and this is the best solution the Australian government can come up with?
(N)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-refugees-idUSKBN13T054
We have roadside crosses that mark the death of someone and many are very, very personal in their makeup. Well, this time of year, I like to leave an ornament on the cross or a mini Rosemary tree with a little garland in the lights of all the candles or all those that are not lit.
I gave $5 to a Salvation Army Bell ringer and apologized that I wish it could be more. To which she answered, any money is worthy. She said did you know we can feed 7 people for one dollar? I was floored and thought, maybe someone is eating because of that donation.
Next year I want to volunteer for Wreaths Across America for all the soldiers graves at Arlington National Cemetery. They cost $15 and in today's world? I think I can make the case to purchase one as my Uncle who served 33 yrs in the Army, insists on a place setting be laid out, a chair reserved, for the soldier that cannot be with us. The "NEXT" generation needs to know the why we are so very fortunate.
Be well my friends and Season's Greetings~
Personally, I'm power full. :D
Serious stuff. Hope you can get Banno to post around here.
After all... everything is a goat.
Quoting Wosret
Quote miners rule!
Moi? I'm a quote mining totalitarian? I don't get what you mean.
(edit) You're actually probably referring to yourself... liking the clip for that purpose and it not being about me... yeah...
This is pretty good.
Forget the sofa and the flat for it go in. I don't even need a stool. A barrel will do.
I need just a little help: baking homemade Oatmeal Rum Raisin cookies for corporate gifts of 2 dozen each.
I also need help with packaging and delivery.
2 dozen cookies x 20 corporate gifts = 40 Dozen
Hmmmm......come on, you know you want to!
Where are you located?
Our ranch is one exit shy of Hell in the foothills of Daisy Mountain. We can provide a burro for delivery!
I'd love to be there, but that's a bit too far for me to go to help you make cookies--I'm in New York City.
Aww Thank you for your offer, as the intention is often more important than the result.
Speaking of results the cookie baking was interrupted by a holiday event for a client so I am already behind. :-} It's beginning to feel like Christmas here in the Sonoran Desert! No more need for AC!
Yippie! 8-)
I am pretty sure "he" is a she.
Mongrel, did I just change your gender?
Oops! In that case, my apologies for assuming. Since I hadn't had my bottle or nap at the time, i forgot to use the more inclusive "they" pronoun. That seems to be more acceptable recently, as an alternative to he/she pronouns. Which is a good thing, imho. Language might be as much a living organism as it is a physical tool. (L)
Strangely, it was the non-cookie stuff that got deleted.
Weird that I don't call them biscuits or weird that much of the non-biscuit stuff disappeared? Oh, and yes and no to answer your question.
Oh, I think Michael, being the considerate soul he is, ushered it from view to a more appropriate location.
Yeah, I do sometimes get Bagles and Beagles confused though. :P
Don't know. I do know though that it's hell trying to scrape cream cheese off a dog.
Exactly. Wish you good lox with that! :D
Cookies are a type of biscuit.
After watching this, I was like "Oh wow, I didn't know I gave interviews before!" >:O
Anxiety is a chemical imbalance. It may be produced by a fear of something, or it may be produced by something else. If it is produced by something else, then it will produce a something feared. Where do you get your chemicals from, good honest emotions, or a synthetic source?
Heh. I've just been assuming that Tom is Deutsch. ;)
I'm Spartacus! Unless... of course... you are planning on hurting me or torturing or causing bodily harm of some variety. In which case... He's Spartacus! Nice soldier!
:D
Happy 100th birthday Kirk! (L)
This is true, and oddly enough, the male nipple has only been mentioned only 3 times so far on The Philosophy Forum (this makes the fourth).
I chalk this up to many philosophers' discomfort with the facticity of their bodies. Many seem to think they are not embodied. And are tits on a boar beautiful precisely because they are so useless? One wonders.
Not sure about beauty, he didn't say the nipple is an ornament. Well, have you ever seen male nipples that kept you in awe (non-pruriently)? I don't think I've seen any, maybe David's but then again all of him is awesome.
How about: The most beautiful part of the human form is the nipple.
Seems to work, yes?
Freudian slip?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsO6ZnUZI0g
Duu-it-nauu!
Anything is possible after Trump won.
Are we living in the best of possible worlds?
That's hilarious.
Do you think he would win if he runs?
So my Mother In Law is looking for a property near us (less than 5 miles) after selling her paid off home to buy a Motor Home to tour the country. Well after exploring the NW for the last 6 months, SHE"S BACK!!!!
Lord grant me the serenity ....to not ....mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......
Thank you.
Christmas shopping?
Is a Kilim a kind of Bohemian?
Lol.
Good point.
Grumbling can be heard "Welcome to Arizona! Now PLEASE go home!" 8-)
I miss 180~ Does anyone know how he is doing?
He's done a complete turnaround and is now spouting religious dogma on YouTube.
Link please (Y)
http://themetapicture.com/i-really-dont-get-it/
Sounds good to me. Why not let the party vote online for candidates...it would level the playing field somewhat. It might get more people involved in the process and it should be cheaper and more democratic.
Over 90 million eligible voters did not vote in the Nov 8 election in US
We're socializing creatures. We're better when we come together to feed, clothe, shelter, and defend one another. When does this dependence become slavery?
When what you are doing is not by choice and you begin to build up resentment, against those whom are making you do it, including but not limited to yourself.
The GOP out thought the DEMs plus the DEMs screwed themselves by rigging the results of their primary against Bernie. I think Bernie would have appealed to a broader spectrum of voters than HRC. The problem I see is the lack of viable candidates, very few people on either side liked the Trump/HRC choice.
I think Trump's time in office will be filled with lawsuits and many States will assert their right to say no to the Feds.
Identity politics is good topic for discussion. Some think that the DEMs lost because they did not pay attention to working class white voters who make up the vast majority of voters.
Upper class people (like the Clintons, worth only what, 100 to 300 million) and Trump (worth a few billion) do not live the same kind of lives that white working class people do. Even if they were born in a shack and their mothers were common street whores, which is rarely the case, ambition and financial success soon separate the upward bound and peak dwellers from the working class.
The top bananas don't mix with working class people--white, black or asian--and their knowledge isn't all that deep. Sometimes it seems limited to slogans and buzzwords. 99% of the the upper class do not do the Eleanor Roosevelt program of up-close-and-personal-investigation of life among the working classes.
I have no doubt that Sanders would have had broader appeal. Not sure he would have won, but he would have done more for the future of the Democratic national party than Hillary could do. And yes, I think you are right about the next four years being very litigious. I want to see The Resistance that In These Times and The Nation have been talking about come into existence. Occupy America.
Yesterday afternoon in the pouring rain, I saw a pair of dogs running free. Knowing they would try to cross our 'seasonal creek' we set out to catch them. One is a very well cared for, loved and well behaved Pit and the puppy he is with is a lab mix of some kind with big puppy paws but more than 30 lbs underweight. You can not only see his ribs horribly defined but his spine is barely covered by fur. They stayed the night in our warm and dry garage and now to find the Pit's home but the lab...I just don't know if I can A) take the animal to the pound on Christmas Eve :’( B) try to find the neglectful owner, if he has one or C) keep him till he puts on some weight and then try to find a forever home. Thoughts?
You know that moment when you know you are falling in love with something/someone and you keep telling others that you are not getting attached?
If I can care for a hoarders horses for a year, I can certainly take care of omg Comet....
:) Happy Christmas Tiff
Did you get an addition to the family? 8-)
Once again a year has passed and we are still together. I know that I can be viewed as the emotional one but hey...there has to be one over sympathetic, over empathetic, over emotional, over happy, just full of love for all of you! (L)
Are you sure he didn't mean Hanukkah? :D
Quoting Baden
Well, it's a good greeting in itself. Got the Blues for Christmas.
Witt's 'Culture and Value' came from Santa today. It's surprising how, in these notes from Witt's notebooks about culture, his Jewishness - or at least, observations on 'the Jew' - feature so largely. There must have been something particularly strange and nauseating in the 1930's about a patriotic Austrian/German speaker - for Witt was a Great War veteran, and had been a PoW for his pains - finding himself supposedly excluded from being German. Especially as he placed such store in one's language.
Happy holly daze.
How about better health? Kind of a nice way of saying Murder less
In other news, I now have broadband at home. Yay! TV and internet and online gaming!
I must disagree. There is that curve where the top of the thigh meets the buttock.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/technologyinvesting/self-driving-cars-are-already-deciding-who-to-kill/ar-BBxI6mq?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=iehp
Congratulations!
Do you think a painting is like a syllogism, a judgement by taste?
premise: Matter
premise: Form
The aesthetic effect is the conclusion.
The matter and form are understood post hoc. So, no.
Why?
Whether or not creative works have their own internal logic?
I was thinking how judgements of taste that might work, how sensible sense is.
Why this book is on google, I don't know. I've had it for many years.
Doesn't Google have a world book project, trying to copy every book in existence.
The golden curve is spun out of a series of nested golden rectangles.
Cool.
Infinite regress of polls.
But not all.
Not all logicians are happy.
And the answer is always Donald Trump.
Quoting mosesquine
I am certain that some members of this forum who are good at logic know that you are a stupid idiot. Either you never opened any textbook on logic or you are a blind man. Many exercises in logic textbooks contain one-premise arguments. You are stupid, indeed.
Another bookworm who likes to parrot books instead of think. Tell me, how does a single premise argument avoid begging the question? What is the difference between a single premise argument which begs the question and one which doesn't?
Your definition of 'begging the question' is screwed up.
There are many one-premise arguments.
Ok so please explain to me, using your big head, what the difference is between a single premise argument which begs the question, and one which doesn't. Go ahead.
'Begging the question' is irrelevant to the number of premises. Arguments can be valid with one premise. 'Validity' is related to structures of arguments. So, it is not relevant to how many premises are contained in.
'Begging the question' is relevant to fallacies. Logical fallacies can occur with any number of premises.
This is why your concept of 'begging the question' is seriously screwed up.
I never claimed that begging the question can't occur in multi-premises arguments - only that it doesn't necessarily occur. You seem to have reading comprehension problems. Now stop being a a coward and avoid answering, and answer me:
How does anyone distinguish between a single premise argument which begs the question, and one (single premise argument) which doesn't? And we'll probably see who is the idiot now, who only knows about parroting what he reads in logic books that he doesn't understand.
Single premise arguments which do not beg the question are structurally formally valid. Logic is only concerned with forms, not with contents. This is why it is called 'formal logic'. The argumentative form 'A, therefore, A' is called 'tautologous', and not called 'begging the question'. 'Tautologous' is different from 'begging the question'.
There are some informal arguments, like "A, therefore, B'. 'Begging the question' occurs in informal arguments. But not all informal arguments are begging the question.
No it's not. A tautology is something that logically cannot fail to be the case. A, therefore A can fail to be the case, if the premise, A, isn't the case. Something like "It is raining or it is not raining" is a tautology (in most systems of logic) because it is true regardless of how matters stand in the world.
Now you tell me that single premise arguments which do not beg the question are structurally, formally valid. Now show me a single premise argument which does beg the question please. Just write out the argument. And no, please don't just say it will be structually, formally invalid - because multi-premise arguments don't have to be structurally, formally invalid to beg the question, and thus you would be admitting to what I've been saying all along that single-premise arguments aren't even arguments in the usual sense, because they do not share the same structure with regular multi-premise arguments.
Quoting mosesquine
This argument doesn't beg the question, it's simply invalid.
Anything true regardless of how matters stand in the world is called 'logical truth'. 'Tautology' is a kind of logical truths.
Many arguments are offered as informal ones. Consider: You are stupid. Therefore, you are a bad student of logic.
Formal validity is only concerned with forms. Daily conversation including informal arguments is sometimes concerned with contents. They are two different areas.
Here's an example of single premise arguments which does beg the question.
Premise: Anything said in Bible is true.
Conclusion: God exists.
This argument does not provide us with good reasons to accept conclusion. So, it is the fallacy of begging the question.
And the argument
Premise: A
Conclusion: A
does provide you with good reason to accept the conclusion? What's that good reason that exists in this latter case, and doesn't exist in the former?
-The Non Sequitur
Such an argument is formally valid. In logic, formally valid arguments are *good arguments*. Again, formal logic is only concerned with forms.
Let's say what makes arguments valid is called 'the metaphysical concept of arguments'. In formal logic, 'the metaphysical concept of arguments' is formal validity.
Yes, so is your argument. That's also formally valid (or it would have to be if you want to present it as formally valid).
Quoting mosesquine
So I am asking you a very simple question, which your very big, intelligent brain should be able to answer, but I see instead that you're trying to be a coward and run away, and confuse matters. So let's get back to the point:
1. Multi-premise arguments can be formally valid AND beg the question at one and the same time
2. Single-premise arguments, according to you, can't be both formally valid and begging the question because in logic, a formally valid argument is a good argument.
3. If (2), then either (1) is false, or else single-premise arguments have a different governing logical structure than multi-premise arguments, and thus aren't arguments in the same sense.
If you claim that (1) is false, then you're a lunatic, because I'll give you a formally valid multi-premise argument which does beg the question:
1. Anything the Bible says is true
2. The Bible says God exist
3. Therefore God exists.
It's formally valid, and yet it begs the question. So as you see, in either case, you're just an idiot, and there's no escaping that - all you can do is parrot logic books, but your understanding is nil. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I refute it thus: it begs the question ;) >:O
How is that argument an example of one but not the other.
I think that you are an idiot. I repeatedly say that 'begging the question' is irrelevant to how many premises are, over and over again. I have explained correctly, but your brain is too damaged to comprehend the whole explanations. You repeatedly re-formulated my explanations. You are an idiot.
Meow!
GREG
*facepalm* if begging the question is irrelevant to how many premises there are, then how come it can happen in valid multi-premise arguments, and it can't happen in valid single-premise arguments? If it can happen in valid single-premise arguments, then please give me the argument in which it can happen (AND IT MUST BE A VALID ARGUMENT) and explain to me why it occurs in that argument, and not in, say,
A
Therefore A
And as we have already established, it has nothing to do with it being an informal (ie invalid, hidden premise argument). The fucking argument which you gave me before is informal and INVALID! You're hiding a premise.
1. Everything the Bible says is true
2. The Bible says God exists
3. Therefore God exists
If you hide 2, as you shamelessly did, you don't offer me an example of a circular, valid single premise argument. I'm still waiting, because I won't let you go on this so that everyone sees what a loser you are.
I think you should be ashamed of yourself for supporting someone who repeatedly and without reason or provocation resorts to insults in multiple threads, instead of to argument. Just serves to show who you really are.
I was about to tell you where there is a spy, but I think I will abstain >:O
For me, the fact that an argument is circular (ie begs the question) is sufficient for it to qualify as fallacious. I'm not going to listen nor bother with arguments which are circular - that by definition disqualifies them from my interest. Furthermore, I don't waste my time with irrelevant puzzles which don't lead to anything else. A question has to be significant for one to bother answering it.
Really now...
... and why should I care what you think?
Meow!
GREG
Happy New Year from down under, kids!
Yes I have only started to insult him after he had done so on numerous ocassions without provocation.
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
That's a strange question, why should I care what you think for that matter? Maybe because you're on a philosophy forum, and you should apply critical thinking? Has that not occurred to you? If you don't care about what I say, it's simple, don't reply.
It is a logical fallacy which is termed "informal fallacy", but applies to formally valid arguments as well, contrary to what mosesquine thinks. In fact - one doesn't even know what he thinks because it's incoherent. I asked him for an example of a single premise argument which does beg the question, and he gave me an informal argument with a hidden premise - and without that premise it wasn't even valid. Shameful.
How would you be able to distinguish it from valid forms?
There can't be a single premise argument which doesn't beg the question - that's my point.
A
Therefore A
Begs the question regardless of what A is. Maybe there would be some exceptions if you plug a tautology instead of A, but that's giving the troll too many ideas.
c1. If it says in the bible that Moses was a basket case, then Moses was a basket case.
I propose that this is a non-circular, valid, non-question-begging argument with a single, but unfortunately false premise. Note that one can reform any syllogism in a similar manner by incorporating the minor premise into the conclusion in conditional form, without changing the meaning.
1. Any element of X is true
2. If B is an element of X, then B is true
I think this is the case I specified above, where you're still doing:
A
Therefore A
To wit: "Any element of X is true" just means "If B in X, B is true"
So the conclusion is a re-statement of the premise, merely in a different logical form, but with the same sense. Is that begging the question, or no? Technically speaking, the conclusion is still included within the premise of the argument, merely under a different logical form.
The telling factor for me is that your argument doesn't tell us anything about the world. It doesn't tell us what is in the Bible or anything. It gives a purely logical truth, and bears a resemblance in structure with the tautology.
I could give an argument like:
A
Therefore ~(~A)
But that's merely repackaging the contents of the premise in a different logical form. I think still begging the question. If I told you:
1. It is raining
2. Therefore it is not, not raining.
What would you say? Would you say the argument is sound and valid, if it's actually raining outside, and it is valid but not sound if it's not raining outside? Is the conclusion any different from the first premise? Does it offer any new information? It seems to me that the conclusion merely takes the first premise and says "is true" after it - that's all the conclusion effectively adds to it. Thus it begs the question.
Notice the other peculiar feature. If I take your argument, I can swap premise and conclusion:
1. If B is an element of X, then B is true.
2. Therefore any element of X is true. (I guess this premise/conclusion could be rephrased like there exists an element B such that if B is part of X, then B is true)
This again points to the identity of the two, and therefore to the fact that the only difference is logical form, and not sense. Therefore such an argument begs the question.
Wittgenstein was right - logical form doesn't say anything about the world. So merely changing logical form doesn't alter the content. And in terms of the content, the argument presumes the truth of it by putting it as a premise once, and then as a conclusion.
However - if I say:
1. (A or ~A)
2. Therefore (A or ~A)
Am I still begging the question? The premise cannot ever fail to be true. So in what sense am I assuming the truth of the conclusion in the premises? I'm not, as in other arguments, putting a premise, and then adding "is true" to it in the conclusion, because the premise cannot fail to be true. In fact, I cannot conclude anything else but its truth! So the only single-premise arguments which are not question-begging would be those whose single-premise is a tautology.
A Secret Has Been Uncovered: Cancer Is Not A Disease But Business!
NewsRescue
Sep 2016
Seems (to me) critical inquiry is being laughed at.
These kinds of folks turn others into losers.
At least the article has this foot note:
Here is the classical logical syllogism:
p1. All men are mortal.
p2. Socrates is a man.
c1. Socrates is mortal.
And here is the single premise form:
p1 All men are mortal.
c2. If socrates is a man, Socrates is mortal.
And here is the same thing with no premises:
c3. If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal.
It is the essence of validity that the argument shows that the conclusion is contained in the premises. This is not begging the question. The syllogism does not beg any question, and the restatements do not beg any question. What happens is that as one removes premises the conclusion becomes weaker.
There is a question to be asked of any premise, whether it is true or false, but this question is entirely separate from that of the validity of the argument. If it turns out that Socrates is a demon or a cat and not a man, then all bets are off and the argument fails, but it fails on the facts not on its validity.
You mean follows from the premises - that's not the same thing as being contained in the premises.
It has two premises; "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man". It's just a one-line syllogism.
That's why I cannot invert your argument:
Quoting unenlightened
I cannot write:
p1. If it says in the Bible that Moses was a basket case, then Moses was a basket case
c1. Therefore everything it says in the bible is true.
However, I showed that it is possible to do this when we're looking only at the logical form of the argument you're suggesting.
But I'm done here, you don't even know what a premise is.
:-!
Quoting unenlightened
Much rather that your conclusion itself becomes a conditional, and hence a logical form couching the premise and adding "is true" to it.
:D
Moses? Is that you?
You've grown into a fine young man.
1 is not just 'A'. That's a misrepresentation of the logical argument.
p1. All A = C
p2. B = subset of A
c. Therefore B = C
(All A) does not equal (subset of A)
It's quite clear with numbers:
p1. all numbers divisible by 2 are even
p2. 2 is divisible by 2
c. Therefore 2 is even
Following your interpretation you'd be saying 2 equals all even numbers, which of course is a bit silly.
If you haven't and are interested in art, society or almost anything, have look at Ways of Seeing.
Dang, that was quick. Just a day or two in 2017...? :)
For some reason I find this hilarious.
Robert Hulseman, who in the 1970s invented the Red Solo Cup has died, he was 84 yrs old.
"...you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted)."
For those who find this difficult to understand:
"That's stupid" - Expressing yourself strongly. Not necessarily flaming.
"You are fucking thick" - Flaming.
(Notice I didn't say "you are fucking thick" if you don't understand that as that would be flaming.)
Hope it's all clear now. (Y)
>:O I have to admit that was a new expression for me!
I missed this folly. It does not have those premises, which I can demonstrate by adding them.
c3. If A and B, then C.
p1 & p2. A and B.
c1 Therefore C.
c3 does not assert the (truth of) premises of the syllogism, they have to be added to arrive at the conclusion of the syllogism. All it asserts is the validity of the syllogism, not its soundness.
Similarly, "If wishes were horses then beggars would ride." does not assert that wishes are horses and does not conclude that beggars ride.
That's an association fallacy.
No, because there are no premises or conclusion. It's a statement, and it's false, despite the facts that I am a man and from Wales and named Bob, because my neighbour is also a man from Wales and he's called Glyn."
Inversely, "If unenlightened lives in London then he lives in England" is true despite that he lives in neither.
"...in thickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part.".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London,_Ohio
This could be a compliment in certain contexts.
That's just a made up place, America is not real.
Quoting unenlightened
That seems wrong to me. Interpreting the statement logically, the conclusion would be after "then", the first premise would be after "if", and the second premise would be after "and".
Although, that's taking it in isolation, whereas I suppose you could use the whole thing as a premise in a larger argument, e.g.
P1. If A and B, then C.
P2. A.
P3. B.
C. Therefore C.
Yes, I understand that. But I wasn't talking about the statement as an assertion. I said [I]"Interpreting the statement logically..."[/I]. It has a logical form, involving logical connectives, a premise, and a conclusion. Nor did I say or imply that it makes the claim that you chuck a brick. I didn't say that there is a single premise without the logical connective "if" connected to it, and preceding it. It's the material conditional (if... then..) and the blanks are filled in by a premise and a conclusion.
It does not conclude what you say its conclusion is, because it does not assert what you claim its premise is, and that is how "if" functions. Your 'interpretation' is flat wrong.
Again, I'm not talking about any assertion. A premise isn't the same as an assertion, and a premise need not be asserted. If discussing validity, i.e. whether B follows A, then A is the premise and B is the conclusion. If you say "If A then B" then it makes perfect sense to talk about B as the conclusion, and to question whether it follows.
Thanks for the condescension, but I think that it is you who is mistaken, and who does not seem to understand what I am saying.
It makes perfect sense, If you bracket off the 'if'. But the 'conclusion' is not the conclusion of an argument that is being made. If you will look back a page or two, you will see the confusion that results from talking about a conclusion to an argument that has not been made. The validity of a conditional argument can very well be discussed, but for god's sake analyse it as a condition and a conditional conclusion. and not a premise and a conclusion.
Yes! Antecedent and consequent. You have done a better job at clearing this up for me than unenlightened has, just by using those terms. That is the correct terminology, and that is actually what I was trying to convey. There is obviously a similarity in the meaning of those words. I was just using the wrong terminology. Just as a conclusion is supposed to follow a premise, the consequent is supposed to follow the antecedent. The latter is supposed to be a logical consequence or implication of the former.
But cannot also a conditional statement [i]be[/I] an argument? I get that it can be a statement, an assertion, a premise as part of an argument, and that it's conditional, but I see no reason why it cannot also be an argument.
[I]If the Bible is true, then God exists.[/i]
That certainly looks like an argument to me, and one with which it does indeed, as I said, make perfect sense to discuss the validity of. Un's criticism about me not understanding the "if" misses the mark, I think. I [i]do[/I] understand that. He should give me [I]some[/I] credit.
Quoting jamalrob
Well, I wasn't entirely disagreeing with him, and was actually agreeing with some of the criticism he was directing at me.
For instance "if I don't eat this sandwich, then my dog will explode", the conclusion doesn't follow from the hypothesis, but that doesn't mean that it isn't true. It's true if my dog explodes, even if it had absolutely nothing to do with my sandwich eating.
Consequent means "following as a result or effect", and is thus misleading, as you went on to suggest there must then be a logical connection.
I don't care what other people believe, being wrong is their inalienable right.
Quoting Wosret
That's bringing soundness into it, but I was just talking about validity. If the conclusion doesn't follow, then it's invalid. I said nothing of truth or falsity.