I'ma summarize the moral of pretty much all hero's journey type shounen anime: in a competition to be the best at something, the villains believe that being better, and more powerful makes them more inherently valuable, and whatever they can do, they are inherently justified in doing. Heroes say nope, not true.
I'll concede the point that anime isn't the stupidest thing ever, but it is likely in the top 5 somewhere between disco and ass hats.
My top 5 already consists of things I rather not be doing with Ayn Rand, followed by another 100 things I could be doing with her, then followed by all those things I could be doing with her followers, quickly followed by discussions on religion on a philosophy forum. Writing this post is also getting stupider by the second so I suppose I should be watching anime instead.
Attorneys and Fire Fighters! Both arrive to help in an emergency without a firearm AND are both bound by an oath they took long before they encountered me. So yeah, I have been known to fall into a trance when I see Fire Fighters and when I talk to attorneys. But enough about any of my upcoming sins 8-)
Who is Sia's and does she know her voice turns you on?
Reply to Chief Owl Sapientia Ha! You think you're attacking me by attacking sports watching, as if I am a sports watcher, but a sports watcher I am not. Life is not a spectator sport, so I either play, or I don't engage. I have no reason to watch others, unless it's my son playing soccer, who I do watch only to support, but I'm actually (shhh, don't tell him) bored out of my mind.
Ha! You think you're attacking me by attacking sports watching, as if I am a sports watcher, but a sports watcher I am not. Life is not a spectator sport, so I either play, or I don't engage. I have no reason to watch others, unless it's my son playing soccer, who I do watch only to support, but I'm actually (shhh, don't tell him) bored out of my mind.
Damn. I thought I'd have you with that one. I remembered you making some comment about sports which I twisted into a comment about socialism.
It's still stupid to care about whether or not the Red Pants will win the Stupid Bowl or whatever it is you yanks care about.
(And pants are underwear, not trousers, by the way)
Reply to Chief Owl SapientiaPants are definitely not underwear unless you wear underwear as pants. Trousers are what 80 year old men call pants. Dress pants are called slacks and shirts are called shirts unless you're a woman (and maybe you are) and you're wearing a dressier shirt, and then it's called a blouse. A jacket is a short coat, and a sweater is a sweater, unless you're stupid and call it a jumper. If you don't wear underwear and you're a guy, you call it free-balling or commando, but if you're a girl (and maybe you are), you can only call it commando because girls can't free ball due to lack of such equipment (maybe you don't know what chicks got going on, so I'm letting you know, you're welcome).
Shoes are shoes are shoes, and just because you're playing soccer (aka "football" if you're stupid) you don't call them boots. A boot is what you do real work in, you ride a horse in, or you hike in, or, if you're an American, it's what you put up someone's ass when they do something stupid.
If you call socks hosiery, then you're an idiot. If you're a girl (and maybe you are), you would call hosiery just hose. If you add the iery to that word, you've got your nose too high in the air.
I could go on about this wardrobe talk, but I have to work. I will say though that a wardrobe refers to what you wear, not a closet where you keep your clothes. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that referred to the wardrobe as some sort of piece of furniture was stupid. It should have been The Lion, the Witch, and the Clothes Holder Furniture Thing.
Reply to Hanover I don't wear pants, I wear boxer shorts, and I wear them underneath my trousers. But if I did wear pants, I would wear them as underwear. Pants are definitely underwear. I would not attempt to stretch them into something like trousers to wear over the top of my pants. That'd be weird. Almost as weird as the term "dress pants", which must I suppose be some sort of pants for a woman to wear under her dress. Although pants aren't for women. Knickers are for women. So if you're going to wear a dress, you should wear dress knickers, not dress pants. Though you shouldn't even wear a dress, unless you want to dress as a women, or you are in fact a woman (and perhaps you are).
But your weirdest claim by far is that a wardrobe is what you wear. That must be very awkward, uncomfortable and clunky. You must have great difficulty moving around when you wear a large wooden piece of furniture as clothing. What did you do to make it wearable? Saw some holes in it to stick your head, arms and legs through?
Cool. Feel free to share details. Is the setting a lawyer's office? Surely not a courtroom. A private deposition?
So many choices! The courtroom has a certain flirt with voyeurism to it. Great suggestion! A private deposition is anything but private but if the attorney could dance, maybe a male version of Tina Turner in her video "Private Dancer" would rock. But the crown jewel would be in the Judges' private chambers, surrounded by leather bound books, on heavy wooden shelves with a very LARGE wooden desk, respectful of his "Honors" worthiness and his black robe. Mmmm yep that would work. 8-)
Btw: have you come up with another positive aspect of Hanover to share? I believe you are only at one of three. :D
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Honestly, I haven't interacted with him enough to know him very well. He rarely shows up to the more in depth philosophy discussions.
But your weirdest claim by far is that a wardrobe is what you wear. That must be very awkward, uncomfortable and clunky. You must have great difficulty moving around when you wear a large wooden piece of furniture as clothing. What did you do to make it wearable? Saw some holes in it to stick your head, arms and legs through?
Screw you! The doctor told me I had to wear a wardrobe and it's embarrassing and limiting enough without me having to hear this from you. You know, we're all just trying to get by here, and for you of all people to come out against me like this, really, it's just uncalled for and really hard to deal with.
That's Hanover's hand. I'd recognise it anywhere. You can't tell from the picture, but he's most likely wearing a wardrobe, which makes his noble act even more impressive.
It did win, you're right, but I'd point out that it won in the Stupid category, so my point stands.
You're seriously saying that a film about a young girl who has to bathe ghosts to save her parents who have been turned into pigs from being eaten is stupid?
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff So I've been pondering this: after the desecration of some Jewish graves and bomb threats on Jewish community centers in several states, Trump stated that he thought the crimes might have been committed by Jews to make him look bad.
If you had to unpack that a little, what would you make of it? Why would those crimes make him look bad?
Reply to Mongrel If Trump is a covert nazi, he might worry that people would guess that he is a secret nazi and is responsible for coordinating jew hate in jew cemeteries. If Trump is conservative, he might worry that people hold him responsible for an increase in embarrassing jew hate by being careless with his twitster account. If Trump is confused, he might suspect that jew hating is bad PR, and people will link him with jew hating, because they hate him for everything anyway. On the other hand, a confused Trump might also think that everybody loves him and that the Obama-Clinton Clique are trying to smear him by organizing jew hate events. This would make sense to him because everyone knows that whoever is POTUS is responsible for everything that happens. Markets go up, the wonderful Prez is a genius. Markets go down, damn Prez is an idiot. Some islamic terrorist blows the head off the statue of liberty -- the Prez is responsible for coordinating it. So Trump had the head filled with sand so nobody could get up there. Sort of like his own head.
The truth is, in fact, that President Donald Trump does not know shit from shinola. Fortunately for him, he has never polished his own shoes, so didn't have to distinguish which stuff is which.
The truth is, in fact, that President Donald Trump does not know shit from shinola. Fortunately for him, he has never polished his own shoes, so didn't have to distinguish which stuff is which.
Trump knows what shit looks like, but only against the backdrop of a solid-gold toilet, which probably leads to optical distortions. You know, like that "is it blue or is it gold?" dress meme...only with shit.
Reply to Bitter Crank I don't feel like you're taking my question very seriously. Maybe because it's in the shoutbox. .
I think Trump is neither a Nazi nor a conservative. Did he not throw suspicion on Jews (as opposed to Clinton supporters)? Or did I misunderstand that? It's really more the broader social climate I was pondering, not Trump himself.
Reply to Mongrel Maybe it's the flippant fraction of the Shout box. I shall now take your question seriously.
The broader social climate is damnably ambiguous in places. Is Trump a Nazi? Almost certainly not. Is he a conservative? Sure, I think so. If the broader social climate is murky, Trump is an agent of clouded water. Are there powerful people in the US who are kind of authoritarian anyway, and feel that things need to be tightened up all round? I think so.
Appointments of a climate change/CO2-as-a-climate-heating-agent-denier to direct the EPA, a Standard Oil man to head the Energy Department, the head of a fast food chain to lead the labor Department are all conservative/Republican Party moves. They are destructive appointments.
Trump is a de-stabilizer--but towards precisely what end isn't entirely clear (and not entirely unclear either). My guess his primary constituency is big business--certainly not the folks who voted for him. The broader social climate is easily stirred. Trump doesn't have to be anti-semitic to awaken anti-semitism. Destabilizing the already unsettled social climate is all that is necessary.
Trump doesn't have to send out storm troopers into the streets to bludgeon people. All he has to do is post incendiary, prevocational, tweets. The Twittering, Chattery Nattering classes will pick up on them and twit, chat, and nat. Before long it is reflected in barroom conversations, coffee klatches, dorm rooms, and what not. There are all sorts of reactions, counter reactions, acid-base fizzes, and so forth bubbling up.
Meanwhile, the White House, the two parties in the Congress, various political appointees, and the courts are all pursuing various separate issues. Factual information sometimes plays a walk on role in this dreary melodrama.
Trump's not a conservative in any traditional sense. He's an opportunist, who was able to exploit conservatism to his ends, but many of his stated positions (or improvised thought-bubbles) upended years of conservative policy (not least his promise to improve on Obamacare instead of just dismantling it, which seemed to dawn on him exactly at the time he said it, and is now engulfing the GOP in a world of pain.) And he's also in the thrall of a lot of very sinister right-wing conspiracy theorists. Question: who knows Juliius Evola, and that Stephen Bannon quoted him in a recent address.
“He, too, is an entrepreneur that at a point in his life decided to devote his skills and energies to his own country. And he was voted by all the Americans that are tired of old politics, shut in themselves, that have grown unable to listen and understand,” Berlusconi said “A policy that made the same mistake typical of the left all over the world: thinking that being 'politically correct' is the way to be close to people’s needs, without understanding that the actual weak are the citizens oppressed by the state, taxes, bureaucracy, uncontrolled immigration, unemployment, the terrorist threat.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/13/berlusconi-opens-up-about-trump-putin-and-the-failure-of-political-correctness/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.8d295d8c6b58
It seems to me the world of pain (how they suffer!) the GOP is engulfed in is entirely of their own making. A major source of the pain is the realization of what cancelling ObabaCare actually means. Millions of people now have affordable health insurance coverage (only about 3% have faced really high premiums) and they don't really want to now lose it. Congressmen on both sides of the aisle can see big trouble for the GOP if they are successful. Plans to screw around with Medicaid (which is not Medicare) raise further worries. A lot of people depend on medicaid--mostly poorer people.
He is, true enough, but Washington is infested with opportunists at all levels on all sides. Opportunism just goes with the territory the world 'round.
It seems to me the world of pain (how they suffer!) the GOP is engulfed in is entirely of their own making.
Totally agree BC I didn't want to imply that their discomfort was anything other than richly deserved. The whole 'Obamascare' campaign was a crock from the outset.
So, now the fight in the GOP is over competing versions of healthcare plans, all of which will result in citizens losing coverage, and the only consideration is which one will lose them more votes.
We will make you suffer; the only question is how much of it you'll take before turning blue. Nice.
Actually I have had the thought that there is a traditional bit of iconography in Buddhist cultures, comprising a pig, snake and rooster, pursuing each other in an endless circle. These are the 'three poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion.
Pig represents greed, rooster stupidity, and snake hatred.
So much of current politics seems to be driven by these 'three poisons'.
Greed - abolishing laws such as environmental and financial regulations that impede the profitability of corporations, etc.
Hatred - fear of 'the other', those from other countries and cultures, enacted through building of walls and travel bans, etc.
Delusion - 'I alone can solve', the inauguration photo fiasco, the wiretapping paranoia, etc.
So I've been pondering this: after the desecration of some Jewish graves and bomb threats on Jewish community centers in several states, Trump stated that he thought the crimes might have been committed by Jews to make him look bad.
If you had to unpack that a little, what would you make of it? Why would those crimes make him look bad?
Oh my god. This man should be fired already. It's something new every day, isn't it? The other day it was his unfounded allegation that Obama had him wiretapped.
Actually I have had the thought that there is a traditional bit of iconography in Buddhist cultures, comprising a pig, snake and rooster, pursuing each other in an endless circle.
I like it though. I'm guessing that's because the snake pursues the pig to bite it out of hatred, the pig pursues the chicken to eat it out of greed, and the chicken pursues the snake because it's stupid.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 10, 2017 at 12:14#600630 likes
Honestly, I haven't interacted with him enough to know him very well. He rarely shows up to the more in depth philosophy discussions.
Why the fixation on his positive qualities?
The confession of your sins were to be absolved by articulating three 'positive aspects' about someone that I had an inkling you didn't know very well and someone that might be a challenge for you to focus on. To have asked you to list three positive aspects about Michael would not have been a challenge would it?
Not likely.
The confession of your sins were to be absolved by articulating three 'positive aspects' about someone that I had an inkling you didn't know very well and someone that might be a challenge for you to focus on. To have asked you to list three positive aspects about Michael would not have been a challenge would it?
Not likely.
Do you believe in Heaven?
Bribery?
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 10, 2017 at 12:44#600710 likes
So I've been pondering this: after the desecration of some Jewish graves and bomb threats on Jewish community centers in several states, Trump stated that he thought the crimes might have been committed by Jews to make him look bad.
If you had to unpack that a little, what would you make of it? Why would those crimes make him look bad?
Ironically enough, I think that President Trump is so focused on bringing "God" back into our society that anything that looks like a threat, to any religion other than radical edge of Islam, might in fact be 'a hill he is willing to die on'. I think he is very protective of the Jewish people and that might be why this vandalism is taking place under his watch but I cannot make sense of why he thinks it would have been committed by the Jewish themselves.
Whomever is committing the vandalism in the cemeteries, as well as bomb threats being phoned into Jewish Community Centers, in numerous states on an almost daily basis, will get caught...eventually, they always do.
Actually I have had the thought that there is a traditional bit of iconography in Buddhist cultures, comprising a pig, snake and rooster, pursuing each other in an endless circle. These are the 'three poisons' of greed, hatred and delusion.
Just a note: that is a wicked version of a "pig", my guess is it is a Javelina even though they say it's not a pig, it sure does look the same.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 10, 2017 at 13:04#600780 likes
Trump is a de-stabilizer--but towards precisely what end isn't entirely clear (and not entirely unclear either). My guess his primary constituency is big business--certainly not the folks who voted for him. The broader social climate is easily stirred. Trump doesn't have to be anti-semitic to awaken anti-semitism. Destabilizing the already unsettled social climate is all that is necessary.
Trump doesn't have to send out storm troopers into the streets to bludgeon people. All he has to do is post incendiary, prevocational, tweets. The Twittering, Chattery Nattering classes will pick up on them and twit, chat, and nat. Before long it is reflected in barroom conversations, coffee klatches, dorm rooms, and what not. There are all sorts of reactions, counter reactions, acid-base fizzes, and so forth bubbling up.
Yep. And that's what it is: the lack of predictability. It's always true that we only partially understand the present moment. We can't put it into context the way an historian will eventually be able to. But we don't pay much attention to that knowledge deficit when it looks like history is coloring within the lines.
When unprecedented stuff is happening, we may tend to fill in the blanks with.... ourselves basically. Our fears or optimism. And that's proper.
The confession of your sins were to be absolved by articulating three 'positive aspects' about someone that I had an inkling you didn't know very well and someone that might be a challenge for you to focus on. To have asked you to list three positive aspects about Michael would not have been a challenge would it?
Not likely.
Do you believe in Heaven?
Oh. I guess I'm a little confused about positive qualities. Michael has a streak of persistence. Is that positive? It could be. Or it could be disastrous.
Look at Hanover in neither a positive nor negative way. Look behind the face, the gender, the race, the nationality, etc. See the living, breathing, feeling person beneath all that.
Heaven? Put it in a sentence and I can tell you.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 10, 2017 at 13:12#600830 likes
Last formal debate for my Indians Senior year and the topics were Sex Education in Public schools and Population control. His team was pro sex ed and con population control and the debate was pretty balanced until a male member of the opposing team suggested that it is inappropriate to teach those under 12, that they will grow a uterus, as that is a parent's role.
And that is when one of the females on my Indians team, stepped up and wiped the floor with the example of the ignorance that was just displayed by the opposing team.
Win! Win! Win!
Hint: I'm criticizing the Republican plan not defending Obamacare. And you're not defending their plan, but attacking Obamacare. (Way not to have a conversation, eh?)
Reply to Baden I can't say that I really know what the Republican plan is. I saw Paul Ryan giving some PowerPoint presentation explaining the new plan, but I didn't listen long. He had his sleeves rolled up, and I took that as an effort to show he was just a hard working stiff trying to get down to the business of helping the average American understand the plan. Since it didn't seem genuine, I stopped watching. Yep, that's all it takes to turn me away.
What I'm looking for is a plain spoken man, someone who tells me like it is, who, even if they're incredibly wealthy, at least respects me enough to admit to their great wealth. Someone, who, If he's brash in private, is honest enough to be brash in public. I'm looking for someone unapologetic who doesn't pretend to be someone he's not, even if who he is is a complete buffoon.
Where shall we ever find such a person?
Oh, and by the way, this is less tongue and cheek than you'd like to think.
Problem is complete buffoons are not the best people to turn to when solving as difficult a problem as repealing and replacing Obamacare without making healthcare worse rather than better.
Problem is complete buffoons are not the best people to turn to when solving as difficult a problem as repealing and replacing Obamacare without making healthcare worse rather than better.
Yeah, that they're a complete buffoon would make those other qualities seem pale in comparison, given what the job role requires.
Yes, being plain spoken doesn't count for much in this context when the organ controlling your speech is about as reliable as a drunk monkey with a pair of scissors.
What I'm looking for is a plain spoken man, someone who tells me like it is, who, even if they're incredibly wealthy, at least respects me enough to admit to their great wealth. Someone, who, If he's brash in private, is honest enough to be brash in public. I'm looking for someone unapologetic who doesn't pretend to be someone he's not, even if who he is is a complete buffoon.
Trump "tells it like it is?" If by "telling it like it is," you mean serially lies, misleads, and bullshits, then I agree.
In some ways it would be the same situation. Popular support isn't real power.
At it's mildest that would be a democratic deficit. At its worst a dictatorship. The USA is somewhere in the middle but "the greatest democracy in the world" it is not.
David Brooks predicts Trump will be impeached sometime in the first two years. Being a Washington outsider is appealing to the public. Obviously in every other way it's a handicap.
I think that President Trump is so focused on bringing "God" back into our society that anything that looks like a threat, to any religion other than radical edge of Islam, might in fact be 'a hill he is willing to die on'.
Huh? I just asked why he thinks the attacks on Jews would make him look bad.
I'm guessing that's because the snake pursues the pig to bite it out of hatred, the pig pursues the chicken to eat it out of greed, and the chicken pursues the snake because it's stupid.
Hey I'd never heard that interpretation, but now you mention it......
Problem is complete buffoons are not the best people to turn to when solving as difficult a problem as repealing and replacing Obamacare without making healthcare worse rather than better.
Especially when said buffoon has a short attention span, never reads, and gets all his information off of Fox News. It took him six months to come to the earth-shattering realisation that 'health care is complicated'.
Reply to Benkei Although I disagree with him ideologically on just about everything, I think it's reasonable to turn to a Jewish man for answers and I understand your instinct to do so.
Reply to Mongrel I'm not defending Trump. I just said a Trump impeachment is a ridiculous suggestion, like the Republican House is going to waste their time while they have a majority and bring Articles of Impeachment against a guy in their own party. To think it's a possibility is just living in denial that Trump really won and really will do the things he said. The Dems crying about Russia will get as much traction as Hillary and her emails.
To think it's a possibility is just living in denial that Trump really won and really will do the things he said
Nobody is denying that Trump really won, and I don't see how this would relate to thinking that impeachment is a possibility anyway. Surely you'd already have to believe that Trump is the President to believe that he could be impeached.
The Dems crying about Russia will get as much traction as Hillary and her emails.
So you're not bothered by the fact that a foreign power (one run by an authoritarian quasi-dictator, no less, one who seems to enjoy a chummy relationship with Trump) potentially meddled in the U.S. election by means of spreading fakes news propaganda about Hilary Clinton and hacking DNC emails? I'm asking because your remark of Democrats "crying" about this issue seems to trivialize their concerns.
Reply to Arkady I believe the election was valid and that the Dem's reaction is hypocritical in light of their objection to Trump's comments that he reserved the right to challenge the election and in light of the US's open attempts to interfere in other nations' elections.
I believe the election was valid and that the Dem's reaction is hypocritical in light of their objection to Trump's comments that he reserved the right to challenge the election and in light of the US's open attempts to interfere in other nations' elections.
I asked you if you were bothered by the fact that Russia likely interfered in the U.S. election. Evidently not, as you give the Trumpian response that "well, we've interfered in elections, too." (When asked if he was bothered by his buddy Putin's habitual murder of journalists, Trump pointed out that the U.S. has killed people, as well, so we're no better.) If a foreign power committed wholesale murder against large swaths of Americans, would you toss it off by comparing that to Americans' treatment of Native Americans over the decade? Because your answer sounds a lot like the sort of false equivalencies one hears on the left from the likes of Noam Chomsky, not from a conservative.
Trump didn't say that he wouldn't accept the results of the election if evidence came to light that a foreign power meddled in it. He simply refused to affirm that he would accept its results. This is different from having a legitimate concern about possible Russian influence by means of the hacking and release of information of Trump's political opponents, as well as manufacturing fake news propaganda aimed against Clinton. There is no "hypocrisy" there on the part of Democrats. And the fact that the U.S. has meddled in other countries' democratic process in no way justifies Russia's meddling in ours - they're both wrong. (Trump has also claimed - as usual, on the basis of zero evidence - that there was voter fraud in New Hampshire, so if you are put off by spurious claims about the electoral process, perhaps you should start with the Oval Office.)
It is doubtful whether the Russian influence was substantial enough to tip the election. For one thing, foreign sources of fake news had plenty of homegrown competitors in the rightwing media (including, bizarrely, the story that one of Clinton's associates ran a white slavery ring or something out of a pizza parlor in D.C.). However, the point is that the mere fact that they sought to tip the U.S. presidential election in favor of the candidate they wanted, and may have succeeded to some degree, should give any person pause, Republican or Democrat. (I can only imagine the shitstorm that would be going on in the Republican-led Congress in this moment if Hilary Clinton had had an electoral assist by Vladmir Putin. The Republicans in Congress have had a field day with invented scandals such as Benghazi; one can only imagine what they'd do with a real scandal).
I can't be certain I won't be appointed President next year, but I can still assert the suggestion is ridiculous.
What was ridiculous was Trump getting elected President in the first place. An impeachment would hardly tip us much further over the edge into insanity. Or is the Donald's calm and measured predictability so overwhelming you that you can't contemplate him doing something shit crazy enough to warrant getting the boot?
Or is the Donald's calm and measured predictability so overwhelming you that you can't contemplate him doing something shit crazy enough to warrant getting the boot?
Probably only if he does something that even the Republican voters can't support. Or if the Democrats manage to win both houses next year.
Yeah, I know. I don't actually want him to be impeached btw; Pence is worse in many ways, a lot creepier and 100% the soulless politician. Trump actually has a soul, even if it is made mostly of nightsoil. Pence is a human vacuum who would suck the entrails out of live mice if it would please his master.
Reply to Hanover So your first claim was some weird non sequitur. Your second claim was the entirely baseless strong claim that Trump being impeached is impossible.
Now you were just saying impeachment is ridiculous.
Reply to Mongrel No, my first claim wasn't a non sequiter (I was responding specifically to the post regarding the possibility of impeachment), my second was not baseless (basing my argument on the political reality that a Republican House isn't going to impeach its own President), and I've always said the suggestion that Trump will be impeached is ridiculous (as I'm ridiculing those who really submit that the Republicans will squander their moment of power to bring down their own leader).
I asked you if you were bothered by the fact that Russia likely interfered in the U.S. election. Evidently not, as you give the Trumpian response that "well, we've interfered in elections, too."
I think the election was valid even if Russia's hacking into emails affected it, largely because they didn't reveal anything that wasn't true. Clinton's attempt to avoid the consequences of the truth by arguing that the truth was obtained by improper means is pathetic. Quoting Arkady
Trump didn't say that he wouldn't accept the results of the election if evidence came to light that a foreign power meddled in it. He simply refused to affirm that he would accept its results. This is different from having a legitimate concern about possible Russian influence by means of the hacking and release of information of Trump's political opponents, as well as manufacturing fake news propaganda aimed against Clinton. There is no "hypocrisy" there on the part of Democrats
It's inescapable hypocrisy. Trump didn't say he would arbitrarily reject the election results. When asked if would accept the election results, he said, "I will look at it at the time," which simply means he has to see what happens, which I suppose could include all sorts of things that might come up, including meddling with the election, looking for hanging chads, or whatever. It's a double standard imposed on Trump here and evidence of media bias in making a story where there was none. Want to know how the media meddled with the election? Look no further.Quoting Arkady
However, the point is that the mere fact that they sought to tip the U.S. presidential election in favor of the candidate they wanted, and may have succeeded to some degree, should give any person pause, Republican or Democrat.
Meh. All interested in the election results should be expected to try to influence it. That's just reality. At the end of the day it's me at the polling place, and it's my responsibility to be an educated voter and to figure out fact from fiction. Everything you've said here only sways me more toward Trump, so you're having the opposite than intended effect.
What was ridiculous was Trump getting elected President in the first place. An impeachment would hardly tip us much further over the edge into insanity. Or is the Donald's calm and measured predictability so overwhelming you that you can't contemplate him doing something shit crazy enough to warrant getting the boot?
What I think is twofold: (1) the Republicans will not impeach their own president and commit political suicide and turn the government over to the left, all out of a sense of eternal justice and righteousness. It's absurd; (2) Trump opponents cannot accept that Trump really really is the President and really really will do the things he said he would so they try to concoct silly scenarios where Trump will disappear and the world will be righted. It's denial.
The GOP will have no choice if any material transgression of the law can be pinned against Trump, similar to what happened to Nixon. Actually, I think some of them hope this scenario happens because then Pence assumes role and he is at least 'sane' in the conventional sense of the term.
The only denial I see is the legal denial of any of his prejudice orders, such as the Muslim ban.
The GOP will have no choice if any material transgression of the law can be pinned against Trump, similar to what happened to Nixon.
They will have a choice, and they'll choose not to impeach, similar to what happened to Bill Clinton, where only the Republicans found anything objectionable about perjury.Quoting Cavacava
The only denial I see is the legal denial of any of his prejudice orders, such as the Muslim ban.
No idea what this means. He can't be impeached for issuing an illegal executive order. All that would happen is that it would be challenged in court and then rendered unenforceable.
Reply to Hanover Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to a grand jury and obstructing justice, although he was not removed from office. Nixon was impeached & removed from office.
Trump is the president, with a GOP controlled House & Senate, the only way the Dems can deny his/GOP rules, is to confront them legally whenever possible, which is exactly what the GOP did to to Obama.
Reply to Michael On July 27, 29, and 30, 1974, the House Judicarty Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon, for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress, and reported those articles to the House of Representatives, Nixon resigned before any vote was taken.
Reply to Michael Yes, that's correct but it seems clear that he would not have resigned if the impeachment process was not immanent, if the process was not voted to proceed.
I think the election was valid even if Russia's hacking into emails affected it, largely because they didn't reveal anything that wasn't true. Clinton's attempt to avoid the consequences of the truth by arguing that the truth was obtained by improper means is pathetic.
I didn't argue that the election wasn't "valid." I asked you if you were bothered by the fact that Russia likely interfered in the U.S. presidential election. You said the Democrats were "crying" about it, indicating that you were trivializing the issue.
It's inescapable hypocrisy. Trump didn't say he would arbitrarily reject the election results. When asked if would accept the election results, he said, "I will look at it at the time," which simply means he has to see what happens, which I suppose could include all sorts of things that might come up, including meddling with the election, looking for hanging chads, or whatever.
Trump elsewhere said that he would accept the election results if he won. Nothing in the question asked of him stipulated that there was anything amiss in the outcome of the then-hypothetical election. His behavior before and after the election gives every indication that he wouldn't have accepted the results, even if the election were free and fair (can you imagine the screaming he'd be doing if Russia meddled in Clinton's favor?). Indeed, he won the election, and is still proclaiming the popular vote invalid, based on claims of voter fraud in New Hampshire, California, and elsewhere.
This is just more false equivalency on your part, as it was when you referenced Bush v. Gore earlier with regard to Trump's statement. Al Gore had a legitimate reason for contesting the outcome and requesting a recount in select Florida counties, given that the difference was essentially within the statistical margin of error. He in fact conceded the election to Bush before it became apparent that there were potential problems with the vote counting, and only then rescinded his concession. Likewise, there are real concerns about the meddling of a foreign power (one headed by an authoritarian dictator who is often opposed to American interests, no less) in the election, regardless of the magnitude of the effect of said meddling.
It's a double standard imposed on Trump here and evidence of media bias in making a story where there was none. Want to know how the media meddled with the election? Look no further.
How is it biased to report on what a candidate said in a presidential debate?
Meh. All interested in the election results should be expected to try to influence it. That's just reality. At the end of the day it's me at the polling place, and it's my responsibility to be an educated voter and to figure out fact from fiction.
One can also "expect" a rapist to rape, and "expect" a murderer to murder. Likewise, one can accept that an ex-KGB authoritarian dictator with little regard for the democratic process or other nations' sovereignty might try to use every tool at his disposal to swing the election in favor of a candidate he likes and against one he detests. But, how does it follow that this intervention is acceptable, or no cause for concern?
As for "educated voters," I agree that voters have a responsibility to educate themselves, but that task is rendered very much harder by the torrent of fakes news and misinformation churned out by the right wing.
Everything you've said here only sways me more toward Trump, so you're having the opposite than intended effect.
No doubt that's true. Studies have shown that when confronted with evidence and arguments contrary to their beliefs, people often respond by believing more strongly, which only underscores that certain people eschew rationality when politics are involved (especially when it involves a tribalistic defense of one's own party against the hated Other).
Witness the endless conspiracy theories about Clinton promulgated by right wingers and from fake news such as Breitbart, which no amount of debunking sufficed to dispense with. Once believed, the beliefs are immune to revision. In fact, these tendencies are more pronounced among the intelligent, as they figure that their beliefs must be beyond reproach, given how smart they are. I, however, remain open to rational belief revision, including with regard to politics, so maybe I'm just dumb.
I laugh at people who think that Russia can have some influence over the US by favoring one candidate over the other. Puh-leeze, maybe in Ukraine or Belarus, but this is the U.S where we have checks and balances that Trump is finding harder and harder to ram through.
Studies have shown that when confronted with evidence and arguments contrary to their beliefs, people often respond by believing more strongly, which only underscores that certain people eschew rationality when politics are involved (especially when it involves a tribalistic defense of one's own party against the hated Other).
No, the situation is directly equivalent. Trump was generally asked if he would accept the election results, and he said he had to wait and see. The objection to his response was based on what his detractors felt was a direct attack on US democracy, which, of course, it wasn't. The news then became about the opinion of the news people, which was that Trump was somehow going to lead a revolution if he lost. And what did we see instead? We saw millions marching and rising up when Trump was elected, many of whom did so under the banner of his being improperly elected. The reaction of the left to Trump's election has not been simply to object to his policies, but it has been to delegitimize his presidency in order to limit what he'll be able to accomplish. If you want to accept that as a legitimate political tactic, you have to accept it for both sides, although I seriously doubt the right would have engaged in the vitriol and protests of the left had Clinton won and suggested she really didn't win.
Indeed, he won the election, and is still proclaiming the popular vote invalid, based on claims of voter fraud in New Hampshire, California, and elsewhere.
And, according to you, this is appropriate because you just finished explaining how if you can arrive at any basis for challenging an election, it's fair game. At any rate, what you didn't point out is that Trump's reference to the popular vote was responsive to the left's attempt to delegitimize the election by stating that since Trump lost the popular vote, he shouldn't be president. That is, you're claiming that Trump shouldn't be permitted to question the legitimacy of the popular vote count but the left should be able to question the legitimacy of the entire electoral college system.Quoting Arkady
How is it biased to report on what a candidate said in a presidential debate?
Because what he said were just a couple of sentences about waiting to see what happened in the election, but the news reports were on the opinions by the news people as to what those words supposedly meant. It was a completely concocted story that was part of an open campaign by the media to stop Trump from being elected. Quoting Arkady
Likewise, one can accept that an ex-KGB authoritarian dictator with little regard for the democratic process or other nations' sovereignty might try to use every tool at his disposal to swing the election in favor of a candidate he likes and against one he detests.
The Obama administration openly made efforts to interfere with Netanyahu's election. That's ok?Quoting Arkady
Studies have shown that when confronted with evidence and arguments contrary to their beliefs, people often respond by believing more strongly, which only underscores that certain people eschew rationality when politics are involved (especially when it involves a tribalistic defense of one's own party against the hated Other).
Sure, I might hold my opinion based upon a psychological compulsion to do so, or maybe I actually find the hypocrisy of your statements persuasive to the extent I don't want to be associated with your position. And, of course, we're all stuck with this same study you've cited, I suppose, which means that I can assert that your position is being held so strongly only because I've called it into question so persuasively.
Reply to Benkei Your cite from March 25, 2015 references a blog that was shown "mostly false." The Washington Times reported on July 12, 2016 that a Senate investigation committee found improper tampering in the election. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/12/obama-admin-sent-taxpayer-money-oust-netanyahu/. This story also appeared in the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/07/12/ngo-connected-to-obamas-2008-campaign-used-u-s-tax-dollars-trying-to-oust-netanyahu/?utm_term=.b2ee83702df5. And the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.htm. Even CNN wrote on the account of the US interfering in the Israeli elections: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/13/politics/israel-elections-benjamin-netanyahu-obama/. And this is just a sampling of my Google entry of "did obama interfere in israeli election." You should get the same results as I did.
Metaphysician UndercoverMarch 14, 2017 at 14:21#606780 likes
And what did we see instead? We saw millions marching and rising up when Trump was elected, many of whom did so under the banner of his being improperly elected.
I didn't see any such banners in those marches, the banners mainly referenced Trump's improper behaviour, and in general his attitude toward others.
No, the situation is directly equivalent. Trump was generally asked if he would accept the election results, and he said he had to wait and see. The objection to his response was based on what his detractors felt was a direct attack on US democracy, which, of course, it wasn't. The news then became about the opinion of the news people, which was that Trump was somehow going to lead a revolution if he lost.
Even outside of the context of the debate, Trump said he would accept the results of the election if he won. That is a direct challenge to the very premise of a democratic election. This does not equate with Bush v. Gore, as you'd intimated previously, as Gore had a legitimate reason for contesting the election, and there's no reason for believing he would not have conceded the vote had the result been unambiguous (indeed, he did so concede before the issues with the vote count arose). Trump won the electoral college, which is determinative of the outcome of U.S. Presidential elections and yet has still denied the results.
Likewise, the very likely prospect that Russia meddled in the election is cause for serious concern by any right-minded person on either side of the political aisle even if the magnitude of the interference was not sufficient to tip the election decisively in Trump's favor (and I am aware of no evidence that it did, especially since the Kremlin was powerless to affect the actual vote tallies). It is at least important to safeguard future elections from such interference (including those in which a future Republican candidate may find himself at odds with Putin - as I'm sure Putin will be in power for a very long time hence). You are fixated on the legitimacy issue of the election, but one can have valid concerns about Russia's involvement (including breaching the DNC's servers) without saying that said interference rendered the election results invalid. But since the breaches made HRC look bad, you are fine with them. All's fair in love and war, provided your side wins.
And what did we see instead? We saw millions marching and rising up when Trump was elected, many of whom did so under the banner of his being improperly elected. The reaction of the left to Trump's election has not been simply to object to his policies, but it has been to delegitimize his presidency in order to limit what he'll be able to accomplish. If you want to accept that as a legitimate political tactic, you have to accept it for both sides,
The protests were mostly in opposition to Trump and his proposed policies, and the fact that such an odious human being is now the most powerful man in the world. To the extent that protesters or anyone else attempted to argue that the election results were invalid, I disagreed with them, as I disagreed with the petitions to persuade the electoral college to vote for Clinton: one cannot change the rules of a game after the fact simply because one lost (I am curious: had Clinton won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, would you also have been opposed to petitioning the electoral college to vote in Trump?).
But since you are so concerned about attempts to delegitimize a sitting President who won an election by democratic means, I take it that you were disturbed by the attempts by the right to delegitimate Obama while he was in office by means of the birther issue (a topic which a certain now-President Trump took to with great avidity, if I recall)?
...although I seriously doubt the right would have engaged in the vitriol and protests of the left had Clinton won and suggested she really didn't win.
You can't be serious. If Hilary Clinton won an election by losing the popular vote by 3 million votes, and whose candidacy was backed by a hostile foreign power which employed cyber warfare and a campaign of propaganda to discredit her opponent, the right wouldn't protest? The right has had a field day with invented Clinton scandals, such as Benghazi. Fox News would be spending from now to eternity ripping into Clinton and her campaign for it.
And, according to you, this is appropriate because you just finished explaining how if you can arrive at any basis for challenging an election, it's fair game.
I nowhere said this, nor is it implied by anything I said.
At any rate, what you didn't point out is that Trump's reference to the popular vote was responsive to the left's attempt to delegitimize the election by stating that since Trump lost the popular vote, he shouldn't be president. That is, you're claiming that Trump shouldn't be permitted to question the legitimacy of the popular vote count but the left should be able to question the legitimacy of the entire electoral college system.
How does this follow? The electoral college has been an issue of contention since before Trump's election (or even candidacy), you do realize? Claiming that the winner of the popular vote ought to win the presidency is not equivalent to claiming that the results of the electoral vote were invalid. Trump didn't merely reference the popular vote, he claimed that the popular vote was invalid based on unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud in multiple states. Anyone claiming that the electoral vote tally was fraudulent would be in error, as Trump was in error when he claimed that the popular vote tally was fraudulent.
Because what he said were just a couple of sentences about waiting to see what happened in the election, but the news reports were on the opinions by the news people as to what those words supposedly meant. It was a completely concocted story that was part of an open campaign by the media to stop Trump from being elected.
Where is the "bias" in this? "Bias" would be Clinton having said something comparable, and yet the press not reporting on it. When a presidential candidate intimates that he will not accept the results of the election, that's news, whether you like it or not. Blame Trump for his words: don't blame the media for reporting it.
The Obama administration openly made efforts to interfere with Netanyahu's election. That's ok?
I never said it was.
Sure, I might hold my opinion based upon a psychological compulsion to do so, or maybe I actually find the hypocrisy of your statements persuasive to the extent I don't want to be associated with your position.
What "hypocrisy" might that be?
And, of course, we're all stuck with this same study you've cited, I suppose, which means that I can assert that your position is being held so strongly only because I've called it into question so persuasively.
Not really: you've shown yourself over and over again to be ardently partisan, most recently evidenced by your weak claims here. You repeatedly said that you're not "defending" Trump, but you seem to do nothing but when he's criticized. You feel the need to circle the tribalistic wagons with every criticism of Trump, and you offer baseless tu quoques. Whatever tactics redound to the benefit of your party, you seem fine with, as long it gets you the outcome you desire. I, on the other hand, can and have found arguments persuasive from both sides of the political spectrum (I have even been persuaded by you on occasion, though admittedly not recently).
You pretty much made this plain we were discussing how the Senate Republicans essentially stole the Supreme court by violating Obama's Constitutional prerogative to appoint justices (with the advice and consent of the Senate), and you were pretty ok with that, while admitting that you'd probably feel differently if the party roles were reversed. If you believe that the party in power can simply disregard laws, policies, or procedures when it becomes convenient, then you have no regard for the rule of law. If that's the case, then you have no non-hypocritical basis from which to judge any perceived overreaches by any Democratic president, past or future.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover Banner being metaphorical here, although I can see the confusion, considering there were literal banners in those marches.
Metaphysician UndercoverMarch 14, 2017 at 14:56#606850 likes
Reply to Hanover Well, the banners indicate the marchers' concerns. If the banners didn't indicate that the marchers believed that Trump unfairly won the election, why would you conclude that this was the marchers' concerns. Your claim is nothing other than fake news, seeing within the situation, what is not really there. It's delusion.
Even outside of the context of the debate, Trump said he would accept the results of the election if he won. That is a direct challenge to the very premise of a democratic election.
I don't know what quote your referencing, but it stands to reason that he wouldn't protest an election that he won. Generally speaking, you don't see challenges by parties who weren't aggrieved. If you have a quote that says he said he would challenge the results if he lost no matter what, then you're on to something. What he said was he'd wait and see.Quoting Arkady
Likewise, the very likely prospect that Russia meddled in the election is cause for serious concern by any right-minded person on either side of the political aisle even if the magnitude of the interference was not sufficient to tip the election decisively in Trump's favor (and I am aware of no evidence that it did, especially since the Kremlin was powerless to affect the actual vote tallies).
To the extent that protesters or anyone else attempted to argue that the election results were invalid, I disagreed with them
John Lewis was very open in his claims that the election was invalid. Let's hear your condemnations of him.Quoting Arkady
You can't be serious. If Hilary Clinton won an election by losing the popular vote by 3 million votes, and whose candidacy was backed by a hostile foreign power which employed cyber warfare and a campaign of propaganda to discredit her opponent, the right wouldn't protest?
The right doesn't protest. They have jobs to show up for. There wouldn't have been millions marching around the country. What would have happened is that a few groups would have gone out, waved some flags, made some fiery speeches, and then the media would have reported that a rebellion was underway by some right wind radicals. That's what always happens. The left's protests are heroic and the right's are a stubborn refusal to accept reality. That's what happens when the left does the reporting.Quoting Arkady
Not really: you've shown yourself over and over again to be ardently partisan, most recently evidenced by your weak claims here.
So, now I'm to learn that the psychological study you referenced that causes me to stubbornly support my position regardless of the evidence has no effect on you? Only conservatives are subject to this compulsion, but not liberals. That's so interesting. Do you suspect that maybe you're just saying what you are because you have to, considering the more I challenge you, the more firmly you hold to your position? That's what the science supposedly says you'll do.Quoting Arkady
You pretty much made this plain we were discussing how the Senate Republicans essentially stole the Supreme court by violating Obama's Constitutional prerogative to appoint justices (with the advice and consent of the Senate), and you were pretty ok with that, while admitting that you'd probably feel differently if the party roles were reversed. If you believe that the party in power can simply disregard laws, policies, or procedures when it becomes convenient, then you have no regard for the rule of law. If that's the case, then you have no non-hypocritical basis from which to judge any perceived overreaches by any Democratic president, past or future.
Had the Senate violated their duty to consider the Obama appointment, the Courts would have been summoned to intervene. The Senate acted exactly as they were permitted to, and they no more were required to vote on Obama's schedule than Obama was required to submit to them a name on their schedule. And no, I would have had no legal objection if a Democratic Senate refused to vote on a Bush appointment in his final days of office. I'd have been surprised if they'd have voted when they didn't have to.
Nothing was stolen. They did their duty to protect their interests. That's what politics is about. Calling it "stolen" is just more hyperbole aimed at delegitimizing the Trump presidency, now taking aim at the Supreme Court. I suppose when there's some conservative ruling rendered by the Court, you stand poised to argue that it's not a valid ruling because the Trump appointee shouldn't have been sitting in that stolen seat. Look in the mirror is all I'm saying.
And no, I don't support Trump in all his great, fantastic ideas, except to the extent that I fully accept his presidency and think all these efforts to delegitimize his presidency are being brought by sore, hypocritical losers. If I were to do what you guys are doing, then, sure, I'd be a sore, hypocritical loser too and we could all suck together.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover This is a silly equivocation fallacy that you're now trying to take seriously. What I said is that people protested under the banner of this being an invalid presidency, meaning that was many of the people's concern. You're now trying to suggest you read all the actual banners of the protestors and deciphered their true objections and it's not that Trump was invalidly elected but only other things. The suggestion then is that I've fabricated this whole straw man argument. John Lewis very openly questioned the election results. I didn't make this up.
And no, I don't support Trump in all his great, fantastic ideas, except to the extent that I fully accept his presidency and think all these efforts to delegitimize his presidency are being brought by sore, hypocritical losers.
The "sore, hypocritical losers" are just doing what they can to protect their interests. That's what politics is about.
It would be crazy to expect people to not protest against a President who plans to enact policies that they believe will damage their lives (or which they believe to be unethical), or whom they believe to be incompetent.
The right doesn't protest. They have jobs to show up for.
As above, it's no surprise that most unemployed vote Democrat given that the Democrats benefit them more than Republicans.
But anyway, all this talk of being hypocritical or a sore loser is a red herring. All that matters is whether or not the criticisms of Trump are valid.
You can be a hypocritical, sore loser but also right.
I'm an old Green leftie, but I do think Hanover is right that many protests against Trump speak of a great sense of liberal entitlement that somehow can't come to terms with the actual election result. It's similar to what's happened here in the UK where 'Remainers' occupy most of the liberal commentariat space to persistently replay an argument that they have lost. Both groups, in the US and the UK, implicitly or explicitly denigrate the voters who voted the Wrong Way. I find it hard to understand, and it is helping to cause a sense of a void at the heart of politics because the opposition is either gone missing, or is not in touch with reality. If you think a coup would be a good idea, well, make one happen and justify it to us. If you're a democrat, you've got to handle it.
Reply to Hanover But the money was less than what reported in those stories and it was sent before the group turned political (that happened "immediately after the grant ended") which makes the accusation mostly false. Nothing new from what politifact already uncovered. Maybe you should actually read instead of shooting from the hip.
I'm an old Green leftie, but I do think Hanover is right that many protests against Trump speak of a great sense of liberal entitlement that somehow can't come to terms with the actual election result. It's similar to what's happened here in the UK where 'Remainers' occupy most of the liberal commentariat space to persistently replay an argument that they have lost. Both groups, in the US and the UK, implicitly or explicitly denigrate the voters who voted the Wrong Way. I find it hard to understand, and it is helping to cause a sense of a void at the heart of politics because the opposition is either gone missing, or is not in touch with reality. If you think a coup would be a good idea, well, make one happen and justify it to us. If you're a democrat, you've got to handle it.
I don't see why one should have to be happy with, or at least silent about, a result that one believes to be a bad one. Is there some sort of grace period after an election where disagreements shouldn't be voiced? Do we have to wait until the next election campaign to challenge the current administration and its policies?
...but it stands to reason that he wouldn't protest an election that he won.
Of course not. He was saying he would accept the results only if he wins. He didn't say he would accept the results win or lose.
Generally speaking, you don't see challenges by parties who weren't aggrieved. If you have a quote that says he said he would challenge the results if he lost no matter what, then you're on to something. What he said was he'd wait and see.
And, again, there is every reason for believing he would not have accepted the results had he lost the electoral college, a point which you keep skating by. He had already intimated that he'd accept the results only "if he won," and even after he'd won, he is still not accepting the results of the election in their entirety, as he has claimed voter fraud.
I guess I'm not right minded.
Glad we're in agreement. However, let me repeat my question, which you've heretofore avoided answering: are you bothered by the fact that Russia meddled in the U.S. election? Assuming the answer is "no" (as seems to be evident from your posts, where you tossed it off by saying "it's expected"), do you believe that you'd likewise be unbothered by this meddling had it benefited HRC at the expense of Trump?
John Lewis was very open in his claims that the election was invalid. Let's hear your condemnations of him.
I so condemn him for that statement. J'accuse Monsieur Lewis!
Now: let's hear your affirmation that you'd have been opposed to a petition asking the Electoral College to vote in Trump had he lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote (as such a petition implies that the results were invalid and/or constitutes an effort to alter the rules of a contest after the fact)?
The right doesn't protest. They have jobs to show up for.
Oh God, not the "liberals don't have jobs, so they have time to protest" malarkey. At least my digs at Republicans are somewhat creative. I suppose that, for instance, the protesters at the March for Life were likewise unemployed? Were the Tea Partiers all retirees?
There wouldn't have been millions marching around the country. What would have happened is that a few groups would have gone out, waved some flags, made some fiery speeches, and then the media would have reported that a rebellion was underway by some right wind radicals. That's what always happens. The left's protests are heroic and the right's are a stubborn refusal to accept reality. That's what happens when the left does the reporting.
Oh, I see: the right would have protested, but their protests would have been smaller and politer. Got it.
As for the left's protesting "always being heroic," I have no idea where you've gotten that from, but not from my posts. The left's protests against free speech on college campuses, for instance, is anything but "heroic."
So, now I'm to learn that the psychological study you referenced that causes me to stubbornly support my position regardless of the evidence has no effect on you? Only conservatives are subject to this compulsion, but not liberals. That's so interesting. Do you suspect that maybe you're just saying what you are because you have to, considering the more I challenge you, the more firmly you hold to your position? That's what the science supposedly says you'll do.
I cannot step outside of my epistemic skin any more than you can, but I can say that I don't reflexively circle the wagons in favor of the Democrats when I believe them to be in error, and that I have changed my mind with regard to some political issues in response to what I believed to be cogent argumentation from the opposite side. Perhaps you have that capacity, but if so it lately seems to have been lost, as you offer nothing but endless tu quoques and false equivalencies.
Had the Senate violated their duty to consider the Obama appointment, the Courts would have been summoned to intervene. The Senate acted exactly as they were permitted to, and they no more were required to vote on Obama's schedule than Obama was required to submit to them a name on their schedule.
If a person declines to exercise a right or privilege which attaches to their office, that is their prerogative. That would in no way be equivalent to the Senate's refusal to hold hearings on Merrick Garland's nomination. Delaying the hearing past the point when the President leaves office is the functional equivalent of denying him his Constitutional right to appoint judges (with the advice and consent of the Senate). Ergo, they denied him his Constitutional right.
And no, I would have had no legal objection if a Democratic Senate refused to vote on a Bush appointment in his final days of office. I'd have been surprised if they'd have voted when they didn't have to.
What does it matter if it's in the President's "final days in office?" This is simply a red herring. The President is the President until the transfer of power on Inauguration Day, and his Constitutional right to appoint judges is in no way negated or diminished before that transfer.
Nothing was stolen. They did their duty to protect their interests. That's what politics is about. Calling it "stolen" is just more hyperbole aimed at delegitimizing the Trump presidency, now taking aim at the Supreme Court.
Non-sequitur. Again, you are obsessed with the legitimacy issue. I never questioned Trump's right to appoint Gorsuch if he so chooses, but it should be non-issue, as that seat should have been filled. The Senate Republicans had no grounds not to hold hearings other than they didn't want to give a Supreme Court majority to Obama's appointees. If Merrick was so odious that he had no place on the court, then the Senate can vote him down. The Senate Republicans failed to do their job for completely partisan reasons, just as you are defending their actions for partisan reasons.
I suppose when there's some conservative ruling rendered by the Court, you stand poised to argue that it's not a valid ruling because the Trump appointee shouldn't have been sitting in that stolen seat. Look in the mirror is all I'm saying.
Another non-sequitur. I can't even imagine how you know what I "stand poised" to do. I'd speculate that you'd perhaps hacked my webcam, except I don't have one.
And no, I don't support Trump in all his great, fantastic ideas, except to the extent that I fully accept his presidency and think all these efforts to delegitimize his presidency are being brought by sore, hypocritical losers. If I were to do what you guys are doing, then, sure, I'd be a sore, hypocritical loser too and we could all suck together.
Speaking of sore losers, you might also do me the courtesy of answering my question as to whether you also ardently opposed the birther movement, which attempted to delegitimate Obama's presidency?
I thought he only said that he would accept the result if he wins, not that he would accept the result only if he wins.
I don't know of any other way of reasonably interpreting his statement in light of his other statements. As I said, he likewise declined to affirm that he'd accept the results (during the debates), and he is contesting the results even though he won, with baseless claims of voter fraud. There is every reason to believe that he'd contest the results if he'd lost.
Reply to Arkady He said that if he lost then "[he] will look at it at the time". Although the cynic in me is inclined to agree with your belief that he would have contested it even if there was no evidence of wrongdoing.
But Hanover being a lawyer and all, he won't let you get away with insinuation. ;)
He said that if he lost then "[he] will look at it at the time". Although the cynic in me is inclined to agree with your belief that he would have contested it even if there was no evidence of wrongdoing.
I don't think one needs to be cynical. These are the facts
(1) He declined to affirm that he'd accept the results of the election.
(2) He tweeted that he'd accept the results "if [he] won."
(3) He in fact did win, and is contesting the results.
So, does one need to be a "cynic" and look at (1)-(3) and conclude that, more likely than not, had he lost, Trump would not have accepted the results?
If so, then we are forced to conclude that he would have accepted the results if he'd lost, and rejected them if he'd won. That is a stretch, to put it mildly.
Reply to Benkei I did read it, and the suggestion from the articles I read was that it was understood that the $200,000+ (and not the $300,000+) would eventually find its way to be used against Netanyahu. It get that it was legal the way it was done, but I don't think the money accidently ended up where it was unintended.
It would be crazy to expect people to not protest against a President who plans to enact policies that they believe will damage their lives (or which they believe to be unethical), or whom they believe to be incompetent.
I don't oppose opposition. My opposition was to the efforts to delegitimize. To the extent some may consider it a legitimate tactic, I don't, so those arguments don't resonate with me. Quoting Michael
You can be a hypocritical, sore loser but also right.
Of course. which Benkei indicated in a prior post. If you want to say that everyone sucks for all doing the same underhanded things, I think I'd back off this whole discussion and agree, but there's this honest belief out there that Trump is engaging in all these unprecedented acts and that he should therefore be disqualified as President. He adds a level of brashness previously unseen, but, other than that, he's no better or worse than most others we've seen before him.
My opposition was to the efforts to delegitimize. To the extent some may consider it a legitimate tactic, I don't, so those arguments don't resonate with me.
I don't know enough (anything) about the U.S. law to know if the Russia accusations, if true, would make the election - or at least his continued presidency - legally illegitimate, but I'm sure that one would be justified in arguing that there's illegitimacy in a non-legal sense (e.g. in the sense that people mean when they say that dictatorships are illegitimate forms of government).
Of course not. He was saying he would accept the results only if he wins. He didn't say he would accept the results win or lose.
You've misquoted him by adding in the word "only." He didn't say that. He said he'd accept the results if he won, which doesn't mean he won't accept them if he loses. Logic 101. Quoting Arkady
do you believe that you'd likewise be unbothered by this meddling had it benefited HRC at the expense of Trump?
Yes, I'd be unbothered, largely because the information leaked was true.Quoting Arkady
Ergo, they denied him his Constitutional right.
And yet nobody brought this to the Court's attention. Unfortunately they didn't have you as presidential counsel.Quoting Arkady
The Senate Republicans had no grounds not to hold hearings other than they didn't want to give a Supreme Court majority to Obama's appointees. If Merrick was so odious that he had no place on the court, then the Senate can vote him down. The Senate Republicans failed to do their job for completely partisan reasons, just as you are defending their actions for partisan reasons.
Where does the Constitution enumerate the legal bases for the Senate to act when deciding who to allow on the Court? I think you just sort of made it up that the Senate must act in a non-partisan way, and it would be an odd rule to require a politically elected body to act in a neutral way.Quoting Arkady
Speaking of sore losers, you might also do me the courtesy of answering my question as to whether you also ardently opposed the birther movement, which attempted to delegitimate Obama's presidency?
I think the birther movement was stupid, largely because it was without basis. To the extent there might be a real claim that someone doesn't qualify as president under the Constitutional criteria, then they should be disqualified.
I don't know of any other way of reasonably interpreting his statement in light of his other statements.
You know of no other way of interpreting what he said other than by inserting the critical logical qualifier "only" that he never said? That is a hugely different statement, and one that I asked you to locate for me, but you couldn't. Had he said "I will only accept the result if I win," then, yeah, we have a problem. He didn't say that, but the media suggested he said it, and then they reported on their report and expressed outrage at their outrageous statement. Deal with it.
I don't know enough (anything) about the U.S. law to know if the Russia accusations, if true, would make the election legally illegitimate, but I'm sure that one would be justified in arguing that there's illegitimacy in a non-legal sense (e.g. in the sense that people mean when they say that dictatorships are illegitimate forms of government
The "I think the voters got bad information when they voted" isn't a ground for overturning an election or even questioning its legitimacy. Free speech is the cornerstone of American politics, and as long as we have forums like this to offer people the real news, there can be no complaints. The voter can decide what he'll listen to, what he'll consider, and how he'll vote, all with the security of knowing that he can't have his vote rescinded because someone brighter than he comes along and tells him that his opinion was invalid due to information deemed illegitimate. That is to say, you can complain about the stupidity of the voters and lament their poor education and knee jerk decisions, but it is far worse to then mandate that the voters have a certain level of knowledge and education prior to allowing their vote to count. The beauty of Democracy is that the monkeys get to run the zoo.
Metaphysician UndercoverMarch 14, 2017 at 17:20#607120 likes
What I said is that people protested under the banner of this being an invalid presidency, meaning that was many of the people's concern.
And my point is that this is false. That was not what the concern of the protesters was. The legitimacy of the presidency, the validity of the election, was not being protested. The protests were expressions directed against the behaviour and values of the president-elect, not concerning the validity of the election, they were concerning the character of the man elected. You are seeing within the situation something which was not there, and speaking of it as if it were the truth.
The "I think the voters got bad information when they voted" isn't a ground for overturning an election or even questioning its legitimacy.
It might not be grounds for overturning an election but it can be grounds for questioning its legitimacy. Legitimacy isn't just a matter of all the rules being followed. According to this, it's theoretically possible to win the election with just 27% of the vote, and even though it would be perfectly valid in terms of the constitutional requirements, it can still be argued that the new President's mandate isn't legitimate.
That's why people argue that the rules should be changed to use the popular vote rather than the electoral college system. Not because the electoral college system is illegal or unconstitutional but because popular vote is (more) legitimate. And that's why people argue that democracy is better than dictatorship. Not because dictatorship is illegal or unconstitutional (it wouldn't be in a dictatorship) but because democracy is legitimate and dictatorship isn't.
And the same principle can apply if the elected official lied his way into office, or (as some argue) if the election was strongly influenced by a foreign power.
As an example, even though the Brexit referendum was not legally binding, many still claim that a hypothetical decision to ignore the result would be illegitimate. And then others claim that the result itself was illegitimate given that much of what was said about the consequences were lies, and so people wouldn't actually get what they voted for (and I'm sure you'd take issue if I sold you a bottle of water but told you that it was vodka).
That's why people argue that the rules should be changed to use the popular vote rather than the electoral college system.
And yet throughout Europe, Prime Ministers are elected by representatives who form alliances with other parties, many of whom share little in common with one another, without any regard for what the popular vote among the citizenry might be. Why no one thinks that's so wrong is unclear to me if we're starting with the notion that direct elections of leaders is the highest form of democracy.
Whether Trump would have won if there were a direct election by the voters isn't known. He obviously didn't waste his time campaigning in states he could not win, like California and New York. It stands to reason that he'd have picked up more votes there had he not counted it as a loss early on.
While it might seem like a quaint notion that the United States is actually a union of united states each with the independent right to vote for the president of the union, it is a political and Constitutional reality that can't just be dispensed with.
You've misquoted him by adding in the word "only." He didn't say that. He said he'd accept the results if he won, which doesn't mean he won't accept them if he loses. Logic 101.
I perhaps could have made this point clearer, but I didn't quote him as saying "only." I quoted the tweet in which he said he'd accept the results "if he won." Given his statements at the debate, and the fact that he does not accept the election results given that he won, there's every reason for believing he would not have accepted the results. Otherwise, one is to conclude that he'd have accepted the results had he lost, but rejected them had he won (as he did). I don't think so.
And yet nobody brought this to the Court's attention. Unfortunately they didn't have you as presidential counsel.
Where does the Constitution enumerate the legal bases for the Senate to act when deciding who to allow on the Court? I think you just sort of made it up that the Senate must act in a non-partisan way, and it would be an odd rule to require a politically elected body to act in a neutral way.
Oh, come off it. The Constitution gives the President the right to appoint judicial nominees, with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, which has traditionally meant holding hearings on the nominee and giving him an up or down vote, not the Senate majority leader unilaterally deciding who will and will not occupy a seat on the Supreme Court. The fact that this process is not enumerated in a step-by-step fashion in the Constitution does not mean that Republicans can arbitrarily decide to alter the ways in which SCOTUS nominations are decided simply because it's an election year and they don't want to give the court majority over to Obama.
If the petition to persuade the electors to vote for Hilary instead of Trump had succeeded, I doubt you'd have said, "dang it, I don't agree with that, but it's in keeping with the letter of the Constitution, and HRC is our President now." The conventions needed to operate a stable, functioning democracy are not always spelled out in the Constitution (which would be virtually impossible).
If you want to say that everyone sucks for all doing the same underhanded things, I think I'd back off this whole discussion and agree, but there's this honest belief out there that Trump is engaging in all these unprecedented acts and that he should therefore be disqualified as President. He adds a level of brashness previously unseen, but, other than that, he's no better or worse than most others we've seen before him.
Don't have much time for most of what you've said, but I would more or less agree with this; Trump is at least an honest low-life (not that he's honest per se, of course, but he is who he is; he's not trying to be anyone else). What's wrong with a lot of the criticism of him is the underlying assumption that other presidents were somehow decent upstanding individuals, as if that's how you get to be the most powerful politician in the world. On the other hand, he does rather legitimize overt stupidity and loud-mouthed ignorance, which is hardly good for society. So, it's kind of a double-edged sword.
Reply to Arkady I know we could go round and round forever on this, but I can tell you that I sincerely don't believe Trump is less moral than Clinton, and I have little regard for either as people. Neither would be friends of mine (which I'm sure crushes both of them terribly). It is obvious that I lean to the right, and so I choose Trump as the person most likely to support my political views and I watch in amusement as he unapolegetically violates every liberal expectation of decency. He's the guy who belches at the Queen. It's really funny unless you care for the Queen.
I do find the discussions about how Trump will be impeached as thoroughly absurd as those about how Hillary will go to jail. Whether Trump's in bed with the Russians or Hillary violated national security laws with her emails will never matter to their respective supporters. It's just dirt to throw back and forth.
I know you think Trump is the anti-Christ, but he's not. He's just yet another egotistical megalomaniac in Washington.
I don't think that Trump is in bed with the Russians so much as he respects wealth and power, and whatever you can get away with -- and Putin is likely by far the richest individual on the planet, which could be upwards of 200 billion.
Or maybe they'll have a Hitler and Mussolini relationship...
Where does the Constitution enumerate the legal bases for the Senate to act when deciding who to allow on the Court? I think you just sort of made it up that the Senate must act in a non-partisan way, and it would be an odd rule to require a politically elected body to act in a neutral way.
I always find it interesting when anglo-saxon lawyers insist on something being written down. Considering the historic approach to jurisprudence that seems weird.
I'd argue it has been usance to have confirmation hearings for those judges proposed by the president as has been done from the beginning.
More generally, the process is abhorrent to me to begin with. A Supreme Court as an extension of a political party which parties time and again demonstrate they don't have the interest of society at large at heart but the narrow ones of their donors. It's pretty fucked up from an ethical point of view.
Anyway, the point of bringing up David Brooks' musings about resignation or impeachment wasn't to suggest that T wasn't elected. Obviously Brooks is just the spokesman for the portion of the Republican community that can't support Trump. This is where public support does nothing for T and his status as a Washington outsider makes him vulnerable. Would Republicans abandon him en masse? In the right circumstances, of course.
No. Just another random reflection on death. It's been happening to me spontaneously lately and it's even more odd that it's happening against the backdrop of an early spring. Cherry trees are blooming everywhere. I'm pondering death. Very Japanese of me.
I know we could go round and round forever on this, but I can tell you that I sincerely don't believe Trump is less moral than Clinton, and I have little regard for either as people. Neither would be friends of mine (which I'm sure crushes both of them terribly). It is obvious that I lean to the right, and so I choose Trump as the person most likely to support my political views and I watch in amusement as he unapolegetically violates every liberal expectation of decency. He's the guy who belches at the Queen. It's really funny unless you care for the Queen.
I do find the discussions about how Trump will be impeached as thoroughly absurd as those about how Hillary will go to jail. Whether Trump's in bed with the Russians or Hillary violated national security laws with her emails will never matter to their respective supporters. It's just dirt to throw back and forth.
I know you think Trump is the anti-Christ, but he's not. He's just yet another egotistical megalomaniac in Washington.
I don't believe Trump would be impeached. For one thing, he's not done anything impeachable, and even if he did, his own party is unlikely to throw him out of office. I don't think he's the Anti-Christ, either (the Anti-Christ has a plan, while Trump is clearly making this shit up as he goes along). Steve Bannon, on the other hand...
No. Just another random reflection on death. It's been happening to me spontaneously lately and it's even more odd that it's happening against the backdrop of an early spring. Cherry trees are blooming everywhere. I'm pondering death. Very Japanese of me.
Ah. Your COPD comment came shortly on the heels of one of my posts, and so I mistakenly thought it was in response to something I'd said (post hoc, ergo propter hoc, and all that).
I always find it interesting when anglo-saxon lawyers insist on something being written down. Considering the historic approach to jurisprudence that seems weird.
I'd argue it has been usance to have confirmation hearings for those judges proposed by the president as has been done from the beginning.
More generally, the process is abhorrent to me to begin with. A Supreme Court as an extension of a political party which parties time and again demonstrate they don't have the interest of society at large at heart but the narrow ones of their donors. It's pretty fucked up from an ethical point of view.
The nomination procedure for federal courts isn't great, and there is much partisanship both in the process and in the workings of SCOTUS (the fact that one need speak of "conservative" or "liberal" justices is rather disquieting). However, I much prefer it to certain alternatives, such as judicial elections, which one finds at the state and local levels in some places in the U.S.
I always find it interesting when anglo-saxon lawyers insist on something being written down. Considering the historic approach to jurisprudence that seems weird.
Should the question be what the Constitution says, then it seems inevitable that the specific terms of the document be referenced. I obviously see nothing strange about it, and I see the opposite as far stranger, which would be the notion that we can be ruled by vague understandings of custom and tradition.
I'd argue it has been usance to have confirmation hearings for those judges proposed by the president as has been done from the beginning.
There actually was an argument presented that custom was that Presidents wouldn't submit names of candidates in the final months of their term. Regardless, custom is formed every day I suppose, and I'd now argue that this precedent now establishes that Justices not be voted on at the end of the presidential term.Quoting Benkei
More generally, the process is abhorrent to me to begin with. A Supreme Court as an extension of a political party which parties time and again demonstrate they don't have the interest of society at large at heart but the narrow ones of their donors. It's pretty fucked up from an ethical point of view.
The Justices have life-time appointments, so it is expected that once chosen, they will be free to rule without regard to donors and such. That does seem the way it is, with the bulk of the politics occurring during the nomination proceedings.
Whether there is a better way, I don't know. I understand, as you've explained it, that the Netherlands doesn't afford their judges the power to strike down laws, so you don't have the quite the worry the US does. Our Courts play a massive role in US society, with judges and juries being called upon to answer so many important societal questions. It's inevitable that they fully enter many political frays, and, because of that, the interested parties want to make sure their interests are protected.
Regardless of how the sausage is made, the end product remains palatable. You don't see great injustice in the US. The rights afforded the average Joe here are pretty solid. Despite complaints from both sides where one thinks corporations control too much and others complain of too much government control, the system really does work. I can't imagine that the life of Benkei would be worse in the US, and likely in many regards much better, once you were able to get past your philosophical misgivings and realize they don't amount to a hill of beans.
I can't imagine that the life of Benkei would be worse in the US, and likely in many regards much better, once you were able to get past your philosophical misgivings and realize they don't amount to a hill of beans.
I'm curious. In what way do you think the USA would be better in many regards?
That does seem the way it is, with the bulk of the politics occurring during the nomination proceedings.
Also, I disagree with this, otherwise the whole reason to have a political nomination procedure would be invalidated. Republicans want and expect conservative rulings.
They do, and that's why they choose people who they expect will maintain a particular ideology, but there are plenty of examples where they've been disappointed. Once they're on the bench, there's nothing that can be done to force a particular opinion.
I'm curious. In what way do you think the USA would be better in many regards?
Obviously I'm biased, but I would suspect you'd have a higher standard of living, meaning a larger house, a nicer car, more and varied employment opportunities, and more choices of cookies at the grocery store. Things are cheaper here and there's more space.
Sure, there's plenty of bad. There are fewer safety nets and one (not you, but the hypothetical "one" ) could find themselves in a bad situation. You're educated, hard working as far as I can tell, generally responsible, and not someone who is going to fall on his face. That is, all the things you don't like about the US, you'd likely be immune to because, like it or not for me saying it, much is the result of personal choice.
On the negative side, US life is more isolated. There aren't quite as many quaint cafes and as much street life as you see throughout Europe. Culture is everywhere in Europe, but you have to seek it out more in the US. You'd find yourself missing home I'm sure, but you'd be doing it in a 5 bedroom 3 bath home that occupies up to 1/2 acre of land while sitting in front of your big screen TV drinking some beer called Haagaarvaadaradddar or something like that to remind you home.
Obviously I'm biased, but I would suspect you'd have a higher standard of living, meaning a larger house, a nicer car, more and varied employment opportunities, and more choices of cookies at the grocery store. Things are cheaper here and there's more space.
According to this, the Netherlands ranks higher than the U.S. in quality of life.
Also, I disagree with this, otherwise the whole reason to have a political nomination procedure would be invalidated. Republicans want and expect conservative rulings.
Correct, but the justices aren't beholden to anyone. If Americans elect the same kind of president several elections in a row, the Court will begin to lean. That happened prior to the American Civil War and the resulting "Dred Scott Decision" was a factor in the generation of the Republican party and it increased the tension that eventually led to war.
Reply to Michael My problem with those studies is that there is greater quality of life disparity in the U.S. than in most Western (and especially in north European) countries. I would expect Benkei (and you) to fully take advantage of American life.
Reply to Hanover Well, I was actually referring to not having to worry about health insurance and out-of-pocket expenses (except the £8.40 cost for any prescriptions).
I'm sure the actual standard of care doesn't differ too much.
Obviously I'm biased, but I would suspect you'd have a higher standard of living, meaning a larger house, a nicer car, more and varied employment opportunities, and more choices of cookies at the grocery store. Things are cheaper here and there's more space.
Sure, there's plenty of bad. There are fewer safety nets and one (not you, but the hypothetical "one" ) could find themselves in a bad situation. You're educated, hard working as far as I can tell, generally responsible, and not someone who is going to fall on his face. That is, all the things you don't like about the US, you'd likely be immune to because, like it or not for me saying it, much is the result of personal choice.
On the negative side, US life is more isolated. There aren't quite as many quaint cafes and as much street life as you see throughout Europe. Culture is everywhere in Europe, but you have to seek it out more in the US. You'd find yourself missing home I'm sure, but you'd be doing it in a 5 bedroom 3 bath home that occupies up to 1/2 acre of land while sitting in front of your big screen TV drinking some beer called Haagaarvaadaradddar or something like that to remind you home.
The thing is, I realise I'm part of a society and I'm all too happy to do with a little less income and cookies if that means others don't have to worry about healthcare or a roof above their head. You're in favour argument boils down to one thing but I read a lot of negatives.
Here's my sales pitch for the Netherlands:
Politics
The Dutch political system is the most representative democracy in the world and politics is alive with a record of 28 political parties of which 14 are expected to gain a seat. Your voice and your problems are likely to be expressed by someone in parliament. The fact that we don't have a winner takes all system means you'll have to work together with other parties, ensuring political and social cohesion. Despite a populist movement getting a lot of air time in foreign media, it got less than 13% of the vote -in other words 87% of Dutch people aren't fearful but optimistic despite terrorist attacks and attempts. 80% of the people voted. We've got a democracy, the USA has a circus.
Business
It's one of the most business minded countries in the world dependent as we are on export. If you need a bespoke engineering solution: go Dutch. Thanks to good diplomatic relations and tax treaties with a lot of countries international trade is facilitated better than in any other county in the world. Also we lack the arrogance the French and Americans are known for and are therefore actually liked. Your new President wants to impose tariffs. Good luck with that when your market could be the world and you'll end up with only a domestic market.
Nature
There's more of it in the USA but the pollution you find there is totally absent in the Netherlands. the Netherlands is boring and it basically looks like a big village. It's clean and green.
We have one of the best infrastructure in the world, which makes it easy and affordable to get around.
Healthcare
is very good and accessible for everyone although it has its problems due to an aging population and rising costs of medication.
People
They are quite conservative actually, preferring people act "normal". Deviation from the norm is frowned upon but once something is accepted it becomes all Dutch (who remembers hating gays? That was still a thing in my childhood).
Living standards
yes, you cannot reach the stratospheric heights some people might in the USA but the depths are absent too. Did you know the absence of wealth disparity has a huge influence on happiness? Dutch people are very happy. Also, I don't believe in individual accomplishments so rewarding individuals for their work in the sense that they are entitled to a million dollar income is the real problem of the entitlement generation and I'm glad The Dutch entrepreneurial spirit looks beyond immediate shareholder value (and thus the directors are rewarded less) and keeps the well being of the company in mind. Part of the reason manufacturing died off in the USA is because the value extraction of profit by shareholders instead of positioning companies to innovate and compete with "cheaper" countries. The money extracted should've been invested. Dutch manufacturing adapted, the USA didn't despite having many, many more highly talented people.
And the Netherlands still sucks, it just sucks a lot less than about 190 other countries.
The UK has sissified male "royalty." The USA has real men, like "the Rock" Dwayne Johnson and John Wayne, just to name two who have "Wayne" or "John" someplace in their name. The best action star the UK can muster is a middle-aged bald guy who learned a few martial arts moves. Check...mate.
Reply to Benkei I do appreciate the national comparisons, but if you're really interested in a "best of," I have conducted my own study. Here are the results:
Best country: USA
Best region: Southeast
Best religion: Secular Jewish
Best Gender: Non-Fluid Male
Best Political Party: Republican/Libertarianish
Best Sense of Humor: Sarcastic sexual deviant curmudgeon absurdism
Best Type of Cat: Black
Best type of Hat: Red Derby
You don't have to remember. You can go ask/poll the Dutch Muslim population to see it in the present.
Oh that must be why gay Muslims joined the Amsterdam gay pride last year in fear of rejection by their Muslim families. Dutch Muslims are as negative about homosexuality as Dutch protestants, which is to say, they don't like public displays of affection and are against gay marriage. That doesn't mean they hate gays or are prepared to use violence or banish family members.
In general, LGTB are confronted with more violence than straights but... compare that to a backwater like the USA, where you don't even have to be Muslim to hate gays and beat the shit out of them. For God's sake, my philosophy professor was fired from West-Virginia university because he was gay and came to the Netherlands to escape discrimination from his white peers.
As usual, your types of comments say more about the person uttering them, moving like an attack dog on Muslims, because you don't hear anyone complaining about the protestants.
I do have to say that the content, and to a lesser, though significant extent quality (due to pretty much having the same members from PF be here also) has gone down considerably hereabouts, or at least I wasn't paying attention to the posts being made on similar topics over at PF.
Meanwhile, Hanover is enjoying his life in his fortress. Perhaps he never held philosophy in high regards, maybe a love-hate relationship? Only to use when convenient, much like how one uses a condom.
Apart from its utility in showing unsuspected possibilities, philosophy has a value—perhaps its chief value—through the greatness of the objects which it contemplates, and the freedom from narrow and personal aims resulting from this contemplation. The life of the instinctive man is shut up within the circle of his private interests: family and friends may be included, but the outer world is not regarded except as it may help or hinder what comes within the circle of instinctive wishes. In such a life there is something feverish and confined, in comparison with which the philosophic life is calm and free. The private world of instinctive interests is a small one, set in the midst of a great and powerful world which must, sooner or later, lay our private world in ruins. Unless we can so enlarge our interests as to include the whole outer world, we remain like a garrison in a beleagured fortress, knowing that the enemy prevents escape and that ultimate surrender is inevitable. In such a life there is no peace, but a constant strife between the insistence of desire and the powerlessness of will. In one way or another, if our life is to be great and free, we must escape this prison and this strife.
It's the Shoutbox, which was never meant for quality. The fact that it resembles other discussions (unlike old PF where it was confined to an actual box) is due to software limitations not conscious choice. Having said that, that is a quality quote, and quality is as welcome here as elsewhere on the site.
Maybe we need more Reply to Question to curb the quality in the right direction. I'm probably partially, if not solely responsible
Personally though, I wouldn't mind seeing a lot more of the same, particularly a few from before. It's comforting to know that they didn't amount to anything either, and would bother checking back.
That last part is of course just a hilarious, hilarious joke (doubly hilarious), but I like to observe and learn what people think, and kind of get to know them some as they're around, and project my own subjectivity into the airwaves from time to time. I don't like to see people go. I like everyone. :D
I do have to say that the quality has gone down considerably
It's true that the quality has gone down, but then, the quality was going down 'over there', too. The classical Greek philosophers thought the quality was going down, as well. Recently discovered cave paintings in France show that the quality of troglodyte art was going down 25,000 years ago. Things started going down hill in the Garden of Eden by the second week.
"Declining quality" is the essence of the universe.
The classical Greek philosophers thought the quality was going down, as well.
Wasn't it Plato who railed against the apathy and indolence of youth in his time, and about how they were insufficiently excited by geometry? And that was before time-sucks such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Tinder, and whatever else the kids are using these days.
Politics
The Dutch political system is the most representative democracy in the world and politics is alive with a record of 28 political parties of which 14 are expected to gain a seat. Your voice and your problems are likely to be expressed by someone in parliament. The fact that we don't have a winner takes all system means you'll have to work together with other parties, ensuring political and social cohesion. Despite a populist movement getting a lot of air time in foreign media, it got less than 13% of the vote -in other words 87% of Dutch people aren't fearful but optimistic despite terrorist attacks and attempts. 80% of the people voted. We've got a democracy, the USA has a circus.
Benkei, as I have suggested for years, the issues your country seems to encounter are usually a decade behind the mistakes we in the USA have made.
For example: Did the majority of the citizens of the Netherlands support entering into the EU? And how, my friend, has that worked out for the Dutch?
I listen to Tobias talk about how the Dutch people laid out the welcome matt to a speaker from Turkey and just how angry he is that Freedom of Speech was not allowed. Why is there soo much sunlight between two 'thinkers' such as you and Tobias?
You paint a beautiful picture of picnics in the park that is clear of pollution, both the environmental and the opposition. Your flower power attitude of sharing cookies so others will not go hungry is a role that our foundations, churches and donations support rather than looking to our government to provide.
Tell me what happens to a citizen of the Netherlands when they burn your countries flag?
Tell me what happens when a Dutch citizen wears a t-shirt calling an elected official or their spouse a "whore’ or a shirt with the slogan ‘all Muslims are goat f******s’?
Your painting gets a little bit messy when you start comparing Apples to Apples.
Ooh I know, I know! People roll their eyes at you and then shrug and smile.
The Netherlands office of Tourism called un and they would like you to be the greeter at the nation's airport. Where planes take off from and are shot down like MH17
I don't recall Benkei, did the Dutch ever bring Putin to trial? Or do the thug gangs, that supposedly don't exist, carry Bulk missiles instead of a personal firearm?
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff I think it was the people on the plane they were upset about, rather than the flag on the tail.
There's a special section of the education department that funds the burning of flags, the ridicule of religious symbols, the parody of heroes, and the slaughter of sacred cows to ensure that everyone maintains a sense of proportion.
Or if there isn't there ought to be.
Metaphysician UndercoverMarch 16, 2017 at 12:17#609030 likes
Perhaps he never held philosophy in high regards, maybe a love-hate relationship?
There are always those who hate philosophy, and therefore philosophers. Philosopher-bashing is really no different from gay-bashing, and may actually be the original form of gay-bashing. Wasn't Socrates said to be gay? They hang around philosophy forums pretending to be philosophers, looking for a chance to lead the unsuspecting philosopher down the garden path, to some secluded spot,, for a good beating and robbing.
Your painting gets a little bit messy when you start comparing Apples to Apples.
Speaking of apples, are you sending all those poison ones in the Netherlands' direction because you've finally figured out the US isn't the fairest country of them all? ;)
And so will ye end up choking on your own apple. But in fairness, it's fairly pointless comparing countries like the US and Holland. It's a matter of taste in the end. (And I'll have an orange).
I listen to Tobias talk about how the Dutch people laid out the welcome matt to a speaker from Turkey and just how angry he is that Freedom of Speech was not allowed. Why is there soo much sunlight between two 'thinkers' such as you and Tobias?
You paint a beautiful picture of picnics in the park that is clear of pollution, both the environmental and the opposition. Your flower power attitude of sharing cookies so others will not go hungry is a role that our foundations, churches and donations support rather than looking to our government to provide.
Tell me what happens to a citizen of the Netherlands when they burn your countries flag?
Tell me what happens when a Dutch citizen wears a t-shirt calling an elected official or their spouse a "whore’ or a shirt with the slogan ‘all Muslims are goat f******s’?
Your painting gets a little bit messy when you start comparing Apples to Apples.
As far as I'm aware, hate speech is a criminal offence, so your examples would probably result in punishment.
But according to this, the Netherlands is ranked second (behind Finland) in the 2016 World Press Freedom Index, so there's that at least.
Trump opponents cannot accept that Trump really really is the President and really really will do the things he said he would so they try to concoct silly scenarios where Trump will disappear and the world will be righted. It's denial.
No, I think that witnessing Trump become president and finding out about his widely publicised actions since becoming president have convinced Trump opponents that he is president and that he will certainly attempt to do some of the things that he said he would do by whatever means he has available to him, like the Muslim ban, for example. That first point is true of virtually all Trump opponents (do you seriously think that Trump opponents in general are that deluded?), and that second point is true of a very large number of his opponents - most, I think. You'd have to be very naive to think that he was just bluffing and that it was all just empty rhetoric. I don't think that the majority of his opponents are that naive.
No, I think that witnessing Trump become president and finding out about his widely publicised actions since becoming president have convinced Trump opponents that he is president and that he will certainly attempt to do some of the things that he said he would do by whatever means he has available to him, like the Muslim ban, for example. That first point is true of virtually all Trump opponents, and that second point is true of a very large number of his opponents - most, I think.
You can't be serious. If Hilary Clinton won an election by losing the popular vote by 3 million votes, and whose candidacy was backed by a hostile foreign power which employed cyber warfare and a campaign of propaganda to discredit her opponent, the right wouldn't protest?
If she had won perfectly legitimately, they'd nevertheless have protested in their thousands, chanting things like "Lock her up!" and calling her "Crooked". Does anyone here really doubt that?
Reply to Sapientia Yes. Conservatives don't protest. They just don't take buses and converge on DC. Why would a group opposed to government flock to the government for help?
I'm an old Green leftie, but I do think Hanover is right that many protests against Trump speak of a great sense of liberal entitlement that somehow can't come to terms with the actual election result. It's similar to what's happened here in the UK where 'Remainers' occupy most of the liberal commentariat space to persistently replay an argument that they have lost. Both groups, in the US and the UK, implicitly or explicitly denigrate the voters who voted the Wrong Way. I find it hard to understand, and it is helping to cause a sense of a void at the heart of politics because the opposition is either gone missing, or is not in touch with reality. If you think a coup would be a good idea, well, make one happen and justify it to us. If you're a democrat, you've got to handle it.
Here in the U.K., the Official Opposition, Labour, have understandably taken up much of the airtime on this topic, and you'd be misrepresenting their stance by suggesting that the above criticism applies to them. They aren't persistently replaying arguments that they've lost and denigrating voters for voting the Wrong Way, they've accepted the result of the referendum and are moving forward with how to best go about leaving. They aren't like the Lib Dems or the SNP or the rebellious and outspoken 'Remainers' in either of the two main parties who are a small minority. They're taking a sensible middle ground. The opposition is neither gone nor missing nor out of touch with reality on this issue. That's just wishful thinking from an old Green leftie. You get the same rhetoric from the other lesser, sidelined parties who want to take Labour's place. It would have been both wrong and political suicide to take an approach similar to that of the Lib Dems, which is another good reason why Owen Smith, who argued for a second referendum and who wants Labour to be more 'Pro-Remain', should not have become Leader of The Opposition. Jeremy Corbyn, his allies, and the official party line, is not of the view that some sort of 'Remainer' coup would be a good idea, but shares the same view as you and I, which is one which respects the democratic result, which is only proper and shouldn't come as a surprise from a democratic socialist party.
Yes. Conservatives don't protest. They just don't take buses and converge on DC. Why would a group opposed to government flock to the government for help?
If you want to distinguish this group of people who don't protest and label them 'conservatives', then so be it. But that overlooks the reality of the large numbers of right-wing Trump supporters who do just that, and would have done just that had Hilary have won. If you want to know why, it'd be better to ask them, but if you expect a reasonable answer, you might have to face disappointment.
Reply to Baden Actually, it's apples to oranges. Comparing a largely homogenous small nation with a massive and diverse country makes little sense. Maybe compare The Netherlands to Massachusetts. You can pretty much create whatever lifestyle you want here, just don't live near me.
You've misquoted him by adding in the word "only." He didn't say that. He said he'd accept the results if he won, which doesn't mean he won't accept them if he loses. Logic 101.
Yes, that's correct. But I just don't buy these kind of defences of Trump that deny what he seems to be quite clearly suggesting. It just looks like apologetics. We're supposed to believe that he didn't suggest the above, he didn't suggest anything untoward about that disabled reporter, he didn't suggest anything on either of the two occasions about shooting Hilary, and when he is explicit about this kind of stuff, e.g. punching people in the face, grabbing women in the pussy, and so on... well, that's okay, it was just something trivial. It's all in your head or it's trivial, this is perfectly normal, nothing to worry about. Don't listen to fake news, unless the fake news comes straight from the horses mouth, i.e. Trump's.
Reply to Sapientia Well, I didn't comment on anything other than the single issue regarding his comments about accepting the election results. Throwing the rest in has nothing to do with our discussion. And mine isn't a defense of Trump. It's a defense of truth.
Reply to Sapientia So, to the hypothetical, what would the right have done had Hillary won, why not just look at what they did when Obama won. Not a lot. And, yes, Obama is just as disappointing to the right as Trump is to the left. The left's brand of shock, dismay, and disbelief is no worse than the right's. Arguing that the right and left react similarly to political issues is just burying your head in the sand.
Reply to Michael Conservatives support less government and greater self-sufficiency, so it would be inconsistent to ask the same government for help that you want out of your life.
Reply to unenlightened I'm just commenting on an empirical question, which is whether the right protests like the left. It seems clear they don't. You might get a small group here and there, but it's clearly different.
Conservatives support less government and greater self-sufficiency, so it would be inconsistent to ask the same government for help that you want out of your life.
So it's not that they're opposed to government, just opposed to government being involved in certain areas (e.g. welfare and regulation?).
Presumably they still want the government to provide basic infrastructure like roads, basic services like a military, a police force, and a judiciary (to enforce all those necessary business contracts), and also to enforce Christian social values like "traditional" marriage, no abortion, and cisgender identities, and also to keep out those damn immigrants?
Otherwise, again, it's just anarchy, which doesn't seem to be what conservatives want.
Is it different because you figure that conservatives all have jobs, families, and no time for that, but dirty degenerate unemployed hippies on the other hand...
Well, I didn't comment on anything other than the single issue regarding his comments about accepting the election results. Throwing the rest in has nothing to do with our discussion. And mine isn't a defense of Trump. It's a defense of truth.
But the style of defence is the same, right? Why stop there? He didn't [I]say[/I] anything mocking the reporter's disability, and he didn't [I]say[/I] that people should attempt to assassinate Hilary. Nothing that he said on those occasions has either of the aforementioned as a valid logical consequence. Sometimes there's more to something than words and logic.
Reply to Michael Sure, all of that. Or, maybe no political body is definable by reference to first principles, but are instead more nuanced and pragmatic.
Reply to Wosret Sure, maybe that's the reason, I don't know. I'm just pointing out a difference in reaction. It could be for all sorts of reasons, but the ones you list sound good.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 16, 2017 at 16:40#609450 likes
Otherwise, again, it's just anarchy, which doesn't seem to be what conservatives want.
Things that make you go hmmmm....
Conservatives like myself and NicK both have entertained the idea of anarchy but it is what comes after the pause in this absurdity that most do not consider.
No, before there is complete anarchy, you will see state cessions from the Union first.
Anything like Brexit?
Reply to Sapientia Oh, he's offensive and obnoxious and not terribly temperate. He'd make a terrible dinner guest, and it's likely we'd hate each other. Hillary wouldn't be much better. I'd probably choose Trump over Hillary for wings and beer. I'd choose you over Benkei though.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 16, 2017 at 16:45#609480 likes
Is it different because you figure that conservatives all have jobs, families, and no time for that, but dirty degenerate unemployed hippies on the other hand...
I don't know how it is in Lala land, but here in the land of propriety it is always the peasants that are revolting because the toffs have more effective ways of pressing their points, which they put in brown envelopes, and discuss in a civilised manner behind closed doors.
I'm just waiting for Mad Max. That's when it's my time to shine... unlike the remake which wasn't even about him... damn African immigrants stealing our protagonist jobs.
Benkei, as I have suggested for years, the issues your country seems to encounter are usually a decade behind the mistakes we in the USA have made.
For example: Did the majority of the citizens of the Netherlands support entering into the EU? And how, my friend, has that worked out for the Dutch?
A majority supported it and a vast majority just voted remain to the extent that was on the table in the elections yesterday.
I listen to Tobias talk about how the Dutch people laid out the welcome matt to a speaker from Turkey and just how angry he is that Freedom of Speech was not allowed. Why is there soo much sunlight between two 'thinkers' such as you and Tobias?
I'm not sure whether you have the facts straight. We were in the middle of our own elections and didn't have the manpower to guarantee the safety of a Turkish minister as they were tied up for all our own political rallies. It was the Muslim, former Moroccan mayor of Rotterdam who decided on that. They were welcome after our own elections but the Turkish government turned this into freedom of speech nonsense. There's also the issue of whether we should allow a would-be dictator to forward his autocratic agenda in our country. I don't see why as he isn't a Dutch citizen.
Your flower power attitude of sharing cookies so others will not go hungry is a role that our foundations, churches and donations support rather than looking to our government to provide.
Tell me what happens to a citizen of the Netherlands when they burn your countries flag?
Tell me what happens when a Dutch citizen wears a t-shirt calling an elected official or their spouse a "whore’ or a shirt with the slogan ‘all Muslims are goat f******s’?
Nothing, nothing and probably a beating if you're in the wrong neighbourhood.
Also, if your idea of free speech is insulting people you're simply being uncivilised. Free speech is about being able to speak truth to power not to degenerate women or Muslims.
So, to the hypothetical, what would the right have done had Hillary won, why not just look at what they did when Obama won. Not a lot. And, yes, Obama is just as disappointing to the right as Trump is to the left. The left's brand of shock, dismay, and disbelief is no worse than the right's. Arguing that the right and left react similarly to political issues is just burying your head in the sand.
Not a lot, if protesting in their thousands is not a lot. Depends how you look at it, really. And that they would indeed protest cannot credibly be doubted. They did so at the peak of the presidential election, why would they suddenly stop after the result? That makes no sense whatsoever, especially given Trump's rhetoric. He encouraged it. They did react similarly in the presidential election. Supporters on either side amassed in great numbers to express pro- and anti- views. If you think the "Lock her up!" crowd would've just passively accepted the result, rather than protest, then you're kidding yourself.
Everything's already the ways they want it, and thus there's more to be gained from denouncing protest in any and all forms, one would think, when they're always aimed at you, and all of that self-preserving stuff you do.
Reply to Sapientia The right's protests were not like the left's. Instead of denying that reality, why not just admit it and argue their reaction was legitimate regardless.
And so will ye end up choking on your own apple. But in fairness, it's fairly pointless comparing countries like the US and Holland. It's a matter of taste in the end. (And I'll have an orange).
Bullshit. Northern Europe: the closest thing to paradise on earth. Unless you're an egotistical materialist consumer of course.
The right's protests were not like the left's. Instead of denying that reality, why not just admit it and argue their reaction was legitimate regardless.
You're the one denying the reality of the situation. They're similar enough to make comparisons. You yourself claimed that the left protested under the banner that the Trump presidency lacks legitimacy, and the evidence suggests that the right would've done the same thing with a Clinton presidency. Were there differences? Yes. For example, the anti-Trump protesters dwarfed the anti-Clinton protesters, but we're talkin' big numbers for both. You don't have a leg to stand on, Hanover. Just admit it. We both know the "Lock her up!" crowd wouldn't give up so easily.
If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, then yes. But since you're American, I can never be too sure what you're talking about, given your talk of pants and wardrobes. Perhaps to you, hot wings are a kind of musical instrument or an item of clothing.
It's not a great time to come to the US. Kentucky has lost about 12,000 steel jobs (per a Kentuckian who moved to my state to find work). Professions that were chronically subject to labor shortage aren't hiring now. And that's really the issue with Mexicans. Nobody cared that they were crossing the border when there was a labor shortage. Now that the reverse has happened, Mexicans are job-stealers.
Obviously Kentuckians are too. And we won't even start on WV.
Oh, he's offensive and obnoxious and not terribly temperate. He'd make a terrible dinner guest, and it's likely we'd hate each other. Hillary wouldn't be much better. I'd probably choose Trump over Hillary for wings and beer. I'd choose you over Benkei though.
I'd choose me over Benkei, too. Plus, I'm not a fan of Haagaarvaadaradddar.
Reply to Mongrel http://allrecipes.com/recipe/24087/restaurant-style-buffalo-chicken-wings/?internalSource=amp&referringContentType=amp%20recipe&clickId=amp_similar_recipes
I mean the EU is one of the greatest achievements ever achieved in the recent history of placing cooperation above individual gain.
We're in agreement there so I suspect you're interpreting something in my text I didn't intend there. I think it's quite easy to compare countries in a variety of measures and the "haves" in the USA will deny they have any bearing on anything because whatever we have in Europe they can buy better. Which is true and simultaneously misses the point by about a mile.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 16, 2017 at 17:53#609820 likes
I'm not sure whether you have the facts straight. We were in the middle of our own elections and didn't have the manpower to guarantee the safety of a Turkish minister as they were tied up for all our own political rallies. It was the Muslim, former Moroccan mayor of Rotterdam who decided on that. They were welcome after our own elections but the Turkish government turned this into freedom of speech nonsense. There's also the issue of whether we should allow a would-be dictator to forward his autocratic agenda in our country. I don't see why as he isn't a Dutch citizen.
You tell me if I have his position wrong but before you assume, read his last sentence:
"(translation of my Dutch post below) One can agree or disagree about the need to refuse a foreign dignitary who wishes to addresses masses because of internal political reasons of that country, but it is at least partly understandable. If you are called a Nazi remnant in response, than that is highly insulting and annoying, but leave this undiplomatic nonsense be. When a minister drives to the Netherlands by car to hold a speech anyway, then this is a further provocation perhaps. However, if this ends with an anti terror squad who surrounds the car of a minister of a friendly country who wishes to enter a building belonging to her State... well.... then I cannot help but wonder if a better solution could not have been found..."
a further response from Tobias
"The mayor of Rotterdam acted as he should have acted, I have nothing but respect for him. But in this crisis he is not a key player. A diplomatic incident of this magnitude is chefssache. Indeed the govt made a statement, but why now and why in this case? Slam the refugee deal, impose sanctions because of the intimidation of Turkish opposition in the Netherlands, but not now... Erdogan has nothing to lose, but the Netherlands has, since everything plays out here. Pick your battles. Even Germany, a country with immense political clout chose de-escalation. So, you could just have let that minister speak and subsequently create a diplomatic toss up by withdrawing your ambassador and trade missions, but no...."
Doesn't sound like all is as Peachy in the Netherlands does it? To me it sounds like Tobi is disappointed in the Netherlands response and thinks that a de-escalation tactic might have been a better choice. Please correct me if I am reading him wrong.
Yes, we're seeing how that's working out for your poor. Not very well.
For our poor? Benkei, the poor are taken care of better by our nation than the average small business owner can take care of a staff of 9.
Those who are truly poor, a family of 4's medical care will be taken care of by the State. Those who are not poor? We are looking at $2,500 a month with a combined $20k annual deductible. So if you earn $125k a year and have to provide your own insurance? That is $50k dollars a year BEFORE penny one is paid by the insurance companies. Even if you never make a claim, that is still $30k a year in monthly premiums, that will renew every year and wipe away anything under your meeting your annual deductible.
How long do you think a family of 4 with a annual income of $125k a year, can survive on paying out $30k a year without a claim? Want to know how quickly your 401k is liquidated? I'll give you a hint, faster than you can say "And it's gone". It is called a 'redistribution of wealth' by gutting out the middle class from within by playing on their fear of dying as a result of not having health care.
Also, if your idea of free speech is insulting people you're simply being uncivilised. Free speech is about being able to speak truth to power not to degenerate women or Muslims.
That might be your narrow definition but as I suggested to Tobi, Freedom of Speech is not there for me to stand up and agree with you. Freedom of Speech is for Tobi to be able to stand up and speak, regardless of whether or not I care for what he is saying.
And just so you sleep well at night? If a male has the audacity to speak to a woman the way they talk about them behind their back, well I say she might respond with nonverbal communication.
You know, the Irish one isn't a four-leaf one, it's three leafed, and significant as a representation of the trinity. Also funnily enough the name of the genus "clover" is "trifolium" meaning "having three leaves".
So, a four leafed having three leaves entity is logically impossible. Ergo, they cannot be as good as finddleheads.
Also, if your idea of free speech is insulting people you're simply being uncivilised. Free speech is about being able to speak truth to power not to degenerate women or Muslims.
How bizarre. Who decides if the criticism of the treatment of women in strictly devout Muslim families or communities is speaking truth to power (patriarchal power), or "punching down" on Muslims? The point is that we come up with better decisions when all opinions are out in the open, and nobody is in the privileged position of being the arbiter of what is proper to say. Free speech is about allowing people to say things you don't agree with or that you find offensive.
You think insulting people ought to be outlawed? And do you think the re-emergence of restrictions on blasphemy--particularly regarding Islam--is a good thing?
Should I move back to Europe and apply for citizenship in Germany or Scandanavia?
— Question
You can't. Their immigration laws are too strict. Irony much?
Well, I am a Polish citizen, so that makes me able to live in any EU country (except the UK?) after establishing residency, which itself is supposedly kind of hard.
Anyway, there really is no reason apart from sentimentality for me to stay in the states, as I am exhausted by materialism and consumerism. All, I want to do now is just complete my degree at my local uni to have some job prospects once I move out there. MBA or QA, possibly to further enhance my job prospects. Paradoxically, once I get those titles, it would be more 'rational' to stay in the states, however, I never subscribed to the notion of rationality dictated by materialistic needs and wants.
We're in agreement there so I suspect you're interpreting something in my text I didn't intend there. I think it's quite easy to compare countries in a variety of measures and the "haves" in the USA will deny they have any bearing on anything because whatever we have in Europe they can buy better. Which is true and simultaneously misses the point by about a mile.
Well, you can use the HDI to always make some comparison. And if homogeneity is really a problem, then take a basket of EU countries prior 2004 to make a closer comparison between the US and Europe.
How bizarre. Who decides if the criticism of the treatment of women in strictly devout Muslim families or communities is speaking truth to power (patriarchal power), or "punching down" on Muslims? The point is that we come up with better decisions when all opinions are out in the open, and nobody is in the privileged position of being the arbiter of what is proper to say. Free speech is about allowing people to say things you don't agree with or that you find offensive.
You think insulting people ought to be outlawed? And do you think the re-emergence of restrictions on blasphemy--particularly regarding Islam--is a good thing?
There's nothing bizarre about what I'm saying but your interpretation of it certainly is.
Insulting other people claiming freedom of speech is an abuse of a right our forefathers died for and an insult to their memory. I can make that value judgment without calling for a change in the law.
Edit: to take that to the extreme, I'm sure it's legally fine to go out the door and insult everyone I meet but I don't think that's helping anyone.
Insulting other people claiming freedom of speech is an abuse of a right our forefathers died for and an insult to their memory. I can make that value judgment without calling for a change in the law.
I actually read your post as Jamalrob did. If all you're saying is that it's wrong to insult people, I'd agree (although reluctantly because I do like me a good insult). But it seemed like you were saying there should be some limitation on free speech when it came to insulting people, and I was going to say that was a stupid idea, bitch.
I actually read your post as Jamalrob did. If all you're saying is that it's wrong to insult people, I'd agree (although reluctantly because I do like me a good insult). But it seemed like you were saying there should be some limitation on free speech when it came to insulting people, and I was going to say that was a stupid idea, bitch.
That's because you're a disagreeable old man and to the multitude of things we already disagree on you wanted to add another. That was to be expected, greytufted old fogey.
But it seemed like you were saying there should be some limitation on free speech when it came to insulting people, and I was going to say that was a stupid idea, bitch.
I'm sure this isn't entirely accurate. Would you object to vulgar language in a kid's show?
Thought I'd share a quote from a book on ancient philosophy that I'm reading currently:
"There is truth in each of these accounts, but neither is wholly true and neither contains the whole truth. Philosophy is not a science, and there is no state of the art in philosophy. Philosophy is not a matter of expanding nowledge, of acquiring new truths about the world; the philosopher is not in possession of information that is denied to others. Philosophy is not a matter of knowledge, it is a matter of understanding, that is to say, of organizing what is known. But because philosophy is all-embracing, is so universal in its field, the organization of knowledge it demands is something so difficult that only genius can do it. For all of us who are not geniuses, the only way in which we can hope to come to grips with philosophy is by reaching up to the mind of some great philosopher of the past."
Bullshit. Northern Europe: the closest thing to paradise on earth. Unless you're an egotistical materialist consumer of course.
As I said, a matter of taste. Besides, paradise can quickly become stale for some. Where there be nothing rotten in the state, no Hamlets are there either.
Russell pretty much preempted what you quoted and saw the genius of philosophy in Wittgenstein. So-much-so that he had a hard time understanding his philosophy himself.
As I said, a matter of taste. Besides, paradise can quickly become stale for some. Where there be nothing rotten in the state, no Hamlets are there either.
I suppose the tongue in cheek smiley was necessary with my comment. Of course it's about taste, the point I was trying to make (vulgarly) was it takes a certain character not to appreciate the countries in Northern Europe.
Sure, and a lack of character or a certain character could leave one unappreciative of others. Anyhow, if anyone wants to say one country is "better" than another, all they're really saying is it's better for people like them.
Reply to Baden To me, it demonstrates a distinct lack of character to fail to appreciate fish tacos, jazz, and mountains, at least two of which are very hard to find in the Netherlands.
Tell me what happens when a Dutch citizen wears a t-shirt calling an elected official or their spouse a "whore’ or a shirt with the slogan ‘all Muslims are goat f******s’?
I wish I could say that South Park or someone made this up, but Saudi Arabia's supposed "first beauty pageant," involved...goats. It's almost as if severe sexual repression causes people to do odd things.
Reply to Baden I suppose @Arkady is indirectly referring to this kind of fish taco. But no, that's not what I meant; there are lots of those in the Netherlands.
Reply to BadenSo, let's clarify. When you say fish taco munching, are you referring to the consumption of the Mexican treat of grilled meat and cheese in a warm corn tortilla, or are you referring to the placement of one's mouth toward the top of a woman's vagina and licking her clitoris until she reaches orgasm?
Reply to Michael I read recently that the feeling of accomplishment by men in having their mate achieve orgasm served an important psychological function for men. Men apparently receive satisfaction from satisfying. While that may or may not be true, I do like the idea of trying to figure out what's in it for me.
Reply to Hanover There are many reports of sexual encounters between men and women which were quite short, and where the woman definitely did not reach orgasm. Apparently many men are not worried about their partner's orgasm.
As for the "what's in it for you" question, probably better sex, and more. Below is a song which explains the principle.
A "deep sea diver who's got a stroke that can't go wrong" will be in more demand than a jackrabbit that is there, then gone, in 45 seconds.
I have come to the realization that talk about sex and orgasms and such ought to be not so open around here. This is a sentiment I carry over from PF because after all kids might be philosophizing.
Reply to Question That would also exclude your discussion of the exploits of your promiscuous neighbor and any sort of real relationship advice. I realize that my posts in the Shoutbox might lack literary and philosophical quality, but they are no more or less sexual than serious sex related posts.
That being said, if you're looking for sex on the web, and you came here, your Google skills suck.
You know what people miss about Jesus, which makes him a good parallel for Socrates? It wasn't that he was the only healer, or teacher going around. It wasn't that his miracles were more persuasive, his words more true. It's that he was doing it for free. It's that he meant everything that he did and said, and didn't expect to gain in anyway for it, and even died for it.
Socrates said it best, that the only way to live with honour in this world is to be the things that we pretend to be. Suffering is not caused by things not being as they should be, but by you not being as you should be. By the mismatch, the disharmony, the disengenuous, mechanical, calculated splits that you make between the internal, and external. It causes you to diverge, to go in opposite directions, to tear yourself apart.
They gave a shit about being good for its own sake. Not because they would gain, but rather risked everything in doing it.
Suffering is not caused by things not being as they should be, but by you not being as you should be. By the mismatch, the disharmony, the disengenuous, mechanical, calculated splits that you make between the internal, and external. It causes you to diverge, to go in opposite directions, to tear yourself apart.
This refers to self inflicted psychological suffering, but what of those whose pain arises from chronic, painful illness like cancer or true psychological illness, like schizophrenia?
I would complicate things and distinguish between primary sensuous emotions, and secondary aesthetic, or rational judgments.
The only way to deal with the first is of course to take care of yourself the best you can, and minimize physical pains, discomforts, and environmental circumstantial suffering. None of it ever goes completely away, and some get hit with either harder than others.
The psychological stuff never goes completely away either. The devil is contained within the void at the end, he's never truly destroyed.
You know what people miss about Jesus, which makes him a good parallel for Socrates? It wasn't that he was the only healer, or teacher going around. It wasn't that his miracles were more persuasive, his words more true. It's that he was doing it for free. It's that he meant everything that he did and said, and didn't expect to gain in anyway for it, and even died for it.
Oh, he did expect to gain something -- your salvation, Wosret. He wanted to save your sin-sick Canadian soul from eternal damnation and the fires of hell.
And he probably was fairly impressive. I don't think folks got raised from the dead (like Lazarus) every day, and water wasn't changed into wine at every wedding, either. He attracted unusually large crowds which the authorities apparently found nerve-wracking. Plus, he didn't stay dead once he died. That one is hard to top.
You might prefer the Hazel Mopes' Church Without Christ, "where the lame don't walk, the blind don't see, and the dead stay dead."§
§Flannery O'Conner, Wise Blood. Not my favorite piece -- her collection of short stories is much to be preferred. O'Conner was a very faithful Catholic. The characters in the novel are kind of freakish. She was once asked why there so many freaks in southern novels. She said, "Because southern writers can still recognize them."
Oh, I do realize that. It also applies to my thread as well. I don't intend to post about such matters anymore as it is really a laughable matter to worry over.
Reply to Question Philosophers probably hate admitting it, but they are as deeply rooted in rutting physicality as everyone is. A bit of the vulgar, the vernacular, is good for you. Keeps you in touch with reality. Feels good too. Get down and wallow in it every now and then. Get down, Question, get down.
Donald Trump believes 'Dow Jones Industrial Average falls down'. 'Dow Jones Industrial Average falls down' is true. 'Dow Jones Industrial Average falls down' is formed by a reliable cognitive process.
Self-inflicted suffering, sort of. But what about people who are suffering at the hand of others for being what they should be, and are?
Denounce them hopefully. Rehumanize whose that are dehumanized, help those that are harmed, speak out. I think most importantly though, never make it about getting their oppressors, but about helping them.
Again, some people get served a better lot in this regard than others.
Helping and saving others usually isn;t considered "gain", but cost, if one isn't getting paid. That's why people don't do that kind of thing truly selflessly.
Three hundred years ago, I could legally kill anyone I wanted using the institution of dueling (I'm great at dueling), and three hundred years before that, I could just kill any lower class person I wanted, and if they fought back and harmed me, then they would be the ones in trouble.
Not at first! I of course started out in the lowest class (such is my life), but then worked my way up! It was nearly impossible to do, and you'd never have the resources or connections of everyone else, and maybe run into another one that got there through real work one other time in your travels.
Now that I'm lord of the outhouse though, it's time to exact some vengeance on grown adults that upset me twenty years ago as children.
But, I've wallowed too long. And besides, I am well grounded. I work with plants and feed them and water them and they bring me joy.
One of my most romantic experiences in life was having a mandarin tree next to my desk in my room. I fed it, watered it, kept it warm, and when the buds blossomed it was the most wonderful scent that filled up my rather dank and dark room, which made me very happy and jubilant. Then I helped pollinate her, as no bees or other stuff would do it, so I used a cotton swab. The fruits were so sour and pleasant to the taste.
Sadly, she didn't bloom next year.
Metaphysician UndercoverMarch 18, 2017 at 12:06#612720 likes
Wosret, is that a huge pot leaf? Where did get that monster!?
Planning to grow some herb with high levels of CBD in it for therapeutic effects and less psychoactivity. Rather chill to something healthy that's neuroprotective and anti-amyloid along with cancer preventative properties than alcohol or booze.
Gonna be a nice summer.
Metaphysician UndercoverMarch 18, 2017 at 12:18#612740 likes
Those monster leaves come from the CBD filled hemp fields where the pot grows 12 feet tall? What does CBD do for you?
Well, typically, you don't get leaves that size unless it's some mutant plant. It's possible; but, only from some really heavy indicia or something.
CBD is neuroprotective, antianxiety, antidepressive, and antipsychotic. THC is just all 'fun'. Combine the two and you mellow out the psychoactivity of THC and enjoy a more functional and healthy experience. Also, CBD counters the typical short term memory loss along with long term memory retardation induced by THC.
You should read up on the effects of CBD over on Wiki.
Metaphysician UndercoverMarch 18, 2017 at 12:29#612760 likes
I'm getting kind of old, do you think CBD could help out my short term memory loss? Or does it just take away what the THC gives?
I can't say that it would take away your short term memory loss. I mean, if you already smoke herb, then the CBD will counter the detrimental efffects of THC on memory loss.
If you're looking for a drug to help memory loss and such, you can read up on Bacopa monnieri or supplementing Acetylcholine levels along with some newer drugs like Modafinil, that are proven to enhance short-term memory. There's also piracetam if you've never heard of it before.
Hey, just let me know if something is too sensitive to be put out there and I'll shut up.
But, really. The sex threads need to calm down a little.
Ok, I'll shut up for now.
Metaphysician UndercoverMarch 18, 2017 at 13:13#612800 likes
Reply to Question
I'm too old for experimenting with chemicals, I'll let the kids do that (with care of course). Messing around with acetylcholine levels sounds really really scary, to me.
You know, anxiety is good, it keeps you on your toes. Why not focus on finding constructive ways of using it rather than suppressing it?
It's not that scary. I mean, homeostasis always wins in the end.
Anyway, I don't really suffer from anxiety. I would say I suffer from a lack of healthy stimulation and seek out artificial methods of providing it. Hence, I am prone to addictive habits. Work has helped me tremendously when I don't think about wanting to go home and lay in bed all day. It's pretty complex shit with the brain and I understand your concern. I would just suggest exercising more, no safer method of improving blood circulation and balancing out excessive cortisol levels and such.
I have come to the realization that talk about sex and orgasms and such ought to be not so open around here. This is a sentiment I carry over from PF because after all kids might be philosophizing.
Thoughts?
Kids have to learn about cunnilingus sometime. I'm more worried about them potentially learning about something truly gross, deviant, and immoral like panpsychism.
Plato would say they need to learn more mathematics and tangent lines along with sinusoidal and cosinusoidal waves, asymptotic behavior, convergence, divergence, groups and sets, along with Riemann sums.
Metaphysician UndercoverMarch 18, 2017 at 15:27#612890 likes
Reply to Question
Plato would say that they need to recollect such things. Those ideas must be already innate within them in some panpsychic way.
Wosret, is that a huge pot leaf? Where did get that monster!?
Yeah, someone called me "420 Jesus" the other day as a passive aggressive aside. I thought it was funny, and it's an obvious flaw that people can use to ignore me.
You know that you couldn't turn your head in ancient Greece without seeing a dick? Dick art, dick jewelry, dick dicks. The heart shape also comes from the seeds of a birth control plant that they picked to extinction.
The Buddha used to have this sweet yoga move where you sit half lotus, with the tailbone sitting on the other heel. Really releases the libidinal energies apparently.
Reply to Wosret I read that the heart shape (which has nothing to do with the heart) actually comes from the appearance of a reasonably plump fat lady's A-shapely derriere. She'd need to be naked, of course. Here, like this... (Sorry Question, but this has to be demonstrated. People deal in too many obscure abstractions.)
According to the Guardian, it's about to get real between Russia and Israel. Real as in lots of glaring and asking questions they already know the answers to. Major stink-eye.
I have come to the realization that talk about sex and orgasms and such ought to be not so open around here. This is a sentiment I carry over from PF because after all kids might be philosophizing.
Thoughts?
My thoughts are concerning whether a "lol" or an eye roll would be best suited in reply.
Yeah, someone called me "420 Jesus" the other day as a passive aggressive aside. I thought it was funny, and it's an obvious flaw that people can use to ignore me.
I get called "Jesus" at work 'cause I have long brown hair and a beard.
I get called "Your Majesty" at work because of my intelligence, stellar work ethic, impeccable manners, angelic sense of grace, boyish good looks, and unapologetic package.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 21, 2017 at 13:21#616440 likes
I mean, if you already smoke herb, then the CBD will counter the detrimental efffects of THC on memory loss
On the surface this makes sense but that is not how I understand CBD's work in the case of protecting the brain against memory loss. To truly reap the benefits of CBD's on the body, it takes a % of THC, although very low 3% and under, almost to .5 THC, with CBD's in order for the body to react to the CBD's. Most people would not feel .5% THC but some might, no two bodies are the same but we all have a Endocannabinoid system. There is some evidence that shows that using Cannabis keeps down the inflammation throughout the body, as well as in the brain, that keeps plaque from forming such as in the case of Alzheimer's patients.
Unfortunately, we are early in the controlled studies here in the USA with our Veterans using Cannabis to treat PTS because this study suggests that not only can Cannabis be used in the treatment of PTS but it COULD keep the memory that caused the PTS from ever taking permanent hold of the mind.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 21, 2017 at 14:05#616790 likes
I was sitting in a court room yesterday and I noticed that the United States Flag was fringed in Gold on three sides. Doesn't that indicate Marshall law?
Oh and get this.... apparently, you are not allowed to speak unless answering a question. So I think I got around that by starting out with what I wanted to say and ended with the answer to the question. It was a very long, run on sentence and no one objected so maybe I got away with it.
Oh and Hanover, before the judge is present, is it okay for the prosecuting attorney to be talking with his client, about another case in which there was a teenage fatality on a hot microphone? In the middle of his ego swaggering gossip session, I asked from the galley "What is the name of the girl that was killed in this fantastic accident you are going to prosecute?" He stopped mid sentence and I said "I asked what is her name? You do realize you are on a hot mic". Ooooo I was one Miffed Off Tiff....how dare he sensationalize the death of a teenager and what if I was her Aunt?
I am ready to take back every time I stood up for attorneys when everyone else was saying nasty, nasty things about them.
OMG I think I am in love with Gorsuch (L) (L) (L)
Wow.....my eyes are like stars gazing at him. And then....he speaks...like a male Angel sent from above (L)
I think I have my first Judge Crush O:)
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 21, 2017 at 17:20#617860 likes
Unfortunately, we are early in the controlled studies here in the USA with our Veterans using Cannabis to treat PTS because this study suggests that not only can Cannabis be used in the treatment of PTS but it COULD keep the memory that caused the PTS from ever taking permanent hold of the mind.
As I understand it THC and CBD has a multitude of roles in PTS. THC wipes away your dreams if you smoke it before bed at night. Thus, no bad dreams and nightmares (I think the most often occurrence of when PTS strikes). CBD has a role too, it quiets down the amygdala (center of emotional processing) that is on the fritz in PTS. It's obviously more complicated than how I portray the matter; but, as far as I know most veterans self-medicate successfully with cannabis and reap some benefits from it in terms of PTS.
As I understand it THC and CBD has a multitude of roles in PTS. THC wipes away your dreams if you smoke it before bed at night. Thus, no bad dreams and nightmares (I think the most often occurrence of when PTS strikes). CBD has a role too, it quiets down the amygdala (center of emotional processing) that is on the fritz in PTS. It's obviously more complicated than how I portray the matter; but, as far as I know most veterans self-medicate successfully with cannabis and reap some benefits from it in terms of PTS.
Absolutely.
My point was that there is an idea of Cannabis being introduced within the first 48 hours of a traumatic event and in doing so will keep that event and all the lasting effects of the PTS, from taking hold in the soldier's memory.
Which brings me to another disappointment within the US government. The Cannabis that they are sending out to the FEW that qualify under FEDERAL law to use Cannabis is being issued moldy and looks nothing like Cannabis and tests for under 3% THC.
Dr. Sue Sisley is a Doctor working in AZ and had been fired from UofA for the work she wanted to do since Cannabis is still illegal under Federal law. Since Universities accept Federal funding they cannot break that law. Anyway, long story short she is right where she belongs In Arizona and she is changing the lives of Veterans everyday. Truly an Angel that walks among us~
OMG I think I am in love with Gorsuch (L) (L) (L)
Wow.....my eyes are like stars gazing at him. And then....he speaks...like a male Angel sent from above (L)
I think I have my first Judge Crush O:)
He's a Republican, so he must be a bad choice.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 21, 2017 at 18:52#618110 likes
I was sitting in a court room yesterday and I noticed that the United States Flag was fringed in Gold on three sides. Doesn't that indicate Marshall law?
It was a very long, run on sentence and no one objected so maybe I got away with it.
Maybe, or they thought you just wanted to talk so they let you and discounted your testimony to some degree because you were rambling on. I don't know really because I wasn't there.Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Oh and Hanover, before the judge is present, is it okay for the prosecuting attorney to be talking with his client, about another case in which there was a teenage fatality on a hot microphone?
The prosecutor's client is the State, so I'm not sure what that really means when you say he was talking to his client. But, yeah, he can talk about any public information he wants to, and much of what he said is probably available under an open records request anyway, and if not now, it will eventually be. The trial, whenever it might be, will be in a public forum as is required under the Constitution. That is, the government is required to operate in the sunshine.Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
....how dare he sensationalize the death of a teenager and what if I was her Aunt?
The real complaint you have isn't in him violating any particular law, but it's in his being insensitive. Keep in mind, though, that despite his demeanor, he will be prosecuting whoever killed this teenager, so if you were his aunt, you might be concerned with his matter of fact attitude of dealing with a death, but you might be grateful he was prosecuting the person who killed her.
My point was that there is an idea of Cannabis being introduced within the first 48 hours of a traumatic event and in doing so will keep that event and all the lasting effects of the PTS, from taking hold in the soldier's memory.
I can't think of a better thing to do after a traumatic event than to smoke a big fat joint.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 22, 2017 at 12:17#619520 likes
Well, he was asked if he'd rather fight 100 duck-sized horses or 1 horse-sized duck.
And that was asked by the great Senator, Jeff Flake, from the state of Arizona. Yes, THAT is the question that we were just burning to ask and have answered.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 22, 2017 at 12:31#619570 likes
Maybe it does, but I don't think that's the intention. I presume it's more about accurate description. A medical condition that affects you over time can be distinguished as either physical (a disease) or mental (a disorder), right?
Why would medical conditions be called "disorders" as if to stigmatise the issue?
Why would the word "disorder" stigmatise the issue? It's an apt description; disorders are disruptions in the ordinary function of things, and a mental disorder is a disruption in the ordinary function of one's mind.
A vocabulary which I quite like - but is not without problems - refers to mental disorders as a matter of neurodiversity; in which case the distinction is not between 'order' and 'disorder' but the 'neurotypical' and the 'non-neurotypical'. The difference is between a qualitative and quantitative assessment of mental conditions, as it were. The distinction isn't always appropriate, but it provides a useful alternative way of talking about some of this stuff.
A vocabulary which I quite like - but is not without problems - refers to mental disorders as a matter of neurodiversity; in which case the distinction is not between 'order' and 'disorder' but the 'neurotypical' and the 'non-neurotypical'. The difference is between a qualitative and quantitative assessment of mental conditions, as it were. The distinction isn't always appropriate, but it provides a useful alternative way of talking about some of this stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity
"Challenging pervasive social norms and stigmas, it frames autism, ADHD/ADD, dyslexia, bipolarity and other neurotypes as a natural human variation rather than a pathology or disorder, and rejects the idea that neurological differences need to be (or can be) cured, as they believe them to be authentic forms of human diversity, self-expression, and being."
I call bullshit on that. Bipolar is most definitely something that needs to be treated.
Reply to Michael Despite that line, I don't think neurodiversity precludes, as if a blanket rule, all attempts at treatment or efforts to get by better day-to-day. The stakes seem to me more a matter of identity and respect, as it were: an effort to see oneself - and be treated day-to-day as - a difference among differences, rather than a deviation from a standard. This shouldn't, I don't think, entail any kind of resistance to treatments that might be helpful in this or that respect, so much as the attempt to take the 'normative sting' out of judgements regarding neurodiversity as somehow 'existentially lesser'. Even the neurotypical attempt to improve their lives along certain dimensions; here it's just a case of attending to other dimensions.
Again, the language is not perfect, but I would prefer that it be available than not. Like alot of language, it's a tool: useful along some dimensions, not so much along others.
I call bullshit on that. Bipolar is most definitely something that needs to be treated.
I agree, the fact that people get therapy and take medication for these sorts of psychological issues seems to me to be evidence of their underlying problematic nature, even if they do allow for greater expression and creativity.
The stakes seem to me more a matter of identity and respect, as it were: an effort to see oneself - and be treated day-to-day as - a difference difference among differences, rather than a deviation from a standard.
This is the crux. How can a standard be established in the realm of psychology? That would seem contradictory to the goal of the profession itself.
Well, accused of being a naughty boy...on buzzfeed. Hope it's not true. I've listened to a lot of his lectures. I like his clear common sense approach.
I don't know, I always found his philosophy mediocre. The last time I heard from him, it was from an interview, and what he said throughout was not impressive, if I were to be euphemistic.
"Aside from your own work, are there any books concerning philosophy of mind that you can recommend?
John Searle: I don’t think any of them are any good really. Wittgenstein is always an inspiration to read and mostly because it is a dialogue, you’re having an argument with him. But I have not found philosophers of mind who say what I think needs to be said. That’s why I write so many books about it. You’d think I could write one book and that would be enough, but now I’ve written several books about the mind and no doubt it will keep going because there are just so many mistaken views that are still out there."
He does tend to be overly dismissive of those who disagree with him. And I doubt he has that many fans around here. A lot of his work is more or less Austin plus refinements. But I like some of his positions and elucidations. If he's guilty, I'll be disappointed if not exactly shocked.
(And, yes, you're right, the fact it's on buzzfeed doesn't really matter in this context.)
Reply to Baden Just from what I heard from other rumors, not the most pleasant person in terms of social interaction for many people, and some searching shows his politics over the years turned terrible. Though all of that, its relation to the appreciation for his philosophical work shouldn't matter as much unless one works in an area where ethical implications are important. To come up with a more extreme example, Frege was a committed Hitlerian ideologue under Nazi Germany, but how does that affect appreciation for his work.
Though all of that's relation to the appreciation for his philosophical work shouldn't matter
Only to the extent that appreciation is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of emotion - to do a Shakespearean reversal. But no, it wouldn't cause me to reevaluate his philosophical positions or anything.
Reply to Baden I know what you mean, one would rather imagine the thinker they admire to have also been of good character. I just got used to the fact that there are writers I liked to result in being sickened by some of the stuff revealed in their biographies.
But I like some of his positions and elucidations. If he's guilty, I'll be disappointed if not exactly shocked.
It looks pretty bad for Searle. He has been arrested and put in solitary confinement. His lawyer complained that she's only been allowed to communicate with him through exchanging cards with Chinese characters printed on them.
If you Gaggle "Searle arrested" you'll find that a lot of people named Searle are dangerous criminals. Must be something wrong with people named Searle. Bad genes. It's surprising he did no more than grope a graduate assistant.
Once when I was working at a desk in the Dance Department an older dance teacher arranged his balls and dick on the edge of the desk for my benefit (he had tights on -- normal attire when teaching dance). There was nothing breathtaking about his equipment. Was I harassed? (I was slightly surprised by the gesture (and moderately amused) but I would have appreciated it more if it had been somebody with more impressive endowment.)
Chief orangutan falls flat on his face again. I imagine at some point even Republicans are going to stop finding this endearing. Quoth the Drumpf "It's going to be so easy..."
Reply to Wosret You travel to a planet where everything smells bad, but it's peaceful. Meanwhile earth has undergone changes. There is constant warfare everywhere but everything smells really good. Do you go back home or remain extraterrestrial?
Reply to Wosret It's a lot like Canada except it smells bad. I once got lost in Detroit and ended up in Canada. It was kind of like what happened to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz.
[quote=Robert Louis Stevenson]“The best things are nearest: breath in your nostrils, light in your eyes, flowers at your feet, duties at your hand, the path of God just before you. Then do not grasp at the stars, but do life's plain common work as it comes certain that daily duties and daily bread are the sweetest things of life.”[/quote]
My dog had stink ear, which I first thought to be a metaphorical rejection of what she heard, but I learned later it was actually evidence of an infection. I put drops in her ear, and she'd shake her head as if to say "no," but I don't know if that's what she meant to say. The black stuff in her ear didn't taste at all like liquorice as expected, but more like salty infectiousness, but not metaphorical infectiousness, as in "Hanover, you do so have an infectious personality." No, it tasted like an actual infection.
Metaphysician UndercoverMarch 27, 2017 at 00:28#628120 likes
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover I believe we rely too much on sight and then sound, sometimes touch and maybe smell, but do you really know something before you taste it? I say not.
Though Hanover has yet to achieve a monopoly on this questionable quality, he is close to cornering the market, and your apparently sincere disgust will probably do naught but add extra liquidity to the foul goo that oozes through his lizard brain.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover That's obviously your choice, but it seems like such a waste to abandon a chance at true enlightenment when all that is required is the ingestion of a plate of infectious canine ear wax.
He was plumper on the earlier coins in the series and thinner on the later ones. There were no automated coin press machines at the time; and Gautama had to stand still for the whole time it took the artist to engrave all the coins.
In Atlanta, our road caught on fire and now no one can drive through downtown on the main thoroughfare. It'll take weeks to rebuild, so there'll be really bad traffic. I tell you this because it shows you how bad ass Atlanta is. We have roads that erupt in flames. Top that.
"At this point, an argument broke out between this reporter and Williamson as to whether inconsistency constitutes a red flag or whether being a red flag supervenes on inconsistency without being constituted by it, and it was clear that the interview was over."
The Atlanta roadway that caught on fire was apparently caused by crackheads doing what crackheads do. BTW the "Cash me outside" girl, 13 year old Danielle Bregoli was charged with assault (at one of my favorite pizza parlors :-# ) on 3/22...keeping up her image. She has already been in a few advertisements, has 8.3 million Instagram followers, estimated net worth is currently over $150,000 and she plans to be a millionaire by next year.
Reply to CavacavaThis just shows you that in America, even if you're just a crackhead, you can make a huge difference in the lives of millions of people.
I can't wait to see the Christian terrorism that will take its revenge on the bombings in Egypt!
...oh, wait...
ArguingWAristotleTiffApril 09, 2017 at 16:03#650820 likes
I knew this was coming but my understanding was that ethically, people whose DNA test indicates an increase in chance of developing a disease with no known treatment, would not be made available to the general public. Most certainly not without a Doctor explaining the results and their possible long term diagnosis.
So now the question becomes: If I am a third generation Alzheimer's daughter: meaning my Great Grandmother (Maternal side) had early onset of Alz, my Grandmother (Maternal side) had early onset Alz, and my Great Aunt (Maternal side) was diagnosed with late onset of Alz. My Mom is clear at 74 but she is still nervous as my Great Aunt was 80 before she started to fall victim to it.
What do I do? Do I get the test? What are the chances that this information will be banked for future insurance qualifications?
But the question I am struggling with the most is: what do I do if I am tested and it comes back positive for Alz? There is no way to unknow the knowledge I would gain if tested, yet there is no treatment or cure, so what good would come of knowing?
Pondering.....thoughts?
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff The genetic test would just indicate increased risk, so you wouldn't really know much more than you already do. Anyway, you might be run over by a bus tomorrow, so embrace the people and the world around you as if it's the last time you'll ever see any of it and leave tomorrow's troubles for tomorrow.
The guy upstairs is so annoying with his frequent noisy blowing of his nose and sneezes. Every. Single. Day. What the fuck is wrong with him? A cold doesn't last this long. Allergic to air?
Reply to Sapientia Imagine that you're on a sailboat headed for the East Indian coast and that guy is just an old sailor who has inhaled way too much salt.
Or a Viking boat headed for the mouth of the Seine where all hell is going to break loose once you and your insane Viking buddies arrive (you'll eventually be made the Duke of Normandy, so it's going to work out in the end.) But the sneezing guy is just a poor viking who inhaled too much of whatever psychedelic weed the Vikings used.
Reply to Sapientia
He's a cocaine-addled ex-Goldman Sachs exec who, having spent his working life vacuuming money from the pension funds of poor grandmas, has been cursed by the Karma fairy with a permanent nose flu and has come to hide out in your building in waiting on an operation with a Harley Street plastic surgeon on who he'll expend some of his ill-gotten hoard on a replacement nose made of solid gold. Unbeknownst to him said plastic surgeon is a progressive hero whose grandma, thanks to the likes of our villain, now lives in a cardboard box on the New Jersey Turnpike, and he plans to replace the dastardly execs nose not with a gold replica but with a carrot and then put a hat on him and place him standing up still anesthetized in an Icelandic garden with a T-shirt reading "I am frosty the con man, please stone me".
Reply to Sapientia Why don't you march up stairs and confront him about his damnable sneezing? People should not be wished well when they sneeze, they should be denounced. "Damn you for spreading your cloud of pathogen-infested mucus particles all over us!"
He might be using snuff--that used to be quite popular. People snorted it for the pleasure of the brief nicotine high and the exaggerated sneeze (nasal masturbation).
If he's allergic to air, you could solve his problem by introducing a pipe into the floor of his apartment (through your ceiling) and attach the pipe to a vacuum pump. By exhausting the air from his apartment, he and you would both be relieved of his air-allergy. Be sure to get rid of the equipment after the sneezing stops, and do an extra good job of patching up the hole, so investigators won't find it.
Or, maybe it's you that is making him sneeze?
Once a guy who lived below me started playing an excruciating recording of a heart beat late at night. At first I thought there was something wrong with the plumbing, or something. It was driving me wild. Then I figured out it was a recording. I asked him about it; he said it helped him get to seep. Only years later did it occur to me that I was keeping him awake by making too much noise (I worked odd hours).
Poorly sound-proofed apartments (95% of them) prove Sartre's point that hell is other people
More Americans die from opioid overdose than car accident. Narcan is now sold over the counter.
And yet even then the USA road fatality rate is more than three times worse than the UK. Or Sweden, which always wins in social democratic contests :)
Actually Google tells me that Brits can get naloxone alias Narcan from any prescribing chemists, without a prescription, which is a limited over-the-counter thing.
And yet even then the USA road fatality rate is more than three times worse than the UK.
That's because our roads and big and wide with all sorts of safety rails, so people drive crazy fast. When your roads are steep and winding and your only protection is an occasional wooden post with a reflector, you slow down in fear of death. It's the irony of making roads safer. People feel too safe for their own good.
How come Swede's have it so great and at the same time put in the effort required to maintain such an awesome state of affairs?
Here's their latest trick: they claim to have shown you're more productive if you work less hours. What kind of an example is that to set to the rest of us?
Here's their latest trick: they claim to have shown you're more productive if you work less hours. What kind of an example is that to set to the rest of us?
Trump has had "a productive discussion" and concluded that "NATO is no longer obsolete". Perhaps next week, if he has more such discussions, Mexicans will "no longer be rapists".
What's female porn? And who's gay? I assume you mean gay men. If porn with females in, then yes, some do. If porn with [i]only[/I] females in, then no, probably not many who do so regularly. Why would they?
He's good with China now too. He'll need all the friends he can get with North Korea and Russia breathing fire at him. Of course, who knows how much of that is just pantomime.
I can imagine why a gay guy would want to watch porn with females. Some gay guys do watch straight porn, however, for various and sundry (mostly devious) reasons. I resolutely refuse to elaborate.
Hurt my sciatic nerve a a few days ago, ouchy. Sciatic pain is more common in women, and men recover more quickly from it. This is because women tend to be tight and bound up in the chest, and open in the hips, and men tend to be more open in the chest and tight and bound up in the hips.
I remember this pain from real small, like grade one maybe. No doubt that the herniated bowl problem I was born with was making me hunch over too much and I was using too much lower back, and not enough chest.
Been doing some physio, and got my chest opened up, there's like all these little knuckle dealies or something throughout the body, and you can work them free and move them. I can pull them into good alignment around my ribcage.
It's the outside of the foot muscle, and because I was like 100 lbs over weight all through my teens, I just leaned mainly into this group, meaning that my pinky knuckles, and Achilles tendons are huge.
Got it opened up though, just gotta balance it. Got my range of motion back as long as I keep the weight out of my back. Can't release my core, no big meals for awhile.
I had DirecTV and was due for an upgrade, and my basement TV didn't work because it used to draw off the box in the family room that got dismantled when the ex wrestled that TV off the wall, so the fix it man was to come between 12 and 5, but he got there at 5:30 and said he couldn't upgrade me because he wasn't allowed to climb on my roof and adjust my dish, but I was like you guys installed it in the first place, so I said at least look at the basement TV to see what you can do, and he said he had no such work order, so I said call to get one, and so he said OK, and then got in his truck and left, yeah completely left, so I called to get him back, but the call center guy said he was sitting in Costa Rica and he could only email someone and that I'd hear back, but, yeah, I didn't.
Who knows how the ancient wizards made TV and cable work. No one knows that anymore, so they're just pretending to, and taking the money of the dinosaurs still jacked on to this fading, mysterious technology.
You speak such truth, but Instead of ridicule, might you instead reach below and hoist me out from the land that time forgot?
Dish allows this magic they named Pandora that sings Bob Dylan and all who might resemble him like it reads my soul and sings to me. I would strike it dead for its sorcery but for the sound of the siren diverts me.
I ditched fiber optic, avoided Dish and Direct TV, and just junked the TV and do without. I get my sort of slow - but fast enough - internet service from the city sponsored Wi-Fi system, mounted on street lights. I ditched the telephone company's land line for a discount cell phone.
I could get a few stations on the over the air antenna, but as you know, most of the over-the-air programming is low grade slop. Even PBS has gone stale by chronic under-funding.
internet service from the city sponsored Wi-Fi system, mounted on street lights
Be sure to use a VPN on non-HTTPS websites. Never know who's snooping on ya. Personally, on my private home internet, I don't even if some ISP is selling my info. But, on a public network, hmm.
A section of westbound Interstate 20 in Atlanta is closed after a section of the roadway bulged up from the ground and launched a motorcycle rider into the air.
Reply to Cavacava I'm glad you notified me because I am actually in charge of the Atlanta roads. As you might know, I-85 was set ablaze by some crackheads, leaving 700 feet of missing bridge. I am trying to bulge the road out right before the break (as recently occurred on I-20) so that cars will be able to launch to the other side. I have begun placing signs on the roadway stating "Maintain Proper Head of Steam" to warn the motorists, albeit cryptically, that they will need sufficient speed to make the 700 foot distance after hitting the ramp just so. Should they fail to maintain the proper head of steam and fall shamelessly into the pit of girders, pavement trucks, and humanity, the joke will be on them for having failed to understand my signs.
I have begun placing signs on the roadway stating "Maintain Proper Head of Steam" to warn the motorists, albeit cryptically, that they will need sufficient speed to make the 700 foot distance after hitting the ramp just so. Should they fail to maintain the proper head of steam and fall shamelessly into the pit of girders, pavement trucks, and humanity, the joke will be on them for having failed to understand my signs.
Reply to Question No, I think that it's mainly because homosexuals get off on porn with someone of their own gender in it. That seems quite obvious to me.
[quote=The Guardian]The Front National has become the number one political party among 18- to 25-year-olds.[/quote]
Didn't know that. How sad.
I've been reading about the French election again.
The frontrunners in the French election, Macron and Le Pen, are bad and worse, respectively (with Fillon between the two). Macron calls himself a centrist, but he seems pretty right-wing to me, with planned cuts to corporation tax, cuts to civil servant jobs, and cuts to public spending, as well as waving a big stick at benefit claimants, and what he calls "flexibility" in the jobs market, which seems to suggest he will be more on the side of companies than workers, and that workers rights and job security don't mean all that much to him. I really don't like this 'race to the bottom' approach in politics.
Despite the problems with Mélenchon (e.g. his support for Putin's war effort in Syria), I think that he has a better approach than the others, and I'm glad that he has recently had a surge in the polls, even if it is still unlikely that he'll get far.
A while back on another forum I tried to ask whether 'I think therefore I am' was a tautology, and I found out that the subject was so controversial for the moderators that it was only a short time before they decided to close the thread and prevent any more posts to it.
Sorry, was referring to porn. You said that homosexuals wouldn't watch heterosexual porn because they "get off on porn with someone of their own gender in it". I was just pointing out that heterosexual porn includes someone of their own gender in it.
Sorry, was referring to porn. You said that homosexuals wouldn't watch heterosexual porn because they "get off on porn with someone of their own gender in it". I was just pointing out that heterosexual porn includes someone of their own gender in it.
:D
I didn't say that, I said the opposite, and that was precisely my point.
I didn't say that, I said the opposite, and that was precisely my point.
I'm confused. Question's question was "do you think homosexuals watch porn with heterosexuals for fun?" and your response was "No, I think that it's mainly because homosexuals get off on porn with someone of their own gender in it."
So you're saying that they wouldn't watch heterosexual porn because they get off on porn with someone of their own gender in it?
I'm confused. Question's question was "do you think homosexuals watch porn with heterosexuals for fun?" and your response was "No, I think that it's mainly because homosexuals get off on porn with someone of their own gender in it."
So you're saying that they wouldn't watching heterosexual porn because they get off on porn with someone of their own gender in it?
I was saying, no, I don't think that homosexuals watch porn with heterosexuals [i]for fun[/I], I think that they mainly do so because they get off on porn with someone of their own gender in it, and the rest was implied: since heterosexual porn has someone of their own gender in it, then they get off on it, and that's why they watch it.
I was saying, no, I don't think that homosexuals watch porn with heterosexuals for fun, I think that they mainly do so because they get off on porn with someone of their own gender in it, and the rest was implied: since heterosexual porn has someone of their own gender in it, then they get off on it, and that's why they watch it.
Depends what he meant by "fun", I suppose.
Ah, I see. You were saying "no" to the for fun part. My mistake. Carry on.
Oh, look, a General Election, just a month or so after saying "There isn’t going to be one. It isn’t going to happen. There is not going to be a general election".
She's channeling her inner Trump with this flip-flopping.
Oh, look, a General Election, just a month or so after saying "There isn’t going to be one. It isn’t going to happen. There is not going to be a general election".
She's channeling her inner Trump with this flip-flopping.
Oh dear. I fear that will not bode well for Labour, but you never know. If there's one thing we've learnt of late, it's that polls can get it wrong.
Yeah, I'm hoping for an "impossible" Lib Dem victory. I think a lot of people want to stay in the Single Market, and if they're the only party who are running on that platform then otherwise Labour/Conservative voters might vote the other way.
Yeah, I'm hoping for an "impossible" Lib Dem victory.
Pfft! The Lib Dems? Really? They seem to have become a single issue party, like UKIP, but the opposite. There are other, more important, issues. Tiny Tim recently made a statement indicating that his miniscule party would jump right back into bed with the Tories if need be. They were rightly punished in the last general election, and I hope that their recovery is slow.
I think a lot of people want to stay in the Single Market, and if they're the only party who are running on that platform then otherwise Labour/Conservative voters might vote the other way.
Yes, a number of them most likely will. More fool them.
Like what? The only thing that really matters to me is the price of food, rent, and bills (and my wage, of course). I think staying in the Single Market is better on this front then being out of it.
Unless the Lib Dems intend to raise taxes a lot (enough to offset the expected lower price of things from being in the Single Market), then I don't know what the other parties will offer me that's better.
Like what? The only things that really matter to me is the price of food, rent, and bills (and my wage, of course). I think staying in the Single Market is better on this front then being out of it.
The NHS, Education, the police force, transport, cuts, cuts and more cuts. These things matter, even if you don't think that they really matter to you.
Labour would raise the legal minimum wage to £10 an hour, nationalise the railways, reverse cuts to corporation tax, give the NHS and our state schools the funding they desperately need, free university tuition, a greener and more equal economy, clamp down on tax dodging...
Labour would raise the legal minimum wage to £10 an hour, nationalise the railways, reverse cuts to corporation tax, give the NHS and our state schools the funding they desperately need, free university tuition, a greener and more equal economy, clamp down on tax dodging...
Well, the minimum wage, railway, university tuition, and state school stuff isn't relevant to me.
And do the Lib Dems differ from Labour on any of those issues? I know at least that they don't want to nationalise the rail service.
Guess I'll just have to wait until the new Manifesto is out to get a proper picture.
I don't know if you've guys have been following the upcoming June elections for my homeowner's association. I'm in the middle of a two year term, so I'm not up for re-election. I expect a knock down drag out between the Whigs, Bull Moose Partiers, the Dixiecrats, and the American Independence Party.
Reply to Mongrel Everything about that video annoys me: the way he talks, the editing, the lame attempts at humour, how rehearsed it all is... I can't stand these youtubers.
I recently watched Pls Like on the BBC iPlayer, and that kinda reflects how I feel about this sort of rubbish.
I got nine seconds in. Couldn't stand any more. Using impact strategies is fine when presenting anything but affectation does not sit well with philosophical topics.
Well speaking as a psychological philosopher, I'd say he is an emblem of the crisis of modernity, what we in the trade call a 'crashing bore'. The Simon Cowell of politics.
Years ago my parents moved from the middle class to the upper segment that gets to mingle with the rich. It involved a move from a "volksbuurt" (pedestrian neighbourhood) to a real rich suburb. What I remember most playing with the new kids in comparison to the old neighbourhood is the absence of loyalty and the constant blaming. If someone fell (because kids are clumsy) it was always someone else's fault. That's what I'm reminded of when I see Trump.
What I remember most playing with the new kids in comparison to the old neighbourhood is the absence of loyalty and the constant blaming. If someone fell (because kids are clumsy) it was always someone else's fault.
There is always this sense of entitlement that merits special treatment as though they inherently deserve to be privileged. Social narcissism.
Civilization is a concept that was fleshed out during the Enlightenment. The debate about the nature and worth of civilization was linked to a focus on universal human nature and the meaning of human history. Outram 1995
Reply to unenlightened Sumerians probably invented it. They wouldn't have possessed the concept though. Greeks would have been in a good position to conceive it.
There's always some new damage to find... attaining physical mastery is not easy!
Thought that I was fighting my huge pinkies, and that's why it was so hard to keep things in alignment. I also thought that I had damaged my right wrist boxing, and my right knee playing backet ball. Nope, I probably hurt myself both those times because I played too much video games!
My wrist and knee hurt frequently because I couldn't fully extent them, because my inside thumb tendon, between the thumb and index finger is hard as a rock, and wasn't moving at all. When I was able to rotate my elbow fully, I was able to put my right shoulder into joint, which makes it a hell of a lot easier to pull through to the left,
Like a little snake slithering all through you, this was the thing I needed to find. That tendon runs along the low chest, and bottom of shoulder blades, down the left side, and then around the low butt and pelvis and down the right leg -- and getting it down past the knee allows me to rotate it just a little more, which allows me to extend my caff on the inside fully, and no more bad knee!
Also put an inch on my arms in like two weeks. 15" now.
What I got from that is you play too many video games and you think you can magically grow bigger even though you are already fully grown, In other words, you play too many video games. :P
I figure probably "gamer's thumb" has something to do with it, as I did spend pretty much the entirety of my childhood doing that -- which is what came up when I look up my thumb symptoms, and the exercises it recommends are actually fantastic,
Particularly that wrist flexion one with your thumb in your fist. That one feels super effective.
As for growing, it's all about having and creating space for it. It just so happens that I found some unused space, I just have to keep it open.
I didn't mean that I grew in height, I meant my arms. Though I did once think that. I thought that I had grown to 6 foot a few years ago, because I used my older brother's measuring tape which was missing the first two inches, and then proceeded to make a fool of myself by telling people.
I told a friend of mine, and he disputed it immediately. He said he was 6'1, and I was no 6 foot, lol. I discovered the faulty measuring tape, and had to show him, so he would know that I'm an idiot, not full of shit.
Metaphysician UndercoverApril 23, 2017 at 11:30#674260 likes
Dunno, but constant gaming when you don't do anything else ain't great for the thumb. I'm not implying that games are dangerous, just stretch and do other things than game.
Metaphysician UndercoverApril 23, 2017 at 11:52#674290 likes
Reply to Wosret OK, because I was wondering if maybe lots of "pulling it" could have some additional affects for a young man. But maybe that guy should stretch and do some other things, exercise some other parts of the body.
Reply to Wosret I once attempted to mimic the accent to a waiter as we sat at a restaurant - "What the bleedin' hell is Osso Buco? Just get me some Tripe and Onions will ya boy." X-) It's much better than my Russian, which somehow turns Indian halfway through a sentence.
The moon-god, Nanna, was the god of wisdom because of the use of the moon's phases in astrology. In other words, the moon is a larger-scale clock than the sun. Nanna's consort, Ningal, is associated with dream divination, possibly the source of dreams.
Lord of the Moon and the Lady of Dreams... sort of. Ur was a cult center for their worship and they were the primary divinities of southern Mesopotamia around 2500 BC.
Do you ever dare to do things you daren't do? If I dare say something is nonsense, have I said it? The redundancy theory of dares maintains that a dare is simply a command, but dare we accept this?
I assumed that convulsing fingers were something the ladies would prefer, but for those in the know, please spare me the details of what a man would do with them.
I assumed that convulsing fingers were something the ladies would prefer, but for those in the know, please spare me the details of what a man would do with them.
Reply to Michael What pray tell would your lady do to you with her convulsing fingers? Would she drum about your manhood or do something far more revolting? What sorts of crazy are you into?
What pray tell would your lady do to you with her convulsing fingers? Would she drum about your manhood or do something far more revolting? What sorts of crazy are you into?
I fear I may have confused you. My comment was a subtle nod to the progressive view that gender isn't biological and so a self-proclaimed man might use convulsing fingers in the same manner that a proper Republican woman would – assuming that this proper Republican woman engages in such sinful behaviour.
Reply to Michael The problem is that I am even more progressive than you, and find the definition of "finger" a product of generalized oppression and so I hold to meandering views of digit-fluidity. This means that my views cannot be clarified because clarification by its very nature attempts to control an otherwise free state of nature, now victimized by an unfairly established power. What is a finger today need not be a finger tomorrow and no one should ever impose fingerhood on anyone.
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: crying
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
I once got a job as an un-waged door-to-door salesman, and ended up paying more in travelling expenses and buying the products than I ever managed to make. At the time it obviously didn't seem worth it, but since then the experience has become part of my fund of amusing stories with the theme of fish-out-of-water personal incompetence and early-twenty-something aimlessness, so it turns out it was a good investment after all.
I did that too. I didn't realize at the time I was just buying their stock. So, yes, paying a supplier for the pleasure of working for them. I'll trade the amusement for a world where I didn't bother :P
Reply to jamalrob You were looking for a reason to become a nomad. In the old days you would have gone off to pay respects to the holy land, never to return.
Reply to Baden Where would one get the money? Maybe the grocer pays you to take fruit off his hands. The airline pays you to fly around. The blue jeans company pays you to wear the pants they made. You could use that money to pay to do your job.
My first job was bussing tables at a Chinese restaurant for $3 per hour. Minimum wage was $3.35, but I was underage and didn't pay taxes. The funniest joke I heard 300 times a day had to do with me not being Chinese. "What part of China are you from?" Where did they come up with that?
Anyway, I'm Chinese now. Yellow lives matter. I should go back and get that job and now no one will laugh at me.
I found this company, FreedomPop, that has no charges for some basic service. I already have a government landline cell phone paid every month, but the connection is terrible.
I was thinking of going back to Republic Wireless or GoogleFi, but phones cost an absurd amount nowadays. I'll give the free phone service a try and see how it goes. I just need to buy a compatible phone with that carrier and don't have much to spend.
Reply to Michael I have off-loaded quite a bit of my brain to android apps. An LG Stylo or some such is all the hardware I need. T-Mobile is good. Avoid Boost.
It's not St Patty's day, so green horse probably means you're sensing LSDly. Unless it's made out of jade. Did you know Chinese horse art was the result of artists currying favor with the Mongols?
Reply to Michael They have dumb phones starting from just £5 (Pay As You Go). Even if your phone isn't smart enough for data, that's a better deal based on calls and texts alone. Less money, more value.
I don't know. I don't remember much of what any of you look like. I think @Michael has blonde hair and you have freakishly long arms. That's about it really.
You've probably all seen me on Trading Spouses some time ago. My time on that show was quite traumatic and disagreeable for me, as you can see from this video of me returning home. Those who are familiar with my posts will probably watch this and say "that's so Arkady!"
Reply to Michael Well done! I wondered what pic it'd be. That pic may be around 6 - 8 years old, when I was in my early twenties. I've had my hair longer and fringeless for quite a long time now.
Reply to Hanover You're lying. I've seen a photo of you. You're green and scaly.
ArguingWAristotleTiffApril 28, 2017 at 11:21#681360 likes
Hot or Not!!!
Wow that is a flash from the past! 8-)
Seeing as I have a fairly good memory about guys, personality and looks, especially Fire Fighters and Lawyers, I can tell you that we have one classy, sexy, set of male "thinkers" here at TPF.
As far as females? I only know of one other lady here ;)
Mhmm ;) My photographic memory rocks and verbal disagreements from decades ago can be ACCURATELY regurgitated as requested or needed. 8-)
I can be a LONG day in an argument. :-}
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff A lady is never disagreeable, which makes them unsuitable as philosophers. You get to pick one; lady or philosopher. But not both. :P
ArguingWAristotleTiffApril 28, 2017 at 14:05#681800 likes
I'm aware that this is vague. It's supposed to be. I'm not advancing a completed thesis here. I'm trying to get a discussion rolling, and the above is fodder for it. Any takers?
I just have to say that you, Pneumenon, have a gift in how you approach a topic that is so classy it is a pleasure to read you~
Yes, I sleep on my back and Michael sleeps by my side. Sometimes Hanover lies in between the two of us.
Baden stands in the corner and stares at us intently with jealously in his eyes and anguish in his heart.
Actually, I've discussed this previously. We lie packed in a circle so that all our noses touch as we sleep. I like to be on top, nuzzling in. We all agree beforehand not to touch lips because that would be gay.
Imagine that a thread is like a sand painting and right before somebody understands what you're asking, you just sweep it up and toss it off the mountain.
A guy told me that other than the UK, Spain, and France, Europe is fairly nationalistic and unfriendly to aliens. The situation that exists in the US, where for decades there has been a large population of illegal aliens working and sometimes creating families can't exist in Sweden, Germany, etc. He said Brexit is just the UK joining the other nationalistic alien-hostile countries. True?
It's true that the US was far more openminded about immigration in the past than most European countries, to the point it even welcomed them explicitly. For historic reasons (colonisation) UK and France have had larger ethnic minorities than most other countries. I'm not too familiar with Spain but with the relatively easy crossing from Gibraltar and its historic ties with South America, it might be as well.
As to the Netherlands, where I'm from, there have always been anti-immigration parties but back in the 80's and 90's we had a Dutch politician who claimed the Netherlands was full and he was ridiculed for it from left to right, conservative to liberal. There was already a slow shift taking place from 1996 onwards. Nowadays, two mainstream parties will say that and worse and we have Geert Wilders and two or three fringe parties with similar ideas. The spectrum with regard to social conservatism has certainly moved in the political arena, although I don't believe a similar shift really happened with Dutch people in general. I think many people with social conservative ideas weren't represented as politics was a relatively elitist occupation and the pent up frustration on a lot of subjects (not just immigration) has now galvanized in a lurch to social conservatism and even populism. Nowadays, I think they are being taken too seriously (e.g. are overrepresented in the debate simply because they yell a lot harder and more often).
We don't have large communities of illegal immigrants in the Netherlands. There are some but they are mostly immigrants who no longer have a right to stay (their refugee status wasn't granted) and the receiving country won't cooperate with the repatriation. Municipalities generally support these people with housing and food but jobs are impossible unless it's on the black market.
It's true that the US was far more openminded about immigration in the past than most European countries, to the point it even welcomed them explicitly
Of course. If it hadn't been, the US would be an Indian nation. The first group to come over after the original pilgrims were the Dutch, which explains some of the US's inherent problems.
Of course. If it hadn't been, the US would be an Indian nation. The first group to come over after the original pilgrims were the Dutch, which explains some of the US's inherent problems.
What do people become supremacists? I mean, I don't really know of that many black supremacists or Asian supremacists or Indian supremacists or Hispanic supremacists or any other kind of supremacists apart from white supremacists.
I mean, yes, there are black gangs and Hispanic gangs, a lot of Hispanic gangs; but, their mentality doesn't seem motivated by a sense of supremacism over other races.
So, what's the phuqing deal with white supremacists? Was Nazism really that strong of a belief or does this go back further?
Reply to Question Pick whatever country you'd like, and I'll find you the race, class, tribe or whatever that is the preferred group and I'll find you the oppressed group. It's not like only white cultures do that.
Reply to Question For those who subscribe to such theories, it is white males. Obviously there are strict laws forbidding racial discrimination, so it exists to a far lesser degree than in a country with institutionalized classism, like India.
Reply to Hanover
No, I'm asking for honesty. I also haven't gotten an answer to my previous question as to why such a sorry state of affairs arises in any homogenous or non-homogenous group.
Reply to Question If a sorry state of affairs arises in both homogenous and non- homogenous groups (i.e. A & -A), then it must be that sorriness just describes the human condition.
But, we live in an egalitarian society. Clearly, it is morally wrong to discriminate against people of various ethnic origins from those of the indigenous group?
You should provide some sort of evidence for a claim like that. I'm not sure, just off hand, whether Hanover has, actually, been funnier. Maybe a poll?
Reply to Hanover The hats aren't that odd, and you'll note they are wearing sensible shoes.
What is the guy in the center of the picture looking at?
Metaphysician UndercoverMay 02, 2017 at 00:27#686790 likes
You should provide some sort of evidence for a claim like that. I'm not sure, just off hand, whether Hanover has, actually, been funnier. Maybe a poll?
Once in high school, I had a mouth full of water, and at an opportune time, I nonchalantly let it seep out of my mouth onto my shirt and onto the floor. That was funnier I'd say.
I mean, yes, there are black gangs and Hispanic gangs, a lot of Hispanic gangs; but, their mentality doesn't seem motivated by a sense of supremacism over other races.
Why do you think black gangs, hispanic gangs (a lot of hispanic gangs) are in any way significantly representative of black people or hispanics? I would imagine that superior blacks and hispanics (a lot of hispanics) have better things to do with their time than walk around spray painting walls and shooting each other.
So, what's the phuqing deal with white supremacists? Was Nazism really that strong of a belief or does this go back further?
You misspelled "fucking". It's not that hard to spell. You may not be eligible for white supremacy.
White supremacy is much older than Naziism. Whites have been a superior group of people for a long time--ever since the Garden of Eden. Possibly before. Isn't God white?
But, we live in an egalitarian society. Clearly, it is morally wrong to discriminate against people of various ethnic origins from those of the indigenous group?
I don't know... do we really live in an egalitarian society? Maybe that is not true.
Are you sure it is really morally wrong to discriminate against people? People discriminate for and against other people all the time and think hat they are being perfectly moral.
For instance, most people select their mating partners from among their own race and exclude others. Most people prefer to live among people more or less like themselves, and they go to considerable efforts to achieve homogeneous surroundings.
Symphony concert audiences are made up of mostly of whites. The performers are mostly white and asian. Aren't classical music buffs discriminating against blacks, hispanics, and native Americans? How many Hispanic orchestra conductors do you know, aside from Gustavo Dudamel (Venezuelan)?
Metaphysician UndercoverMay 02, 2017 at 01:50#686940 likes
It doesn't seem that clear to me. We still have a disproportionate amount of blacks in prison over minor offenses. The list goes on in terms of representation of blacks in congress and the senate. Our history is rife with discrimination, which only those who were discriminated against bringing it up.
I don't recall any policies being implemented by republicans in regards to this despite Lincoln being the first president to recognize this issue or rather make it an issue worth resolving.
Well, how many black people do you know as well as you know white people? Just ask them where the black supremacists hang out. Go talk to them.
Black supremacists? Never heard of any. Maybe the Black Panthers or Malcolm X to some degree? However, Martin Luther King is the mainstream, not Malcolm X nowadays.
Why do you think black gangs, hispanic gangs (a lot of hispanic gangs) are in any way significantly representative of black people or hispanics? I would imagine that superior blacks and hispanics (a lot of hispanics) have better things to do with their time than walk around spray painting walls and shooting each other.
This doesn't make sense. It would be more fruitful to talk about the population of prison inmates if we are to talk about the ratio or percentage of which ethnicity to whichever ethnicity thinks they are superior over the other.
White supremacy is much older than Naziism. Whites have been a superior group of people for a long time--ever since the Garden of Eden. Possibly before. Isn't God white?
Are you sure it is really morally wrong to discriminate against people? People discriminate for and against other people all the time and think hat they are being perfectly moral.
Well, then what is said to be so 'clear' isn't really applied in practice. So, that would make it a kind of law that isn't enforced. And, here's the crux of the matter. How does one make such things as supremacism or racism or discrimination an immoral thing? I mean, we have come quite a way from slavery and such things; but, still, I would think our current President exploited such "clear" things to his bidding.
For instance, most people select their mating partners from among their own race and exclude others. Most people prefer to live among people more or less like themselves, and they go to considerable efforts to achieve homogeneous surroundings.
Well, I assume you live in a city. Don't folks get along quite well there without such discrimination?
Symphony concert audiences are made up of mostly of whites. The performers are mostly white and asian. Aren't classical music buffs discriminating against blacks, hispanics, and native Americans? How many Hispanic orchestra conductors do you know, aside from Gustavo Dudamel (Venezuelan)?
Why is that so? What are you trying to prove here?
I don't recall any policies being implemented by republicans in regards to this despite Lincoln being the first president to recognize this issue or rather make it an issue worth resolving.
Why is that?
The reason you don't recall it is because you don't have any real grasp of US history. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was fillibustered and opposed most vigorously by Democrats.
Scalia and Thomas (arch conservative Justices) voted against the mandatory nature of federal sentencing guidelines. My home State (Georgia) has dramatically restructured and liberalized the criminal justice system and it is overwhelmingly Republican.
In short, you know nothing, other than to complain about racism, which I think we all agree is bad.
Reply to Hanover
Wasnt that Civil Rights Act only filibustered by some few segregationist Democrats? Furthermore it seems to me that it was Kennedy and Johnson who actually supported pressed pushed and finally passed the bill. Obviously I might be wrong but those seem to be the facts. As far as I know almost every democrat was for the bill exempt the blue dogs of the south. Am I wrong?
Reply to Question Back in the '50s and 60's, when the landmark civil rights court decisions and laws were passed, the south was pretty much conservative Democratic -- a long-term result of the Republican directed Civil War and Republican sponsored Reconstruction a century earlier.
Liberal Democrats were mostly from the northern states -- like John F. Kennedy (MA) or Hubert H. Humphrey (MN). Earthy Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson was from west Texas. Meanwhile, the Republican Party had a conservative wing (Barry Goldwater, AZ), and a liberal wing (Nelson Rockefeller, NY).
Over the course of the 1970s and 80s there was a major realignment.
The Republican Party largely lost its liberal wing; there are no Rockefeller Republicans at this point. Conservative Republicans (merely conservative to severely conservative) now dominate. As the old Democratic Party lost support in the South, the Republicans picked it up. Ronald Reagan's two terms covered this shift, to a large extent.
The Democrats in the South are now more liberal than they used to be (William Jefferson Clinton) and northern Democrats are maybe a bit less liberal than they used to be. Wisconsin's Republican governor Scott Walker has done things that were once unthinkable in a mainline liberal state. Wisconsin would not normally have voted Republican in the presidential election.
Johnson got the Civil Rights and Medicare bills through congress because he was, among other things, a congressional insider and knew the players and the system very well. Same for Hubert Humphrey, his VP. The Democratic leadership had to work very hard to get the bills passed.
Not all that much. Just that egalitarian ideals are honored more often in the breach than in the observance, and that while most of us whites wouldn't proclaim we are supremacists, we probably are. Do white people operate an oppressive apartheid regime over blacks? No, of course not. Apartheid is too cumbersome to manage. One can keep out the poor people you don't want to look at quite effectively, just be mandating large lot sizes and banning subsidized multifamily housing. Big lots make housing more expensive, and an absence of subsidized multifamily houses discourages low income people from moving in. Plus, northern whites have perfected ice-nice. We'll freeze you out nicely.
Well, I assume you live in a city. Don't folks get along quite well there without such discrimination?
Minneapolis was 90% white in 1950. It is now about 64% white, 19% black, 10% hispanic, 5% asian, and 2% American Indian. Minneapolis and St. Paul are both economically segregated: prosperous, stable neighborhoods tend to be about 80 to 90% white. Mixed neighborhoods tend to be poorer and have considerable churn. There is a very sharp (and persistent) divide in school performance between whites and all others. Blacks, hispanics, and asians perform poorly in schools, regardless of income, parental education, ratio of white to non-white students, the existence or absence of remedial programs, and so on.
The suburban rings around Minneapolis and St. Paul tend to be mostly to exclusively white.
There isn't a lot of conflict between whites and non-whites, partly because of unofficial segregation. There just isn't that much contact, and maybe not much desire for more contact.
Hispanics and whites seem to have more in-common culture, while many blacks seem to live in almost a different society altogether than whites, hispanics, and asians.
Reply to Hanover supposedly there are 55 "ii" words, but most of them were extremely obscure. I recognized bacchii, (the female bacchante -- worshipers of Dionysus (or Bacchus); denarii (Roman coin); genii; radii; shiitake; taxiing, zombiism, torii, and trapezii. The rest were too obscure (or were combinations of other words and skiing, like waterskiing).
Reply to Bitter Crank Is this picture of reality, whether true or not, umm, well depressing as it is since I've always held egalitarianism in the highest of esteem. In fact, egalitarianism is probably the only thing that makes me less depressed than usual.
Instead of wallowing in it, what has been done already that has helped this situation? And furthermore, what ought to be done in your opinion?
I find it repugnant that (at least) since the Bush administration (from when I can recall given my age group) not much has been done in this regard.
I was just around Santa Monica the other day, and last I recall I was there, there weren't SO many homeless people. Many talking to themselves, wandering aimlessly, smoking pot to self-medicate in some manner, etc.
Not only is it a huge drag on the economy to maintain such homeless when they really get in bad shape (through drugs or yeah... drugs and alcohol); but, also the image of a city.
I've always been conservatively leaning independent and as an aspiring economist, I have believed that market forces just grow the pie, and even the most downtrodden person benefits from such growth, but despite the rather good economic growth for the past twenty years the problem seems to have gotten worse. Which means I ought to be talking about policies put forth by the government that has been either ineffective, lacking in need or inefficient.
What do you, and for the matter, other members think ought to be done in this regard?
Wasnt that Civil Rights Act only filibustered by some few segregationist Democrats? Furthermore it seems to me that it was Kennedy and Johnson who actually supported pressed pushed and finally passed the bill. Obviously I might be wrong but those seem to be the facts. As far as I know almost every democrat was for the bill exempt the blue dogs of the south. Am I wrong?
Well, according to Wikipedia, the voting breakdown was:
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
I find it repugnant that (at least) since the Bush administration (from when I can recall given my age group) not much has been done in this regard.
If you could step away from your "Republicans are racists" mantra, you might see that Democratic policies have been no better than Republican ones in alleviating poverty, discrimination, and other shortcomings. As Trump asked (and this statement was actually true), why are African Americans continuing to vote Democrat when those policies have done nothing to help them.
It's also the case that the polarization you see today hasn't always been the case. For that reason, if you look at this historically (which you have, with your citation to Lincoln), there have been plenty of Democrats who have been very conservative and plenty of Republicans who have been liberal. In the 1980s, a New Hampshire Republican would have been far more liberal than a Georgia Democrat..
As I see it, all this talk of injustice is really a waste of time. Go feed a hungry person instead of chastising those who don't feed the hungry. Yeah, I know. So Republican of me.
I think double letter X is the only combination that doesn't exxist. Exxon doesn't count because it's a proper name. There is the compound word boxxylophone that I just made up that describes a xylophone that is shaped like a box.
I've always been conservatively leaning independent and as an aspiring economist, I have believed that market forces just grow the pie, and even the most downtrodden person benefits from such growth, but despite the rather good economic growth for the past twenty years the problem seems to have gotten worse. Which means I ought to be talking about policies put forth by the government that has been either ineffective, lacking in need or inefficient.
Market forces do not have an agenda; they are as likely to bring booms and expansion as busts and recession. Whether "the rising tide of a growing economy raises all boats" depends on other factors, like tax policy--something that definitely has an agenda.
World War II produced full employment and a fairly high rate of savings (war-time rationing limited buying opportunities; there were no cars produced during the war, and housing expansion wasn't a priority either). After the war there was 'pent up demand' for housing, autos, appliances, furnishings, and so on. The post-WWII boom lasted until the early 1970s. Since 1973 (give or take 15 minutes) inflation, relatively low rates of growth, structural changes in manufacturing (like automation and off-shoring of manufacturing) coupled with regressive tax policy has resulted in a severe maldistribution of wealth.
Most Americans have not benefitted greatly from the increases in wealth which have occurred over the last 45 years, and for less technically skilled workers or low skilled workers, (the bulk of the old-line manufacturing workforce) the share of wealth has decreased significantly. The share of wealth has also decreased for more skilled and those with college degrees. The groups that have gained a much greater share are professionals (lawyers, doctors, corporate managers, some technical specialties (silicon valley), and wealthy investors. The share of wealth flowing to that last group -- wealthy investors -- has been especially large.
So, to make a long story short, there isn't much allocated for the care of downtrodden, homeless folks camping around Santa Monica and everywhere else. Homelessness in an otherwise rich country is the result of policy, not accident. There are numerous social, economic, political, and taxation policies that have resulted in very, very, very rich people at the top and a growing army of destitute people at the bottom.
Reply to HanoverReply to Cavacava But "Executrix" doesn't have a double x (like Exxon) (though its a great invented word). And there isn't much reason for a word to have two -- what, xs? exes? xx? -- because it's unpronounceable Exxon sounds the same whether there is one (exon) two (exxon) or three (exxxon) x letters in a row.
But "Executrix" doesn't have a double x (like Exxon) (though its a great invented word). And there isn't much reason for a word to have two -- what, xs? exes? xx? -- because it's unpronounceable Exxon sounds the same whether there is one (exon) two (exxon) or three (exxxon) x letters in a row.
My old xylophone is my exxylophone. You'll note that the two Xs are distinctly pronouncable. The first sounds like "eks" and the second like "z."
If I were in charge of Exxon, I'd pronounce it Ex-zon. That'd make the second X relevant. In fact, I might just name my next cat Exxon and pronounce it that way. As I recall, Exxon's logo is a tiger, so it makes sense to have a cat named Exxon. I'll get two other cats, naming them Texaco and Standard Oil respectively.
There do not seem to be any English words with two 'j's, except arabic terrorist borrowings which we are sensibly not allowing into the language at this time. There are not very many English words with 3 ws, like willowware and powwow.
Reply to Hanover If you were a Second Generation Star Trek fan, then Q would be a good cat name. Not that it makes much difference what a cat is called. "Gray Cat" is as good as anything else, for a gray cat, anyway.
...said Brexit is just the UK joining the other nationalistic alien-hostile countries. True?
The UK is alien-hostile in a different way that's hard to put your finger on. There was a deeply racist period in the 1960's when Enoch Powell, a Classicist and Tory, imagined 'rivers of blood' because of black and Asian immigration (it was a quote from the Aeneid). But the vote for out-and-out racists (their logo usually bedecked in a Union jack) was a tiny percentage for decades.
Something changed to my mind in 2004, when the EU substantially enlarged itself, and the UK didn't place any short-term limits on immigration, which most other EU countries did. Half a million Poles came in the next eight years, along with lesser numbers from the other accession states. The public mood changed. The British National Party (BNP) - previously a small group of tinpot racists - polled over a million votes in the 2009 EU election and got two members of the European Parliament (I recall it well because I was campaigning for a Green in Yorkshire who missed election by a narrow margin). The BNP has since imploded but its vote was inherited, and greatly enhanced, by UKIP, the UK Independence Party.
Alongside that, New Labour and the Cameron-led Tories began to seem, from a vantage point like mine in the old industrial heartlands of the north, not dissimilar in their attitudes - aggressively dealing with benefit claimants, for instance, lacking an industrial policy, hand in hand with bankers after the 2008 crisis, and investing heavily in London and the South East where tremendous infrastructure spending has taken place while we trundle along on third-hand trains. So Brexit (for which I voted) is also partly a reaction to alienation from the political elite, who haven't recovered their reputations since the scandal of MP's expenses came out in 2009.
Reply to Wosret I heard about this when I was taking some yoga classes back in the 1980s. This article offered more information that I heard at class. Do you know whether the nasal nerves cross like the rest of the nervous system does, or whether the nose nerves are plugged into the base of the brain?
Wosret, is your vomeronasal nerve bundle in good order?
Philosophers tend to have active vomeronasal organs, but rather than being plugged into the amygdala or hypothalamus, philosophers' vomeronasal nerves run right up to the pre-frontal cortex. This results in philosophers being hyper arouseable whenever they detect a poorly constructed argument, or an idea they disagree with. Indeed, deviant vomeronasal nerves are why ordinary healthy people become philosophers in the first place. People with normal vomeronasal nerves rarely show a sustained interest in philosophy.
The deviated vomeronasal nerve is what compels philosophers to sniff around a room and identify who holds views contrary to their own. Given the right scent, the philosopher (male or female) will either hump into ideological rut or fly into ideological rage. It makes for interesting cocktail parties.
Many philosophers have strong flehmen responses. Thinkers who keep jackasses may have observed this: It's a behavior in which a donkey, for instance, curls back its upper lip exposing its front teeth, inhales with the nostrils usually closed and then often holds this position for several seconds. It may be performed over a site or substance of particular interest to the animal or person (e.g. urine or faeces) or may be performed with the neck stretched and the head held high in the air. You've seen this quite often, no doubt -- academics walking around with their noses in the air.
Unfortunately the flehmen response is involuntary, so you sometimes find philosophers embarrassing themselves by this unsightly performance.
My left side is as proficient as most people's rights in dexterity, accuracy, and strength. Throwing, catching, writing. Though, I'm still right side dominant, I try to use my left side at least as often though.
Yes, it reverses in all kinds of weird ways at different points. I can tell someone's handedness as well by looking at their face. The ball of the cheek, if the right one is bigger then they're left side dominant, and vice versa.
having a shit week. In a contract which has gone pear-shaped because testing has been delayed, so nothing for me to do, so about to walk out back into job-search land. But to make matters worse, I had signed up, for the first time, through a 'payroll services company' who supposedly processes the paychecks of IT contractors like myself, saving us a small percentage of what the agencies usually charge. Except for in Week 2 of this lame contract, the payroll company suddenly closed its doors, owing me a week's pay (at contract rates, a fair swag). And the subsequent week's pay, which didn't go to them, is now delayed due to the legal fallout. (There's about 2000 folks affected.)
There are numerous social, economic, political, and taxation policies that have resulted in very, very, very rich people at the top and a growing army of destitute people at the bottom.
Republican tax and public health policies now being rolled out will contribute greatly to that.
Except for in Week 2 of this lame contract, the payroll company suddenly closed its doors, owing me a week's pay (at contract rates, a fair swag). And the subsequent week's pay, which didn't go to them, is now delayed due to the legal fallout. (There's about 2000 folks affected.)
God that sounds like what Charles Keating did to my checks working at the Phoenician Resort in Arizona. Slimy creep >:O
In what way? Evidence over the last decade or so, and as recent as the last couple of years to the present day, has indicated increased nationalism and xenophobia in those two nations. Yet his comment seemed to be suggesting otherwise.
In Britain, there has been the rise of UKIP and the SNP, increased nationalism within the Conservative Party, immigration becoming a dominant and persistent theme in British politics, Brexit, and hate crime soaring in the aftermath of Brexit.
In France, there has been the related banning of the burqa and the burkini, the inevitable nationalist backlash against terrorist attacks, and, of course, the significant rise in popularity of Marine Le Pen of the National Front, who has made it to the final round of the French presidential election.
So no, given the above, not "other than" the UK and France...
[I]Including[/I] - and perhaps [i]especially[/I] or [I]to a greater extent[/I] - the UK and France.
Reply to Sapientia Settle down Sapientia. It was just a second generation Croatian explaining some things about the EU to a severely ignorant fellow American.
Settle down, Sapientia. It was just a second generation Croatian explaining some things about the EU to a severely ignorant fellow American.
Settle down? Don't patronise me. I'm just trying to make sense of his comments, as conveyed by you, and explaining why I believe the contrary to what he seemed to be suggesting to be the case.
You're not doing a very good job of clarifying his comments, hence they still make little sense to me. But then, perhaps you have little to work with.
He was explaining to me why being in the EU doesn't mean much to eastern europeans. I thought it would mean they could go work in Denmark or whatever. He said absolutely not. There was a time when they could go to Britain or France. And that very issue is probably why the British have started to become a little more nationalistic and anti-alien.
If you're interested, Americans actually aren't nationalistic in that exact same way. We don't really have anybody in whose face we can wave our flag. The dominance of the US is partly due to a sort of mythical identification with the British and partly just circumstances. Maybe some devotion to capitalism and democracy, but not exactly nationalism. I'm sure some folks would disagree.
He was explaining to me why being in the EU doesn't mean much to eastern europeans. I thought it would mean they could go work in Denmark or whatever. He said absolutely not. There was a time when they could go to Britain or France. And that very issue is probably why the British have started to become a little more nationalistic and anti-alien.
Factually untrue. He could work in any other EU country.
Yet so many of you somehow manage to do so nevertheless, and with such characteristic ardour.
Your perception of us is bound to differ in some ways from our perception of ourselves. I was just explaining that nationalism requires some consciousness of other countries. That consciousness is not robust in the US. Partly just a geographic thing, I think.
Your perception of us is bound to differ in some ways from our perception of ourselves. I was just explaining that nationalism requires some consciousness of other countries. That consciousness is not robust in the US. Partly just a geographic thing, I think.
Yet 46.1% of you voted to build a wall to stop those damn Mexicans from stealing your babies.
Reply to Michael It was failure to talk about blue-collar unemployment. Wikileaks about emails.. eh.. nobody understood what that shit was about anyway.
Evidence over the last decade or so, and as recent as the last couple of years to the present day, has indicated increased nationalism and xenophobia in those two nations.
The issue isn't xenophobia generally, it's fear of very specific immigrants, not all immigrants. And, it need not be labeled a phobia unless the fear is irrational.
If we can agree that there are certain characteristics of a good citizen in terms of work ethic, fidelity to certain ideals, attitudes towards others in the country, views regarding assimilation, and whatever, then it would make sense to be fearful of groups that don't share those values. So, for example, if the people of Suckothia believe that women are chattel and that Suckothia members are specially blessed by God to have certain rights, then, yeah, maybe we shouldn't let them pollute our place.
Since we don't live in Suckothia, but we live in liberal Western countries (yes, even the US fits that description), we get really uneasy when we discriminate on the basis of nationality because that usually triggers issues about race and religion, things we don't want to discriminate upon.
And let us not pretend that each of us doesn't practice their own form of residential discrimination. We choose very carefully where we live so that we live around those like us, who vote like us, and who act like us. A conservative white male doesn't just find himself living in the suburbs and a gay couple doesn't just find themselves intown. Whether it's flight (running away) or fight (building walls and passing laws), you're just as phobic if you insist upon living among those people you share values with.
And, it need not be labeled a phobia unless the fear is irrational.
My guess is it's a little of both. The most rational reason for the UK and France to reverse policy on being friendly to aliens is if their unemployment rates are high.
And of course the racists come out of the woodwork to pee in the pool. Wooden pool?
Really? Do you mean with something like a work visa?
There's free movement of labour in the EU, you don't need a visa.
There's also free movement of capital, of course, which is another thing entirely. There's a good long article by James Meek in a recent London review of Books (here) about how Cadbury the choc firm closed down their operation in Somerdale in Bristol and moved it to Poland - aided in Poland by EU subsidies - and with lower wages in Poland - leaving a bunch of Brexit-voting angry ex-workers behind in the UK.
The political pendulum is swinging violently in the US. Let's see what happens in November.
Americans usually don't accept the executive and congressional control being of the same party (for very long). It would be normal for Democrats to take control of the House. If they don't... that would be a little weird.
Reply to Question Not much is going to happen this November because it's an off year. The only elections will be for state (some) and local (more) officials. Now, if someone would like to commemorate November 22... by beginning impeachment proceedings, that would be of interest.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Yes, but Charles Keating gave St. Teresa a helicopter (I read that in Hitchens' book, The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice). He must be a very spiritual person. Slimy, sure, but he recognized her holiness early on -- and after you've fleeced a few Savings and Loans, you can afford to give away a helicopter or two.
Reply to Cavacava Here's a picture of Donald Tusk whispering into Theresa May's ear, “The only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s cock holster.”
Someone in EU apparently provided full details of her fracas with Junker over dinner a few days ago in a German newspaper. She says EU is trying to affect the outcome of the electron, spinning it of course to the effect that the EU does not want her as head of state because she is likely to be a very tough in the Brexit negotiation process (vs. Corbyn). May spins this into a very familiar a nationalistic cause of a election process being interfered with by another nation.
Tusk today tells May to calm down, patronizing her. So yea, I could easily imagine a comment something to this effect.
The issue isn't xenophobia generally, it's fear of very specific immigrants, not all immigrants. And, it need not be labeled a phobia unless the fear is irrational.
It need not be about fear at all, actually (it often isn't), but rather about dislike of, or prejudice against, immigrants. It's more about the way the word is used than the composition of the word itself. So I wouldn't focus unduly on the suffix [I]-phobia[/I]. It's something of an exception to the rule.
If we can agree that there are certain characteristics of a good citizen in terms of work ethic, fidelity to certain ideals, attitudes towards others in the country, views regarding assimilation, and whatever, then it would make sense to be fearful of groups that don't share those values. So, for example, if the people of Suckothia believe that women are chattel and that Suckothia members are specially blessed by God to have certain rights, then, yeah, maybe we shouldn't let them pollute our place.
Since we don't live in Suckothia, but we live in liberal Western countries (yes, even the US fits that description), we get really uneasy when we discriminate on the basis of nationality because that usually triggers issues about race and religion, things we don't want to discriminate upon.
And let us not pretend that each of us doesn't practice their own form of residential discrimination. We choose very carefully where we live so that we live around those like us, who vote like us, and who act like us. A conservative white male doesn't just find himself living in the suburbs and a gay couple doesn't just find themselves intown. Whether it's flight (running away) or fight (building walls and passing laws), you're just as phobic if you insist upon living among those people you share values with.
Yes, we can agree that there are certain characteristics of a good citizen in such terms, but the devil is in the details, and context matters. Tolerance is a particularly important factor in these kind of considerations.
Of course I, like most others, discriminate in certain ways, and am intolerant of certain things. But, basically, there's a right way and a wrong way to go about it. (The latter includes xenophobes).
She says EU is trying to affect the outcome of the electron, spinning it of course to the effect that the EU does not want her as head of state because she is likely to be a very tough in the Brexit negotiation process (vs. Corbyn).
Yep, she's playing the man and not the ball. That's the Tory plan of attack in a nutshell. Labour's policies have gone down well with the public, but unfortunately the Labour leader has not, and she intends to take advantage of the situation, and large swathes of the public will probably fall for it.
I, however, am most definitely with the underdog.
Today was actually the first time in my life that I have ever voted for Labour, and also the first time that I have voted in a local election.
Stalin is standing atop Lenin's tomb facing a millions of Soviet citizens amassed in Red Square.
Comrades, I have great news. I have received a letter from Comrade Trotsky.
"Comrade Stalin,
"You were right, I was wrong, you're Lenin's true heir to the throne. I should apologize."
The crowd goes wild because this reconcile between Stalin and Trotsky is a momentous occasion for socialist throughout the world.
But in the midst of a crowd and little tailor can be heard saying, Comrade Stalin, I don't think that you read Comrade Trotsky's letter with the full and true measure of his sentiments.
To this Stalin replied, "Well Comrade Tailor come up and let us here the voice of socialist worker read Comrade's Trotsky's letter." The crowd goes cheers as never before.
The little tailor climbs the steps of Lenin's Tomb and faces the multitude assembled in Red Square.
"Comrade Stalin, "You were right? I was wrong? You're Lenin's true heir to the throne? I should apologize?
Reply to Bitter Crank There's a lot of outrage over it on the internetz because it was a homophobic comment according to the complainants. I rolled my eyes. Must be an American thing.
So, for example, if the people of Suckothia believe that women are chattel and that Suckothia members are specially blessed by God to have certain rights, then, yeah, maybe we shouldn't let them pollute our place.
Well done. You've just described alt-right Americans. So the Netherlands is entitled to ban all US citizens for these beliefs regardless of their actions. Good to know. :D
So the House passes a bill that the Senate has said they won't even consider. Was it all just pointless political theatre to give the illusion of scoring a win?
Reply to Michael That's not correct. Shin Kicking came about in England in the early 17th century. I remember it like it was yesterday. It was part of the Cotswold Olympicks. In Lancashire, shin kickers would fight naked, wearing only clunky, metal-trimmed clogs.
Aunt Sally was much fun. It was a sport that my fellow Cavaliers and I came up with one time when we were bored. I would also watch the horse racing until Cromwell banned it along with Christmas and having fun in general.
That's not correct. Shin Kicking came about in England in the early 17th century. I remember it like it was yesterday. It was part of the Cotswold Olympicks. In Lancashire, shin kickers would fight naked, wearing only clunky, metal-trimmed clogs.
I can't believe that this is (more-or-less) true. Today I learned.
New age was always more popular than old age
The grand purposes and death defying feats of mutation were
same shit
different day
The balm of melancholy.
"Same shit different day" should be engraved on the tombstone of every generation.
Everything Is Meaningless
1 The words of the Teacher,[a] son of David, king in Jerusalem:
2
“Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”
3
What do people gain from all their labors
at which they toil under the sun?
4
Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
5
The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
6
The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
7
All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
8
All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10
Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11
No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them.
Wisdom Is Meaningless
12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I applied my mind to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under the heavens. What a heavy burden God has laid on mankind! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
15
What is crooked cannot be straightened;
what is lacking cannot be counted.
16 I said to myself, “Look, I have increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.
18
For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.
That's not correct. Shin Kicking came about in England in the early 17th century. I remember it like it was yesterday. It was part of the Cotswold Olympicks. In Lancashire, shin kickers would fight naked, wearing only clunky, metal-trimmed clogs.
Such was the attire of the adults, but the teens wore a guard over the right testicle, and the youth a full shield adorned with their family coat of arms. The women bore an obvious advantage, thus requiring no such shield, although if matched against a male, an ancient condom made of sheep lung was used to protect against a misstep. In traditional circles, you still might see them still in use, but modernity has brought about the advent of high tech carbon fiber ones. They are both aerodynamic and pleasing to the touch, but, to be sure, rather pricey. I myself own a rather handsome one, which offers a reassuringly audible "click" when put in place. I must let you try it.
Reply to Mongrel I particularly like the line, "I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind."
But, should you read on, it's not all a tale of futility:
A Time for Everything
3 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
2
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
9 What do workers gain from their toil? 10 I have seen the burden God has laid on the human race. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet[a] no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.12 I know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live. 13 That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil—this is the gift of God. 14 I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that people will fear him.
Reply to Benkei That Steven Colbert's verbal political cartoon could be thought homophobic is beyond absurdity. Thinking it so is imbecilic. The up-tight identity and offense-obsessed left should stop free-associating and using Rorschach reactions in place of thinking.
Reply to Hanover I love that book of the Bible, but it strikes me as a discordant note to the theme of God's purposeful and loving nature. Perhaps that is one of the features that gives the verses such power.
On a related note, Google keeps getting better. Back in the '70s when I was teaching Catholic college students to improve their study habits, one of the courses some clients came from was Old Testament. In the text we came across this verse
Jeremiah 12:5 ?:If you have raced with men on foot and they have worn you out, how can you compete with horses? If you stumble in safe country, how will you manage in the thickets by the Jordan?
Much later I remembered the text, and that it was from Jeremiah, but I couldn't remember the verse number. Of course I didn't want to go the trouble of reading the whole of Jeremiah to find one verse. Way too much trouble. Ever since Google arose from the silicon desert, I have been trying to locate the verse. Recently it popped up on yet another query.
12:5 (at least taken out of context) also speaks to the doom of man to sometimes fail, however valiantly.
Once I quoted it in a class, as a support for the idea that smoking cessation is probably not the most difficult thing people will ever attempt. One of the adults in the room (a devoted smoker) said "that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard." Sigh.
Now that you've got annoyed about them being annoyed, I suppose it's now their turn to be annoyed at you being annoyed at them being annoyed. Any takers?
If xenophobia or anti-immigrant sentiment really had increased in the UK, surely UKIP would have grown in popularity? In fact, their support has plummeted.
"Same shit different day" should be engraved on the tombstone of every generation.
As a young kid my Grands would take my brother and I for the summer to Paw Paw Lake in Kalamazoo, Michigan. And I remember the summer I figured out the meaning "Same shit, different day!" I even had a shirt that said it and I swore back then that I would get a gold charm made with the phrase on it. Never actually had it done but it was a kick to say it.
Though today? It would irk me to hear it because of my need to be optimistic. Optimistic almost to a fault, if that is possible.
The latest phrase that makes me uncomfortable is "It is what it is". OMG talk about lighting the spark on that deeply ingrained Chicago attitude fire! Those closest to me know it because, if I respect you, I will abruptly stop my side of the conversation and let you know that I just don't buy it and I am no way interested in such a "No change possible" attitude.
Hopeless romantic? Maybe
Desire for Utopia? Possibly
Allowing the ability for us to find a better way of looking at a no win situation? Likely.
If xenophobia or anti-immigrant sentiment really had increased in the UK, surely UKIP would have grown in popularity? In fact, their support has plummeted.
It's very hard to distinguish what's going on. There is quite a big increase in reporting of hate crimes in the last year, see the Indy. But since there was believed to be a high incidence of previous under-reporting, does that mean there's really been an increase? I think the liberal commentariat need to calm down.
Yes. Civitas looked into it last year and concluded as follows.
[quote=Civitas]There was a rise in reported hate crime incidents in the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum. Precisely what this signified, however, is open to question. First, it should be noted that the vast majority of recorded hate crime incidents consist of verbal harassment rather than physical violence. Further to that, the police definition of a hate crime is one that is "perceived" by the victim to have been based on prejudice; this means that in the strictest sense the surge in reported incidents only represents a surge in perceived prejudice. This is an important caveat usually ignored in media coverage. Many crimes reported as being hate crimes, most notably including specific incidents that have been highlighted by the media in recent weeks, actually have little evidence to support them being classified as such. By the same token, there is usually little if anything to connect individual incidents with the EU referendum, even if there have been many more people reporting "hate crimes" since the vote.
It should also be noted that reported hate crime has been trending upwards for the last few years, long before the EU referendum campaign began. Does this reflect a widespread increase in intolerance towards certain minorities? Or does it reflect the rising profile of hate crime as a category of offence and the opportunity to report it via, for example, True Vision? It is difficult to say with any certainty but there is no objective barometer signalling rising intolerance. Similarly with the surge in reports in the aftermath of the referendum. It seems as likely that reports of hate crime were being fuelled by the perception of a rise of intolerance, which was in turn fuelled by police and media reports driven by that perception, in a vicious circle. [/quote]
But the atmosphere these days is not conducive to honest debate. Notice how difficult it is to argue that the apparent surge in racism and xenophobia has been exaggerated without looking like a racist or xenophobe oneself.
If xenophobia or anti-immigrant sentiment really had increased in the UK, surely UKIP would have grown in popularity? In fact, their support has plummeted.
No, that's not a sure thing by any means. There are other important factors to take into consideration. That expectation makes sense outside of the context of certain recent events. Their sharp decline is only a very recent occurrence, and that's largely because the Tories made them redundant in important respects, so the UKIP voters have swung to the Tories. Not because their sentiments have changed drastically - which they probably haven't - but because they feel that the Tories have a better chance of fulfilling those sentiments. They have a vastly better chance of obtaining the required power, i.e. a PM and more seats in parliament, and likely a decent sized majority. They trust May and think that she's sensible and competent ( or "strong and stable"), and they want her to [i]get on with[/I] the whole Brexit shebang which they voted for in the referendum. That in addition to losing their charismatic leader and all of the embarrassment and kerfuffle picked up by the media.
I think that there's quite a stark contrast between the Tories under Cameron and under May. The former was undermined and lost much credibility and potential appeal to the average UKIP voter when he came back from negotiations with the EU with what many people view as little-to-nothing and a big disappointment. It's different with May, a.k.a. "the submarine", and of course we've now triggered article 50.
And Nuttall pales in comparison to Farage in terms of charisma and appeal.
jamalrob may be right about the hate crimes though. I never understood the logic there. "We won! Now let's go crack some heads!"...??
Well, obviously, when you put it like that it seems particularly absurd, but whatever the rationale, I wouldn't expect it to be reasonable. Like jamalrob's wording suggests, this is more a matter of sentiment than reason.
It would make sense to me, and would not come as much of a surprise, if hate crime has indeed increased, as the evidence seems to suggest (although I accept that there are grounds upon which this can be disputed), given that there has been an increased consciousness among the masses on things like immigration and national interests, with much of the focus on the former being negative, e.g. scare mongering and scape goating, and much of the focus on the latter being conveyed positively or with a sense of urgency and priority. This is bound to stir people up and affect them, and, in some cases and to some extent, count towards the motivation of people who turn to violence or some other form of abuse.
Brexit has undeniably been divisive, and the ring-wing media has undeniably inflamed matters in the kind of ways that I've outlined above. This is going to have consequences, and some of them will be detrimental, and so it shouldn't come as a surprise when we find out about them on the news.
there has been an increased consciousness among the masses on things like immigration and national interests, with much of the focus on the former being negative, e.g. scare mongering and scape goating, and much of the focus on the latter being conveyed positively or with a sense of urgency and priority. This is bound to stir people up and affect them, and to some extent count towards the motivation of people who turn to violence or abuse.
Yes, but all of this was at its peak during the long campaign leading up to the vote. I would expect the immediate aftermath of the referendum to have been the beginning of a period of relative calm considering the xenophobes got what they wanted. It would be in the event that they hadn't that I would have expected some kind of backlash.
Now, does anyone have any good advice on how to stop being annoyed at something? Specifically, it's about dwelling on the thought that I've been overlooked and underestimated, misjudged, and possibly discriminated against in terms of age and gender, by means of preferential treatment and exclusion, at work?
I've tried to just not think or care about it, and I've tried thinking about it in a cognitive dissonance kind of way (e.g. "I didn't really want the promotion anyway"), but it keeps playing on my mind and annoying me.
Yes, but all of this was at its peak during the long campaign leading up to the vote. I would expect the immediate aftermath of the referendum to have been the beginning of a period of relative calm considering the xenophobes got what they wanted. It would be in the event that they hadn't that I would have expected some kind of backlash.
The peak may have come and gone, but I think that this mood or state of mind among the national population will persist for quite some time. The triggers are still active, and people are receptive to them. Plus, winning may have just reinforced this kind of attitude.
Reply to Sapientia Yes, I think that's a good analysis, but it doesn't identify xenophobia or anti-immigrant sentiment in particular. The transfer of allegiance to the Conservative Party may simply be about Brexit as such, rather than about race and immigration. How much Brexit itself was about race and immigration is another question (I don't think it was). The Conservatives captured the Brexit supporters by respecting and embracing the result of the referendum. From that point of view, voting Conservative definitely looks like the best choice (though I can't quite imagine doing so myself).
How much Brexit itself was about race and immigration is another question (I don't think it was).
Probably it was so for about 10-15% of the voters in favour of leave. That tends to be the average for most societies for those voters that let themselves be guided by their xenophobic sentiments when voting. And let's not forget the murder of Jo Cox ("Britain first!" he yelled as he stabbed and shot her). Brexit was (and is) for a serious amount of people very much about racism and immigration and it was for that reason that Britain First said to vote UKIP (which is weird since UKIP explicitly rejects ethno-nationalism and embraced civic-nationalism).
The Conservatives captured the Brexit supporters by respecting and embracing the result of the referendum. From that point of view, voting Conservative definitely looks like the best choice (though I can't quite imagine doing so myself).
It's annoying, because Labour has also respected the result of the referendum, and has embraced it in a way which differs from that of the Tories - a way which appeals more to the interests of someone like me. It just so happens that Labour's stance throughout has corresponded very closely to my own, but if I had voted for Brexit, and that was my main concern, then I'd still vote Labour on that basis because I trust Labour more than the Tories to bring about a Brexit with the interests of the working class at the front and centre.
Reply to jamalrob They occupy the centre ground between the Tories and the Lib Dems in that regard, which makes a lot of sense for various reasons, not least because their voters were split in large numbers between leavers and remainers, so they're forced to attempt to appeal to both without leaning too far in either direction. They want a soft Brexit with legal guarantees for workers rights and to avoid the scenario of a "bargain basement" Britain, where Britain moves closer towards a tax haven status.
How much Brexit itself was about race and immigration is another question (I don't think it was).
It was about bananas and cucumbers. We vote for strong government because we feel powerless, and stable government because we are desperate for change. It's about the death throes of the working class. It is a mistake to try and rationalise irrationality. Why do turkeys vote for christmas? Because they've run out of sand to bury their heads in.
Now, does anyone have any good advice on how to stop being annoyed at something? Specifically, it's about dwelling on the thought that I've been overlooked and underestimated, misjudged, and possibly discriminated against in terms of age and gender, by means of preferential treatment and exclusion, at work?
In my experience, festering resentment evaporates when you talk to the target of your resentment. It may not end in the result you want, but things don't feel as bad. In this case, maybe ask your boss "hey, what about me?!" or words to that effect.
We have a saying in our little company, which became necessary to bear in mind while living and working together for years: "don't harbour balls [of resentment]". I don't go along with the idea that one should always get everything out in the open, especially when the issue is traumatic and private, but with things like this, it works. Resentment is seductive, and you can almost revel in it, but boy does it feel good when you get over it.
With few exceptions, you vote for whatever or whoever business wants you to vote for. Feel free to use whatever phrasing makes that sound like a virtue though.
("We distrust government so let's vote for politicians who'll deregulate everything! Yeah!" Like the financial industry. Because that'll end well...)
One of the other company founders would always pour my Kikkoman soy sauce into his own non-East-Asian meals, not knowing or caring that I had bought it specifically for Chinese meals and expected it to last weeks. It wouldn't have mattered to him what brand of soy sauce it was, because he's not very discerning, but I bought the Kikkoman specifically, because it's the best.
For a long time I was resentful about this and similar behaviours, but I finally got my balls (of resentment) out and told him it pissed me off, and he said sorry, he didn't realize.
Actually though, he then carried on doing the same thing, until after three years we'd all had enough of each other and got our own apartments. But we stayed friends, which might not have been so easy to do if we'd had years of resentment building up.
EDIT: Seeing as I'm toying with writing a sitcom based on my life over the past few years, I wonder if it's better to start with something mundane in the first episode, like the Kikkoman soy sauce--to, you know, establish the characters--or to go for something spectacular like drunkenly making a massive bonfire and accidentally burning down the house you're meant to be looking after?
With few exceptions, you vote for whatever or whoever business wants you to vote for. Feel free to use whatever phrasing makes that sound like a virtue though.
What business were you compelled to vote for?Quoting Baden
("We distrust government so let's vote for politicians who'll deregulate everything! Yeah!" Like the financial industry. Because that'll end well...)
Let's vote for more government control because that'll end well.
Reply to Hanover I once got a few soy sauces together--pretty much every brand you can easily get in the UK shops--and did a blind taste test (I really did). Kikkoman was by far the best.
What would probably have happened in your hypothetical situation is that I'd have carried on using it for a few days without any difference registering, but at some point I'd have thought "this doesn't seem as good as it used to be" and would have put it down to slipping standards at the Kikkoman factory.
Let's vote for more government control because that'll end well.
Yes, it's ending very well in counties like Australia, Holland, Canada etc who have robust economies, healthcare systems far better than the US (just ask Trump!) and were much less impacted by the '08 crisis, which you would not have had if you hadn't gutted financial regulations on the sayso of business lobbyists, a monumentally stupid idea conveniently packaged and sold under the mantra of "small government". And that should be a non-partisan point except the meme is just too hard for some to overcome.
Reply to Hanover You can't vote for limited government, it never stands for election. It's only ever a question against whom the strength of government is to be directed. Not me, I vote.
In my experience, festering resentment evaporates when you talk to the target of your resentment. It may not end in the result you want, but things don't feel as bad. In this case, maybe ask your boss "hey, what about me?!" or words to that effect.
We have a saying in our little company, which became necessary to bear in mind while living and working together for years: "don't harbour balls [of resentment]". I don't go along with the idea that one should always get everything out in the open, especially when the issue is traumatic and private, but with things like this, it works. Resentment is seductive, and you can almost revel in it, but boy does it feel good when you get over it.
Thanks for the advice. I am definitely not going to bring this up directly with the person in question. I have considered enquiring into it indirectly, through others in the know, but I am concerned that I won't like the answer.
EDIT: Seeing as I'm toying with writing a sitcom based on my life over the past few years, I wonder if it's better to start with something mundane in the first episode, like the Kikkoman soy sauce--to, you know, establish the characters--or to go for something spectacular like drunkenly making a massive bonfire and accidentally burning down the house you're meant to be looking after?
I was going to suggest that the guy who has his house burnt down should be the guy who keeps using up the other guy's soy sauce, and that it is later revealed that this was no accident, but an act of revenge by the guy with the soy sauce, and that, just as the other guy finds this out, he watches in dismay as, to add insult to injury, the guy with the soy sauce drives off in the other guys car.
Specifically, it's about dwelling on the thought that I've been overlooked and underestimated, misjudged, and possibly discriminated against in terms of age and gender, by means of preferential treatment and exclusion, at work?
I don't disagree with Jamalrob's advice, but I'd also suggest that sometimes you've got to move on, whether it means breaking up with someone, finding a new job, or getting a new roommate.
I don't disagree with Jamalrob's advice, but I'd also suggest that sometimes you've got to move on, whether it means breaking up with someone, finding a new job, or getting a new roommate.
I do. I think that it would be bad advice for me, but may be good advice for someone else in a similar situation. If it was a colleague, rather than the boss, then things would be quite different, and I wouldn't think of it as being so out of the question. I think that it would most likely make matters worse, with the costs outweighing the benefits. A direct confrontation would be one of the very last things that I would resort to. I am very determined to keep my job for a number of reasons, so it would have to get a lot worse for me to do anything too drastic or risky. I still enjoy my job, get on well with most people at work, and have finally been offered what is more or less a full-time contract, which is something that I've been after for a quite a long time now - ever since I started.
So, I am still thinking that I'll cope with it in my usual way of stoicism, distractions and cognitive dissonance, and then at some point I will have moved on and gotten over it or forgotten about it.
But I appreciate the advice.
I think even talking about it on here has helped, now that I think about it, and I don't feel annoyed about the whole thing right now as I'm thinking about it.
Oh, and by the way, to give you some background, it has only been about a year-and-a-half since I quit my last full-time job, pretty much on-the-spot and with immediate effect, for, to put it lightly, not seeing eye-to-eye with the store manager. So I have been down that road before, and not too long ago, and I want to avoid it happening again unless absolutely necessary.
I always confront them privately if it means enough to me. It doesn't have to be freaking out or anything, it can just be pointed questions about your concerns framed in neutral non-judgmental or blaming language. Even if they deny any of your concerns, and they're true, it's still more than likely going to change their behavior about it for the better.
Stress is a killer, and it of course cannot be entirely vanquished, but try to minimize the sources of it in your life, and have creative, and physical outlets for relief. Even just a walk or something.
Reply to Wosret I find that imagining chopping their head off with a samurai sword helps. Or imagining setting them on fire - that's another good one.
I can't believe that [i]three[/I] of you have now advised me to directly confront them. Are you all crazy?! Lol.
You're making me realise just how much I'm averse to confrontation in the workplace. Which is kind of funny, because it has often been the exact opposite on here. It was also a bit different in my previous job, where I was (in effect) a supervisor and had more authority.
Comey went on the Trump chopping block. Good, bad? Thoughts?
President Trump was just wanting to protect any future Presidential nominees from enduring what Mrs. Clinton had to. Now can you see how empathetic our President can be? :P
You're making me realise just how much I'm averse to confrontation in the workplace. Which is kind of funny, because it has often been the exact opposite on here.
For reasons that are none of your God damn business (so butt the hell out), I once saw a therapist who pointed out very quickly that I was overly non-confrontational and that I'd benefit from being more direct over day to day matters. No shit.
It seems I have very uncompromising standards (whether good or bad) and as long as those aren't compromised, I'm generally able to tolerate anything, viewing every other dispute as petty. But once we hit some boundary, I'm unmovable, uncompromising, and dismissive of every objection. So sayeth the shrink. Sound familiar?
I cleaned out my garage yesterday, and put up a punching bag. Going to be my gym now. Unfortunately my hands can't take much more for a bit. I think I've improve quite a bit in the last couple of days.
Can't go full speed unfortunately, as I'm not trained with punching, so both my hands can't take my full speed, and I can't throw the punch properly, because a few things have to happen first. Basically throwing a really good punch requires more range of motion than I normally employ when I'm playing around. It involves pretty much three important steps. Gotta close (or pull tightly together) your shoulder blades and sitting bones and then violently open them, as well as properly channeling the force of the strike to your grounding leg.
Because I haven't trained, I'm not yet super fast at doing this fluidly. I also require a lot more motion than like a professional does, they're super fast at it. I can't even ground properly without rolling over the knuckles of my toes like I'm going to push off for a step. All this increases my punching force by multiples, but, like I said, just have to work on speeding up the execution.
My kicks are already pretty devastating. My dad was telling me that they probably aren't blockable, don't aim for anyone's head. I can fairly easily, and quickly replicate a lot of kicks. I also don't think that people ground properly through the standing leg, and tend to come up on to the toes in order to get more height with the kicking leg, but doing that makes it so you can't close your hips properly, and drastically reduces follow through.
overlooked and underestimated, misjudged, and possibly discriminated against in terms of age and gender, by means of preferential treatment and exclusion
I have nothing else to offer than this book cover. My own experience is that being overlooked, underestimated, misjudged, discriminated against in every conceivable way through preferential treating being laid on others, while I get exclusion... goes with the territory.
President Trump was just wanting to protect any future Presidential nominees from enduring what Mrs. Clinton had to. Now can you see how empathetic our President can be?
For reasons that are none of your God damn business (so butt the hell out), I once saw a therapist who pointed out very quickly that I was overly non-confrontational and that I'd benefit from being more direct over day to day matters. No shit.
It seems I have very uncompromising standards (whether good or bad) and as long as those aren't compromised, I'm generally able to tolerate anything, viewing every other dispute as petty. But once we hit some boundary, I'm unmovable, uncompromising, and dismissive of every objection. So sayeth the shrink. Sound familiar?
Very. For me, I reckon it's a coping mechanism I developed as a result of my very dysfunctional upbringing, which involved constant provocations and confrontations which could very quickly escalate into full-blown out-of-control fights.
Reply to Bitter Crank Are you subtly suggesting that the problem could be [I]me[/I]? No, no, no. That's just not possible. It's that they can't, or won't, recognise my brilliance.
It seems I have very uncompromising standards (whether good or bad) and as long as those aren't compromised, I'm generally able to tolerate anything, viewing every other dispute as petty. But once we hit some boundary, I'm unmovable, uncompromising, and dismissive of every objection. So sayeth the shrink. Sound familiar?
Very. For me, I reckon it's a coping mechanism I developed a result of my very dysfunctional upbringing, which involved constant provocations and confrontations which could very quickly escalate into full-blown out-of-control fights.
For me, I reckon it's an unwillingness to agree with falsehoods. I'm dogmatic in my acceptance of facts over fictions.
For me, I reckon it's an unwillingness to agree with falsehoods. I'm dogmatic in my acceptance of facts over fictions.
Doesn't virtually everyone think like that though? I bet even conspiracy nuts think like that. If I recall correctly, I've seen it myself quite recently in a video of an interview with Alex Jones. He was very insistent that he was speaking the truth and that "these are facts!".
Doesn't virtually everyone think like that though? I bet even conspiracy nuts think like that. If I recall correctly, I've seen it myself quite recently in a video of an interview with Alex Jones. He was very insistent that he was speaking the truth and that "these are facts!".
But aside from her, yes. Everybody thinks like that. The difference is that what they think are facts aren't facts but what I think are facts are facts.
But aside from her, yes. Everybody thinks like that. The difference is that what they think are facts aren't facts but what I think are facts are facts.
But here's the problem: I am always right, and we have disagreed.
For me, I reckon it's an unwillingness to agree with falsehoods. I'm dogmatic in my acceptance of facts over fictions.
Well, it would deal less with questions of fact than of preference or opinion. Let us suppose you are married (it's a hypothetical, so anything can happen) and you want a practical car that gets high gas mileage. Your lovely husband (remember, it's a hypothetical, anything can happen) wants a Bentley and insists he can afford it on his salary as a dock worker loading and unloading large packages for seamen. You realize the strain this will put on your finances, and you see no other way. Instead of considering his concerns and maybe allowing something between the Bentley and the mini coup (which seems very English, so that's why I chose it), you cross your arms and refuse to consider his concerns. You formed a boundary around financial security that you would not allow to be violated, even at the cost of alienating that handsome young thing lying next to you.
Better might be talking to him, holding his hand, validating his concerns, expressing your own, and then mutually climaxing to a reasonable conclusion. And by "climaxing," I mean ejaculating into his mouth, in case there were some confusion.
No, no, no. That's just not possible. It's that they can't, or won't, recognise my brilliance.
They haven't; can't; don't; won't; aren't planning on it. You labor ceaselessly and heroically to bring light into darkness and the darkness flushes all your fine work down the toilet.
Reply to Sapientia
I think you've already made up your mind on your problem so it's probably safe to give you advice now, which is you've nothing to gain by opening up about your displeasure of getting passed over. If your superior really passed you over for nefarious or spurious reasons, he or she is unlikely to admit it. More likely they'll mark you as a troublemaker while making you feel like you're just a whiner. If they didn't pass you over they'll mark you as whiner and make you feel like you're a whiner. Consider it more evidence that life isn't fair, but don't let it turn you into a whiner.
(Alex Jones is playing a character so he doesn't believe his own "facts".)
Well, it would deal less with questions of fact than of preference or opinion. Let us suppose you are married (it's a hypothetical, so anything can happen) and you want a practical car that gets high gas mileage. Your lovely husband (remember, it's a hypothetical, anything can happen) wants a Bentley and insists he can afford it on his salary as a dock worker loading and unloading large packages for seamen. You realize the strain this will put on your finances, and you see no other way. Instead of considering his concerns and maybe allowing something between the Bentley and the mini coup (which seems very English, so that's why I chose it), you cross your arms and refuse to consider his concerns. You formed a boundary around financial security that you would not allow to be violated, even at the cost of alienating that handsome young thing lying next to you.
Of course, my opinion in this situation is the correct one, and your concerns (in this hypothetical, you're my husband) are foolish. And that's a fact.
Of course, my opinion in this situation is the correct one, and your concerns (in this hypothetical, you're my husband) are foolish. And that's a fact.
Love is never foolish, and I'd resent the implication if I weren't generally apathetic.
They haven't; can't; don't; won't; aren't planning on it. You labor ceaselessly and heroically to bring light into darkness and the darkness flushes all your fine work down the toilet.
Couldn't have said it better myself. (Actually, I could have, because I'm brilliant in every way imaginable).
I think you've already made up your mind on your problem so it's probably safe to give you advice now, which is you've nothing to gain by opening up about your displeasure of getting passed over. If your superior really passed you over for nefarious or spurious reasons, he or she is unlikely to admit it. More likely they'll mark you as a troublemaker while making you feel like you're just a whiner. If they didn't pass you over they'll mark you as whiner and make you feel like you're a whiner. Consider it more evidence that life isn't fair, but don't let it turn you into a whiner.
You win the advice competition. I'll give that a nine out of ten. Almost perfect, but it was lacking in terms of mango-ness and monkey-offering-up-ness.
I wish some of the great thinkers had lived later in history, so I could hear what they have to say about their intellectual descendants. I would have liked to hear what Plato thought of what he essentially began, what Kant and the German idealists thought of phenomenology, what Schopenhauer thought of Nietzsche, and what Aquinas thought of modern atheism. I think the dialogue would have been a lot different if those who lived later were held accountable by those whom they were critiquing.
Existential comics is the closest I'm ever going to get.
What a dumb bunch of bumpkins this administration are anyway. Can't even come up with a consistent set of lies. They are to Machiavellianism what deep fried Mars bars are to haute cuisine.
Reply to Baden I don't think they're trying to be Machiavellian.
There was a movie called [I]Kill Castro[/i], in which the CIA appears to have hired the three stooges. The events that movie presents all really happened. It's nothing new.
So the President asked Comey three times to admit loyalty. How could he not be guilty of collusion with Russia and obstruction of justice? If his IQ is below 80?
The real question is how this guy got elected. I mean, did women cover their ears the whole election cycle and simply forget all the shit this guy spewed from his mouth about women?
William Kristol says Comey will have to testify about what Trump asked him.
If I am not mistaken, Bill Kristol says Comey wants to testify but he wants to do it in an open session for the public. He said he can use a "skiff" if necessary for sensitive information. I believe in Comey's moral compass more than I do Trumps words so I really would like to hear what Comey has to say.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Could be. I just caught part of Meet the Press while at work today. I don't even know what to say about Trump's behavior.
Reply to Bitter CrankThe term skiff is used for a number of essentially unrelated styles of small boat. Traditionally these are coastal or river craft used for leisure or fishing and have a one-person or small crew. Sailing skiffs have developed into high performance competitive classes.
There's a phallic innuendo in there somewhere, I know it...
Reply to Heister Eggcart So, is Comey going to get into a boat and whisper answers to questions to one other person? Somehow, that doesn't make sense. And where would the rest of the committee be? Paddling along in their own skiffs? Since boats tend to be longer than they are wide, they are phallic.
Comments (61561)
Whatever gets you there. Sia's voice turns me on.
They're both nice retreats from some of the even stupider threads on this forum.
Quoting Hanover
Well, Spirited Away was good enough to win an Oscar.
It's annoying that when I google "adult computer games" all the results are about sex stuff.
On the positive side, we may have finally found a way to make Hanover appreciate the art.
Netflix, man. A random romantic drama about a city girl, a cowboy and a horse that brings them together.
My top 5 already consists of things I rather not be doing with Ayn Rand, followed by another 100 things I could be doing with her, then followed by all those things I could be doing with her followers, quickly followed by discussions on religion on a philosophy forum. Writing this post is also getting stupider by the second so I suppose I should be watching anime instead.
Yes, just steer clear of the anime version of "Atlas Shrugged". It's not suitable for adults anyway.
Attorneys and Fire Fighters! Both arrive to help in an emergency without a firearm AND are both bound by an oath they took long before they encountered me. So yeah, I have been known to fall into a trance when I see Fire Fighters and when I talk to attorneys. But enough about any of my upcoming sins 8-)
Who is Sia's and does she know her voice turns you on?
Sia is a singer.
With the firefighters there, it's probably an office that's on fire.
In your case, I suspect most of the time your pants are on fire. Like now.
Like watching grown ass men playing around with a ball for hours? What a stupid waste of time.
We're not all the same Hanover. I'm a different Hanover. And a winner.
Damn. I thought I'd have you with that one. I remembered you making some comment about sports which I twisted into a comment about socialism.
It's still stupid to care about whether or not the Red Pants will win the Stupid Bowl or whatever it is you yanks care about.
(And pants are underwear, not trousers, by the way)
Shoes are shoes are shoes, and just because you're playing soccer (aka "football" if you're stupid) you don't call them boots. A boot is what you do real work in, you ride a horse in, or you hike in, or, if you're an American, it's what you put up someone's ass when they do something stupid.
If you call socks hosiery, then you're an idiot. If you're a girl (and maybe you are), you would call hosiery just hose. If you add the iery to that word, you've got your nose too high in the air.
I could go on about this wardrobe talk, but I have to work. I will say though that a wardrobe refers to what you wear, not a closet where you keep your clothes. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that referred to the wardrobe as some sort of piece of furniture was stupid. It should have been The Lion, the Witch, and the Clothes Holder Furniture Thing.
But your weirdest claim by far is that a wardrobe is what you wear. That must be very awkward, uncomfortable and clunky. You must have great difficulty moving around when you wear a large wooden piece of furniture as clothing. What did you do to make it wearable? Saw some holes in it to stick your head, arms and legs through?
This was quite clearly lifted from the underside of a Gatorade cap. Attribution, please.
[quote=DMX]Love my knickers, but where's my bitches?[/quote]
I thought it was, "love my knickers but where's my breeches?"?
So many choices! The courtroom has a certain flirt with voyeurism to it. Great suggestion! A private deposition is anything but private but if the attorney could dance, maybe a male version of Tina Turner in her video "Private Dancer" would rock. But the crown jewel would be in the Judges' private chambers, surrounded by leather bound books, on heavy wooden shelves with a very LARGE wooden desk, respectful of his "Honors" worthiness and his black robe. Mmmm yep that would work. 8-)
Btw: have you come up with another positive aspect of Hanover to share? I believe you are only at one of three. :D
Why the fixation on his positive qualities?
Not that I owe you proof, but here's an in action photo of me rescuing a cat from a tree:
Doesn't look like proof to me.
That's Hanover's hand. I'd recognise it anywhere. You can't tell from the picture, but he's most likely wearing a wardrobe, which makes his noble act even more impressive.
The supreme leader, man get it right.
You're seriously saying that a film about a young girl who has to bathe ghosts to save her parents who have been turned into pigs from being eaten is stupid?
If you had to unpack that a little, what would you make of it? Why would those crimes make him look bad?
The truth is, in fact, that President Donald Trump does not know shit from shinola. Fortunately for him, he has never polished his own shoes, so didn't have to distinguish which stuff is which.
Trump knows what shit looks like, but only against the backdrop of a solid-gold toilet, which probably leads to optical distortions. You know, like that "is it blue or is it gold?" dress meme...only with shit.
I think Trump is neither a Nazi nor a conservative. Did he not throw suspicion on Jews (as opposed to Clinton supporters)? Or did I misunderstand that? It's really more the broader social climate I was pondering, not Trump himself.
The broader social climate is damnably ambiguous in places. Is Trump a Nazi? Almost certainly not. Is he a conservative? Sure, I think so. If the broader social climate is murky, Trump is an agent of clouded water. Are there powerful people in the US who are kind of authoritarian anyway, and feel that things need to be tightened up all round? I think so.
Appointments of a climate change/CO2-as-a-climate-heating-agent-denier to direct the EPA, a Standard Oil man to head the Energy Department, the head of a fast food chain to lead the labor Department are all conservative/Republican Party moves. They are destructive appointments.
Trump is a de-stabilizer--but towards precisely what end isn't entirely clear (and not entirely unclear either). My guess his primary constituency is big business--certainly not the folks who voted for him. The broader social climate is easily stirred. Trump doesn't have to be anti-semitic to awaken anti-semitism. Destabilizing the already unsettled social climate is all that is necessary.
Trump doesn't have to send out storm troopers into the streets to bludgeon people. All he has to do is post incendiary, prevocational, tweets. The Twittering, Chattery Nattering classes will pick up on them and twit, chat, and nat. Before long it is reflected in barroom conversations, coffee klatches, dorm rooms, and what not. There are all sorts of reactions, counter reactions, acid-base fizzes, and so forth bubbling up.
Meanwhile, the White House, the two parties in the Congress, various political appointees, and the courts are all pursuing various separate issues. Factual information sometimes plays a walk on role in this dreary melodrama.
“He, too, is an entrepreneur that at a point in his life decided to devote his skills and energies to his own country. And he was voted by all the Americans that are tired of old politics, shut in themselves, that have grown unable to listen and understand,” Berlusconi said “A policy that made the same mistake typical of the left all over the world: thinking that being 'politically correct' is the way to be close to people’s needs, without understanding that the actual weak are the citizens oppressed by the state, taxes, bureaucracy, uncontrolled immigration, unemployment, the terrorist threat.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/13/berlusconi-opens-up-about-trump-putin-and-the-failure-of-political-correctness/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.8d295d8c6b58
It seems to me the world of pain (how they suffer!) the GOP is engulfed in is entirely of their own making. A major source of the pain is the realization of what cancelling ObabaCare actually means. Millions of people now have affordable health insurance coverage (only about 3% have faced really high premiums) and they don't really want to now lose it. Congressmen on both sides of the aisle can see big trouble for the GOP if they are successful. Plans to screw around with Medicaid (which is not Medicare) raise further worries. A lot of people depend on medicaid--mostly poorer people.
Quoting Wayfarer
But lots of party politics isn't what it was in the traditional sense. The extreme positions of the Tea Party are not traditional conservative stuff.
Quoting Wayfarer
He is, true enough, but Washington is infested with opportunists at all levels on all sides. Opportunism just goes with the territory the world 'round.
Totally agree BC I didn't want to imply that their discomfort was anything other than richly deserved. The whole 'Obamascare' campaign was a crock from the outset.
We will make you suffer; the only question is how much of it you'll take before turning blue. Nice.
Pig represents greed, rooster stupidity, and snake hatred.
So much of current politics seems to be driven by these 'three poisons'.
Greed - abolishing laws such as environmental and financial regulations that impede the profitability of corporations, etc.
Hatred - fear of 'the other', those from other countries and cultures, enacted through building of walls and travel bans, etc.
Delusion - 'I alone can solve', the inauguration photo fiasco, the wiretapping paranoia, etc.
It is plain to see.
Oh my god. This man should be fired already. It's something new every day, isn't it? The other day it was his unfounded allegation that Obama had him wiretapped.
Made me think of this:
I like it though. I'm guessing that's because the snake pursues the pig to bite it out of hatred, the pig pursues the chicken to eat it out of greed, and the chicken pursues the snake because it's stupid.
The confession of your sins were to be absolved by articulating three 'positive aspects' about someone that I had an inkling you didn't know very well and someone that might be a challenge for you to focus on. To have asked you to list three positive aspects about Michael would not have been a challenge would it?
Not likely.
Do you believe in Heaven?
Bribery?
Ironically enough, I think that President Trump is so focused on bringing "God" back into our society that anything that looks like a threat, to any religion other than radical edge of Islam, might in fact be 'a hill he is willing to die on'. I think he is very protective of the Jewish people and that might be why this vandalism is taking place under his watch but I cannot make sense of why he thinks it would have been committed by the Jewish themselves.
Whomever is committing the vandalism in the cemeteries, as well as bomb threats being phoned into Jewish Community Centers, in numerous states on an almost daily basis, will get caught...eventually, they always do.
Just a note: that is a wicked version of a "pig", my guess is it is a Javelina even though they say it's not a pig, it sure does look the same.
Veiled reminder of where we are trying to get ;)
Yep. And that's what it is: the lack of predictability. It's always true that we only partially understand the present moment. We can't put it into context the way an historian will eventually be able to. But we don't pay much attention to that knowledge deficit when it looks like history is coloring within the lines.
When unprecedented stuff is happening, we may tend to fill in the blanks with.... ourselves basically. Our fears or optimism. And that's proper.
Oh. I guess I'm a little confused about positive qualities. Michael has a streak of persistence. Is that positive? It could be. Or it could be disastrous.
Look at Hanover in neither a positive nor negative way. Look behind the face, the gender, the race, the nationality, etc. See the living, breathing, feeling person beneath all that.
Heaven? Put it in a sentence and I can tell you.
And that is when one of the females on my Indians team, stepped up and wiped the floor with the example of the ignorance that was just displayed by the opposing team.
Win! Win! Win!
Please, as if I said it was.
Isn't that like trying to get to Neverland? I doubt you'll have much luck. I'm not even trying.
What I'm looking for is a plain spoken man, someone who tells me like it is, who, even if they're incredibly wealthy, at least respects me enough to admit to their great wealth. Someone, who, If he's brash in private, is honest enough to be brash in public. I'm looking for someone unapologetic who doesn't pretend to be someone he's not, even if who he is is a complete buffoon.
Where shall we ever find such a person?
Oh, and by the way, this is less tongue and cheek than you'd like to think.
Problem is complete buffoons are not the best people to turn to when solving as difficult a problem as repealing and replacing Obamacare without making healthcare worse rather than better.
Yeah, that they're a complete buffoon would make those other qualities seem pale in comparison, given what the job role requires.
Yes, being plain spoken doesn't count for much in this context when the organ controlling your speech is about as reliable as a drunk monkey with a pair of scissors.
Next time Bernie Sanders then?
In some ways it would be the same situation. Popular support isn't real power.
Trump "tells it like it is?" If by "telling it like it is," you mean serially lies, misleads, and bullshits, then I agree.
At it's mildest that would be a democratic deficit. At its worst a dictatorship. The USA is somewhere in the middle but "the greatest democracy in the world" it is not.
David Brooks predicts Trump will be impeached sometime in the first two years. Being a Washington outsider is appealing to the public. Obviously in every other way it's a handicap.
Huh? I just asked why he thinks the attacks on Jews would make him look bad.
Trouble with that theory, is the javalinas are from South America. More likely it's just a poor depiction of a pig. ;-)
Quoting Sapientia
Hey I'd never heard that interpretation, but now you mention it......
Quoting Baden
Especially when said buffoon has a short attention span, never reads, and gets all his information off of Fox News. It took him six months to come to the earth-shattering realisation that 'health care is complicated'.
Nobody is denying that Trump really won, and I don't see how this would relate to thinking that impeachment is a possibility anyway. Surely you'd already have to believe that Trump is the President to believe that he could be impeached.
So you're not bothered by the fact that a foreign power (one run by an authoritarian quasi-dictator, no less, one who seems to enjoy a chummy relationship with Trump) potentially meddled in the U.S. election by means of spreading fakes news propaganda about Hilary Clinton and hacking DNC emails? I'm asking because your remark of Democrats "crying" about this issue seems to trivialize their concerns.
I asked you if you were bothered by the fact that Russia likely interfered in the U.S. election. Evidently not, as you give the Trumpian response that "well, we've interfered in elections, too." (When asked if he was bothered by his buddy Putin's habitual murder of journalists, Trump pointed out that the U.S. has killed people, as well, so we're no better.) If a foreign power committed wholesale murder against large swaths of Americans, would you toss it off by comparing that to Americans' treatment of Native Americans over the decade? Because your answer sounds a lot like the sort of false equivalencies one hears on the left from the likes of Noam Chomsky, not from a conservative.
Trump didn't say that he wouldn't accept the results of the election if evidence came to light that a foreign power meddled in it. He simply refused to affirm that he would accept its results. This is different from having a legitimate concern about possible Russian influence by means of the hacking and release of information of Trump's political opponents, as well as manufacturing fake news propaganda aimed against Clinton. There is no "hypocrisy" there on the part of Democrats. And the fact that the U.S. has meddled in other countries' democratic process in no way justifies Russia's meddling in ours - they're both wrong. (Trump has also claimed - as usual, on the basis of zero evidence - that there was voter fraud in New Hampshire, so if you are put off by spurious claims about the electoral process, perhaps you should start with the Oval Office.)
It is doubtful whether the Russian influence was substantial enough to tip the election. For one thing, foreign sources of fake news had plenty of homegrown competitors in the rightwing media (including, bizarrely, the story that one of Clinton's associates ran a white slavery ring or something out of a pizza parlor in D.C.). However, the point is that the mere fact that they sought to tip the U.S. presidential election in favor of the candidate they wanted, and may have succeeded to some degree, should give any person pause, Republican or Democrat. (I can only imagine the shitstorm that would be going on in the Republican-led Congress in this moment if Hilary Clinton had had an electoral assist by Vladmir Putin. The Republicans in Congress have had a field day with invented scandals such as Benghazi; one can only imagine what they'd do with a real scandal).
What was ridiculous was Trump getting elected President in the first place. An impeachment would hardly tip us much further over the edge into insanity. Or is the Donald's calm and measured predictability so overwhelming you that you can't contemplate him doing something shit crazy enough to warrant getting the boot?
Probably only if he does something that even the Republican voters can't support. Or if the Democrats manage to win both houses next year.
Yeah, I know. I don't actually want him to be impeached btw; Pence is worse in many ways, a lot creepier and 100% the soulless politician. Trump actually has a soul, even if it is made mostly of nightsoil. Pence is a human vacuum who would suck the entrails out of live mice if it would please his master.
I can see him at a golf course. But it'd be at night, he'd be naked, and there'd be some dead animal in the vicinity.
Now you were just saying impeachment is ridiculous.
I think the election was valid even if Russia's hacking into emails affected it, largely because they didn't reveal anything that wasn't true. Clinton's attempt to avoid the consequences of the truth by arguing that the truth was obtained by improper means is pathetic. Quoting Arkady
It's inescapable hypocrisy. Trump didn't say he would arbitrarily reject the election results. When asked if would accept the election results, he said, "I will look at it at the time," which simply means he has to see what happens, which I suppose could include all sorts of things that might come up, including meddling with the election, looking for hanging chads, or whatever. It's a double standard imposed on Trump here and evidence of media bias in making a story where there was none. Want to know how the media meddled with the election? Look no further.Quoting Arkady
Meh. All interested in the election results should be expected to try to influence it. That's just reality. At the end of the day it's me at the polling place, and it's my responsibility to be an educated voter and to figure out fact from fiction. Everything you've said here only sways me more toward Trump, so you're having the opposite than intended effect.
What I think is twofold: (1) the Republicans will not impeach their own president and commit political suicide and turn the government over to the left, all out of a sense of eternal justice and righteousness. It's absurd; (2) Trump opponents cannot accept that Trump really really is the President and really really will do the things he said he would so they try to concoct silly scenarios where Trump will disappear and the world will be righted. It's denial.
The GOP will have no choice if any material transgression of the law can be pinned against Trump, similar to what happened to Nixon. Actually, I think some of them hope this scenario happens because then Pence assumes role and he is at least 'sane' in the conventional sense of the term.
The only denial I see is the legal denial of any of his prejudice orders, such as the Muslim ban.
Trump is the president, with a GOP controlled House & Senate, the only way the Dems can deny his/GOP rules, is to confront them legally whenever possible, which is exactly what the GOP did to to Obama.
Nixon resigned before he was impeached.
Yeah, so he resigned before he was impeached.
I didn't argue that the election wasn't "valid." I asked you if you were bothered by the fact that Russia likely interfered in the U.S. presidential election. You said the Democrats were "crying" about it, indicating that you were trivializing the issue.
Trump elsewhere said that he would accept the election results if he won. Nothing in the question asked of him stipulated that there was anything amiss in the outcome of the then-hypothetical election. His behavior before and after the election gives every indication that he wouldn't have accepted the results, even if the election were free and fair (can you imagine the screaming he'd be doing if Russia meddled in Clinton's favor?). Indeed, he won the election, and is still proclaiming the popular vote invalid, based on claims of voter fraud in New Hampshire, California, and elsewhere.
This is just more false equivalency on your part, as it was when you referenced Bush v. Gore earlier with regard to Trump's statement. Al Gore had a legitimate reason for contesting the outcome and requesting a recount in select Florida counties, given that the difference was essentially within the statistical margin of error. He in fact conceded the election to Bush before it became apparent that there were potential problems with the vote counting, and only then rescinded his concession. Likewise, there are real concerns about the meddling of a foreign power (one headed by an authoritarian dictator who is often opposed to American interests, no less) in the election, regardless of the magnitude of the effect of said meddling.
How is it biased to report on what a candidate said in a presidential debate?
One can also "expect" a rapist to rape, and "expect" a murderer to murder. Likewise, one can accept that an ex-KGB authoritarian dictator with little regard for the democratic process or other nations' sovereignty might try to use every tool at his disposal to swing the election in favor of a candidate he likes and against one he detests. But, how does it follow that this intervention is acceptable, or no cause for concern?
As for "educated voters," I agree that voters have a responsibility to educate themselves, but that task is rendered very much harder by the torrent of fakes news and misinformation churned out by the right wing.
No doubt that's true. Studies have shown that when confronted with evidence and arguments contrary to their beliefs, people often respond by believing more strongly, which only underscores that certain people eschew rationality when politics are involved (especially when it involves a tribalistic defense of one's own party against the hated Other).
Witness the endless conspiracy theories about Clinton promulgated by right wingers and from fake news such as Breitbart, which no amount of debunking sufficed to dispense with. Once believed, the beliefs are immune to revision. In fact, these tendencies are more pronounced among the intelligent, as they figure that their beliefs must be beyond reproach, given how smart they are. I, however, remain open to rational belief revision, including with regard to politics, so maybe I'm just dumb.
When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions.
Related: Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.
No, the situation is directly equivalent. Trump was generally asked if he would accept the election results, and he said he had to wait and see. The objection to his response was based on what his detractors felt was a direct attack on US democracy, which, of course, it wasn't. The news then became about the opinion of the news people, which was that Trump was somehow going to lead a revolution if he lost. And what did we see instead? We saw millions marching and rising up when Trump was elected, many of whom did so under the banner of his being improperly elected. The reaction of the left to Trump's election has not been simply to object to his policies, but it has been to delegitimize his presidency in order to limit what he'll be able to accomplish. If you want to accept that as a legitimate political tactic, you have to accept it for both sides, although I seriously doubt the right would have engaged in the vitriol and protests of the left had Clinton won and suggested she really didn't win.
Quoting Arkady
And, according to you, this is appropriate because you just finished explaining how if you can arrive at any basis for challenging an election, it's fair game. At any rate, what you didn't point out is that Trump's reference to the popular vote was responsive to the left's attempt to delegitimize the election by stating that since Trump lost the popular vote, he shouldn't be president. That is, you're claiming that Trump shouldn't be permitted to question the legitimacy of the popular vote count but the left should be able to question the legitimacy of the entire electoral college system.Quoting ArkadyBecause what he said were just a couple of sentences about waiting to see what happened in the election, but the news reports were on the opinions by the news people as to what those words supposedly meant. It was a completely concocted story that was part of an open campaign by the media to stop Trump from being elected. Quoting Arkady
The Obama administration openly made efforts to interfere with Netanyahu's election. That's ok?Quoting ArkadySure, I might hold my opinion based upon a psychological compulsion to do so, or maybe I actually find the hypocrisy of your statements persuasive to the extent I don't want to be associated with your position. And, of course, we're all stuck with this same study you've cited, I suppose, which means that I can assert that your position is being held so strongly only because I've called it into question so persuasively.
So I searched for this and really no reputable newspaper reported it. So digging deeper, politifact reviewed this claim as: mostly false.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/25/blog-posting/blog-claims-us-funded-anti-netanyahu-election-effo/
Also, tu quoque argument which is a fallacy.
I didn't see any such banners in those marches, the banners mainly referenced Trump's improper behaviour, and in general his attitude toward others.
Even outside of the context of the debate, Trump said he would accept the results of the election if he won. That is a direct challenge to the very premise of a democratic election. This does not equate with Bush v. Gore, as you'd intimated previously, as Gore had a legitimate reason for contesting the election, and there's no reason for believing he would not have conceded the vote had the result been unambiguous (indeed, he did so concede before the issues with the vote count arose). Trump won the electoral college, which is determinative of the outcome of U.S. Presidential elections and yet has still denied the results.
Likewise, the very likely prospect that Russia meddled in the election is cause for serious concern by any right-minded person on either side of the political aisle even if the magnitude of the interference was not sufficient to tip the election decisively in Trump's favor (and I am aware of no evidence that it did, especially since the Kremlin was powerless to affect the actual vote tallies). It is at least important to safeguard future elections from such interference (including those in which a future Republican candidate may find himself at odds with Putin - as I'm sure Putin will be in power for a very long time hence). You are fixated on the legitimacy issue of the election, but one can have valid concerns about Russia's involvement (including breaching the DNC's servers) without saying that said interference rendered the election results invalid. But since the breaches made HRC look bad, you are fine with them. All's fair in love and war, provided your side wins.
The protests were mostly in opposition to Trump and his proposed policies, and the fact that such an odious human being is now the most powerful man in the world. To the extent that protesters or anyone else attempted to argue that the election results were invalid, I disagreed with them, as I disagreed with the petitions to persuade the electoral college to vote for Clinton: one cannot change the rules of a game after the fact simply because one lost (I am curious: had Clinton won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, would you also have been opposed to petitioning the electoral college to vote in Trump?).
But since you are so concerned about attempts to delegitimize a sitting President who won an election by democratic means, I take it that you were disturbed by the attempts by the right to delegitimate Obama while he was in office by means of the birther issue (a topic which a certain now-President Trump took to with great avidity, if I recall)?
You can't be serious. If Hilary Clinton won an election by losing the popular vote by 3 million votes, and whose candidacy was backed by a hostile foreign power which employed cyber warfare and a campaign of propaganda to discredit her opponent, the right wouldn't protest? The right has had a field day with invented Clinton scandals, such as Benghazi. Fox News would be spending from now to eternity ripping into Clinton and her campaign for it.
I nowhere said this, nor is it implied by anything I said.
How does this follow? The electoral college has been an issue of contention since before Trump's election (or even candidacy), you do realize? Claiming that the winner of the popular vote ought to win the presidency is not equivalent to claiming that the results of the electoral vote were invalid. Trump didn't merely reference the popular vote, he claimed that the popular vote was invalid based on unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud in multiple states. Anyone claiming that the electoral vote tally was fraudulent would be in error, as Trump was in error when he claimed that the popular vote tally was fraudulent.
Where is the "bias" in this? "Bias" would be Clinton having said something comparable, and yet the press not reporting on it. When a presidential candidate intimates that he will not accept the results of the election, that's news, whether you like it or not. Blame Trump for his words: don't blame the media for reporting it.
I never said it was.
What "hypocrisy" might that be?
Not really: you've shown yourself over and over again to be ardently partisan, most recently evidenced by your weak claims here. You repeatedly said that you're not "defending" Trump, but you seem to do nothing but when he's criticized. You feel the need to circle the tribalistic wagons with every criticism of Trump, and you offer baseless tu quoques. Whatever tactics redound to the benefit of your party, you seem fine with, as long it gets you the outcome you desire. I, on the other hand, can and have found arguments persuasive from both sides of the political spectrum (I have even been persuaded by you on occasion, though admittedly not recently).
You pretty much made this plain we were discussing how the Senate Republicans essentially stole the Supreme court by violating Obama's Constitutional prerogative to appoint justices (with the advice and consent of the Senate), and you were pretty ok with that, while admitting that you'd probably feel differently if the party roles were reversed. If you believe that the party in power can simply disregard laws, policies, or procedures when it becomes convenient, then you have no regard for the rule of law. If that's the case, then you have no non-hypocritical basis from which to judge any perceived overreaches by any Democratic president, past or future.
I don't know what quote your referencing, but it stands to reason that he wouldn't protest an election that he won. Generally speaking, you don't see challenges by parties who weren't aggrieved. If you have a quote that says he said he would challenge the results if he lost no matter what, then you're on to something. What he said was he'd wait and see.Quoting Arkady
I guess I'm not right minded.Quoting ArkadyJohn Lewis was very open in his claims that the election was invalid. Let's hear your condemnations of him.Quoting Arkady
The right doesn't protest. They have jobs to show up for. There wouldn't have been millions marching around the country. What would have happened is that a few groups would have gone out, waved some flags, made some fiery speeches, and then the media would have reported that a rebellion was underway by some right wind radicals. That's what always happens. The left's protests are heroic and the right's are a stubborn refusal to accept reality. That's what happens when the left does the reporting.Quoting Arkady
So, now I'm to learn that the psychological study you referenced that causes me to stubbornly support my position regardless of the evidence has no effect on you? Only conservatives are subject to this compulsion, but not liberals. That's so interesting. Do you suspect that maybe you're just saying what you are because you have to, considering the more I challenge you, the more firmly you hold to your position? That's what the science supposedly says you'll do.Quoting Arkady
Had the Senate violated their duty to consider the Obama appointment, the Courts would have been summoned to intervene. The Senate acted exactly as they were permitted to, and they no more were required to vote on Obama's schedule than Obama was required to submit to them a name on their schedule. And no, I would have had no legal objection if a Democratic Senate refused to vote on a Bush appointment in his final days of office. I'd have been surprised if they'd have voted when they didn't have to.
Nothing was stolen. They did their duty to protect their interests. That's what politics is about. Calling it "stolen" is just more hyperbole aimed at delegitimizing the Trump presidency, now taking aim at the Supreme Court. I suppose when there's some conservative ruling rendered by the Court, you stand poised to argue that it's not a valid ruling because the Trump appointee shouldn't have been sitting in that stolen seat. Look in the mirror is all I'm saying.
And no, I don't support Trump in all his great, fantastic ideas, except to the extent that I fully accept his presidency and think all these efforts to delegitimize his presidency are being brought by sore, hypocritical losers. If I were to do what you guys are doing, then, sure, I'd be a sore, hypocritical loser too and we could all suck together.
Quoting Hanover
The "sore, hypocritical losers" are just doing what they can to protect their interests. That's what politics is about.
It would be crazy to expect people to not protest against a President who plans to enact policies that they believe will damage their lives (or which they believe to be unethical), or whom they believe to be incompetent.
Quoting Hanover
As above, it's no surprise that most unemployed vote Democrat given that the Democrats benefit them more than Republicans.
But anyway, all this talk of being hypocritical or a sore loser is a red herring. All that matters is whether or not the criticisms of Trump are valid.
You can be a hypocritical, sore loser but also right.
I don't see why one should have to be happy with, or at least silent about, a result that one believes to be a bad one. Is there some sort of grace period after an election where disagreements shouldn't be voiced? Do we have to wait until the next election campaign to challenge the current administration and its policies?
This one:
https://twitter.com/i/moments/789147905173102592?lang=en
Of course not. He was saying he would accept the results only if he wins. He didn't say he would accept the results win or lose.
And, again, there is every reason for believing he would not have accepted the results had he lost the electoral college, a point which you keep skating by. He had already intimated that he'd accept the results only "if he won," and even after he'd won, he is still not accepting the results of the election in their entirety, as he has claimed voter fraud.
Glad we're in agreement. However, let me repeat my question, which you've heretofore avoided answering: are you bothered by the fact that Russia meddled in the U.S. election? Assuming the answer is "no" (as seems to be evident from your posts, where you tossed it off by saying "it's expected"), do you believe that you'd likewise be unbothered by this meddling had it benefited HRC at the expense of Trump?
I so condemn him for that statement. J'accuse Monsieur Lewis!
Now: let's hear your affirmation that you'd have been opposed to a petition asking the Electoral College to vote in Trump had he lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote (as such a petition implies that the results were invalid and/or constitutes an effort to alter the rules of a contest after the fact)?
Oh God, not the "liberals don't have jobs, so they have time to protest" malarkey. At least my digs at Republicans are somewhat creative. I suppose that, for instance, the protesters at the March for Life were likewise unemployed? Were the Tea Partiers all retirees?
Oh, I see: the right would have protested, but their protests would have been smaller and politer. Got it.
As for the left's protesting "always being heroic," I have no idea where you've gotten that from, but not from my posts. The left's protests against free speech on college campuses, for instance, is anything but "heroic."
I cannot step outside of my epistemic skin any more than you can, but I can say that I don't reflexively circle the wagons in favor of the Democrats when I believe them to be in error, and that I have changed my mind with regard to some political issues in response to what I believed to be cogent argumentation from the opposite side. Perhaps you have that capacity, but if so it lately seems to have been lost, as you offer nothing but endless tu quoques and false equivalencies.
If a person declines to exercise a right or privilege which attaches to their office, that is their prerogative. That would in no way be equivalent to the Senate's refusal to hold hearings on Merrick Garland's nomination. Delaying the hearing past the point when the President leaves office is the functional equivalent of denying him his Constitutional right to appoint judges (with the advice and consent of the Senate). Ergo, they denied him his Constitutional right.
What does it matter if it's in the President's "final days in office?" This is simply a red herring. The President is the President until the transfer of power on Inauguration Day, and his Constitutional right to appoint judges is in no way negated or diminished before that transfer.
Non-sequitur. Again, you are obsessed with the legitimacy issue. I never questioned Trump's right to appoint Gorsuch if he so chooses, but it should be non-issue, as that seat should have been filled. The Senate Republicans had no grounds not to hold hearings other than they didn't want to give a Supreme Court majority to Obama's appointees. If Merrick was so odious that he had no place on the court, then the Senate can vote him down. The Senate Republicans failed to do their job for completely partisan reasons, just as you are defending their actions for partisan reasons.
Another non-sequitur. I can't even imagine how you know what I "stand poised" to do. I'd speculate that you'd perhaps hacked my webcam, except I don't have one.
Speaking of sore losers, you might also do me the courtesy of answering my question as to whether you also ardently opposed the birther movement, which attempted to delegitimate Obama's presidency?
I thought he only said that he would accept the result if he wins, not that he would accept the result only if he wins.
I don't know of any other way of reasonably interpreting his statement in light of his other statements. As I said, he likewise declined to affirm that he'd accept the results (during the debates), and he is contesting the results even though he won, with baseless claims of voter fraud. There is every reason to believe that he'd contest the results if he'd lost.
But Hanover being a lawyer and all, he won't let you get away with insinuation. ;)
I don't think one needs to be cynical. These are the facts
(1) He declined to affirm that he'd accept the results of the election.
(2) He tweeted that he'd accept the results "if [he] won."
(3) He in fact did win, and is contesting the results.
So, does one need to be a "cynic" and look at (1)-(3) and conclude that, more likely than not, had he lost, Trump would not have accepted the results?
If so, then we are forced to conclude that he would have accepted the results if he'd lost, and rejected them if he'd won. That is a stretch, to put it mildly.
I don't oppose opposition. My opposition was to the efforts to delegitimize. To the extent some may consider it a legitimate tactic, I don't, so those arguments don't resonate with me. Quoting MichaelOf course. which Benkei indicated in a prior post. If you want to say that everyone sucks for all doing the same underhanded things, I think I'd back off this whole discussion and agree, but there's this honest belief out there that Trump is engaging in all these unprecedented acts and that he should therefore be disqualified as President. He adds a level of brashness previously unseen, but, other than that, he's no better or worse than most others we've seen before him.
I don't know enough (anything) about the U.S. law to know if the Russia accusations, if true, would make the election - or at least his continued presidency - legally illegitimate, but I'm sure that one would be justified in arguing that there's illegitimacy in a non-legal sense (e.g. in the sense that people mean when they say that dictatorships are illegitimate forms of government).
You've misquoted him by adding in the word "only." He didn't say that. He said he'd accept the results if he won, which doesn't mean he won't accept them if he loses. Logic 101. Quoting Arkady
Yes, I'd be unbothered, largely because the information leaked was true.Quoting Arkady
And yet nobody brought this to the Court's attention. Unfortunately they didn't have you as presidential counsel.Quoting Arkady
Where does the Constitution enumerate the legal bases for the Senate to act when deciding who to allow on the Court? I think you just sort of made it up that the Senate must act in a non-partisan way, and it would be an odd rule to require a politically elected body to act in a neutral way.Quoting Arkady
I think the birther movement was stupid, largely because it was without basis. To the extent there might be a real claim that someone doesn't qualify as president under the Constitutional criteria, then they should be disqualified.
You know of no other way of interpreting what he said other than by inserting the critical logical qualifier "only" that he never said? That is a hugely different statement, and one that I asked you to locate for me, but you couldn't. Had he said "I will only accept the result if I win," then, yeah, we have a problem. He didn't say that, but the media suggested he said it, and then they reported on their report and expressed outrage at their outrageous statement. Deal with it.
The "I think the voters got bad information when they voted" isn't a ground for overturning an election or even questioning its legitimacy. Free speech is the cornerstone of American politics, and as long as we have forums like this to offer people the real news, there can be no complaints. The voter can decide what he'll listen to, what he'll consider, and how he'll vote, all with the security of knowing that he can't have his vote rescinded because someone brighter than he comes along and tells him that his opinion was invalid due to information deemed illegitimate. That is to say, you can complain about the stupidity of the voters and lament their poor education and knee jerk decisions, but it is far worse to then mandate that the voters have a certain level of knowledge and education prior to allowing their vote to count. The beauty of Democracy is that the monkeys get to run the zoo.
And my point is that this is false. That was not what the concern of the protesters was. The legitimacy of the presidency, the validity of the election, was not being protested. The protests were expressions directed against the behaviour and values of the president-elect, not concerning the validity of the election, they were concerning the character of the man elected. You are seeing within the situation something which was not there, and speaking of it as if it were the truth.
It might not be grounds for overturning an election but it can be grounds for questioning its legitimacy. Legitimacy isn't just a matter of all the rules being followed. According to this, it's theoretically possible to win the election with just 27% of the vote, and even though it would be perfectly valid in terms of the constitutional requirements, it can still be argued that the new President's mandate isn't legitimate.
That's why people argue that the rules should be changed to use the popular vote rather than the electoral college system. Not because the electoral college system is illegal or unconstitutional but because popular vote is (more) legitimate. And that's why people argue that democracy is better than dictatorship. Not because dictatorship is illegal or unconstitutional (it wouldn't be in a dictatorship) but because democracy is legitimate and dictatorship isn't.
And the same principle can apply if the elected official lied his way into office, or (as some argue) if the election was strongly influenced by a foreign power.
As an example, even though the Brexit referendum was not legally binding, many still claim that a hypothetical decision to ignore the result would be illegitimate. And then others claim that the result itself was illegitimate given that much of what was said about the consequences were lies, and so people wouldn't actually get what they voted for (and I'm sure you'd take issue if I sold you a bottle of water but told you that it was vodka).
And yet throughout Europe, Prime Ministers are elected by representatives who form alliances with other parties, many of whom share little in common with one another, without any regard for what the popular vote among the citizenry might be. Why no one thinks that's so wrong is unclear to me if we're starting with the notion that direct elections of leaders is the highest form of democracy.
Whether Trump would have won if there were a direct election by the voters isn't known. He obviously didn't waste his time campaigning in states he could not win, like California and New York. It stands to reason that he'd have picked up more votes there had he not counted it as a loss early on.
While it might seem like a quaint notion that the United States is actually a union of united states each with the independent right to vote for the president of the union, it is a political and Constitutional reality that can't just be dispensed with.
I perhaps could have made this point clearer, but I didn't quote him as saying "only." I quoted the tweet in which he said he'd accept the results "if he won." Given his statements at the debate, and the fact that he does not accept the election results given that he won, there's every reason for believing he would not have accepted the results. Otherwise, one is to conclude that he'd have accepted the results had he lost, but rejected them had he won (as he did). I don't think so.
Oh, come off it. The Constitution gives the President the right to appoint judicial nominees, with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, which has traditionally meant holding hearings on the nominee and giving him an up or down vote, not the Senate majority leader unilaterally deciding who will and will not occupy a seat on the Supreme Court. The fact that this process is not enumerated in a step-by-step fashion in the Constitution does not mean that Republicans can arbitrarily decide to alter the ways in which SCOTUS nominations are decided simply because it's an election year and they don't want to give the court majority over to Obama.
If the petition to persuade the electors to vote for Hilary instead of Trump had succeeded, I doubt you'd have said, "dang it, I don't agree with that, but it's in keeping with the letter of the Constitution, and HRC is our President now." The conventions needed to operate a stable, functioning democracy are not always spelled out in the Constitution (which would be virtually impossible).
:-| Am I missing something...?
Don't have much time for most of what you've said, but I would more or less agree with this; Trump is at least an honest low-life (not that he's honest per se, of course, but he is who he is; he's not trying to be anyone else). What's wrong with a lot of the criticism of him is the underlying assumption that other presidents were somehow decent upstanding individuals, as if that's how you get to be the most powerful politician in the world. On the other hand, he does rather legitimize overt stupidity and loud-mouthed ignorance, which is hardly good for society. So, it's kind of a double-edged sword.
I do find the discussions about how Trump will be impeached as thoroughly absurd as those about how Hillary will go to jail. Whether Trump's in bed with the Russians or Hillary violated national security laws with her emails will never matter to their respective supporters. It's just dirt to throw back and forth.
I know you think Trump is the anti-Christ, but he's not. He's just yet another egotistical megalomaniac in Washington.
Or maybe they'll have a Hitler and Mussolini relationship...
I always find it interesting when anglo-saxon lawyers insist on something being written down. Considering the historic approach to jurisprudence that seems weird.
I'd argue it has been usance to have confirmation hearings for those judges proposed by the president as has been done from the beginning.
More generally, the process is abhorrent to me to begin with. A Supreme Court as an extension of a political party which parties time and again demonstrate they don't have the interest of society at large at heart but the narrow ones of their donors. It's pretty fucked up from an ethical point of view.
Isn't that figure just based on the words of a hedge fund manager?
No. Just another random reflection on death. It's been happening to me spontaneously lately and it's even more odd that it's happening against the backdrop of an early spring. Cherry trees are blooming everywhere. I'm pondering death. Very Japanese of me.
I don't believe Trump would be impeached. For one thing, he's not done anything impeachable, and even if he did, his own party is unlikely to throw him out of office. I don't think he's the Anti-Christ, either (the Anti-Christ has a plan, while Trump is clearly making this shit up as he goes along). Steve Bannon, on the other hand...
Ah. Your COPD comment came shortly on the heels of one of my posts, and so I mistakenly thought it was in response to something I'd said (post hoc, ergo propter hoc, and all that).
The nomination procedure for federal courts isn't great, and there is much partisanship both in the process and in the workings of SCOTUS (the fact that one need speak of "conservative" or "liberal" justices is rather disquieting). However, I much prefer it to certain alternatives, such as judicial elections, which one finds at the state and local levels in some places in the U.S.
Should the question be what the Constitution says, then it seems inevitable that the specific terms of the document be referenced. I obviously see nothing strange about it, and I see the opposite as far stranger, which would be the notion that we can be ruled by vague understandings of custom and tradition.
Quoting Benkei
There actually was an argument presented that custom was that Presidents wouldn't submit names of candidates in the final months of their term. Regardless, custom is formed every day I suppose, and I'd now argue that this precedent now establishes that Justices not be voted on at the end of the presidential term.Quoting Benkei
The Justices have life-time appointments, so it is expected that once chosen, they will be free to rule without regard to donors and such. That does seem the way it is, with the bulk of the politics occurring during the nomination proceedings.
Whether there is a better way, I don't know. I understand, as you've explained it, that the Netherlands doesn't afford their judges the power to strike down laws, so you don't have the quite the worry the US does. Our Courts play a massive role in US society, with judges and juries being called upon to answer so many important societal questions. It's inevitable that they fully enter many political frays, and, because of that, the interested parties want to make sure their interests are protected.
Regardless of how the sausage is made, the end product remains palatable. You don't see great injustice in the US. The rights afforded the average Joe here are pretty solid. Despite complaints from both sides where one thinks corporations control too much and others complain of too much government control, the system really does work. I can't imagine that the life of Benkei would be worse in the US, and likely in many regards much better, once you were able to get past your philosophical misgivings and realize they don't amount to a hill of beans.
I'm curious. In what way do you think the USA would be better in many regards?
Also, I disagree with this, otherwise the whole reason to have a political nomination procedure would be invalidated. Republicans want and expect conservative rulings.
They do, and that's why they choose people who they expect will maintain a particular ideology, but there are plenty of examples where they've been disappointed. Once they're on the bench, there's nothing that can be done to force a particular opinion.
Obviously I'm biased, but I would suspect you'd have a higher standard of living, meaning a larger house, a nicer car, more and varied employment opportunities, and more choices of cookies at the grocery store. Things are cheaper here and there's more space.
Sure, there's plenty of bad. There are fewer safety nets and one (not you, but the hypothetical "one" ) could find themselves in a bad situation. You're educated, hard working as far as I can tell, generally responsible, and not someone who is going to fall on his face. That is, all the things you don't like about the US, you'd likely be immune to because, like it or not for me saying it, much is the result of personal choice.
On the negative side, US life is more isolated. There aren't quite as many quaint cafes and as much street life as you see throughout Europe. Culture is everywhere in Europe, but you have to seek it out more in the US. You'd find yourself missing home I'm sure, but you'd be doing it in a 5 bedroom 3 bath home that occupies up to 1/2 acre of land while sitting in front of your big screen TV drinking some beer called Haagaarvaadaradddar or something like that to remind you home.
According to this, the Netherlands ranks higher than the U.S. in quality of life.
Correct, but the justices aren't beholden to anyone. If Americans elect the same kind of president several elections in a row, the Court will begin to lean. That happened prior to the American Civil War and the resulting "Dred Scott Decision" was a factor in the generation of the Republican party and it increased the tension that eventually led to war.
I think the NHS alone is enough to make my life better in the UK than it would be in the US.
I'm sure the actual standard of care doesn't differ too much.
The thing is, I realise I'm part of a society and I'm all too happy to do with a little less income and cookies if that means others don't have to worry about healthcare or a roof above their head. You're in favour argument boils down to one thing but I read a lot of negatives.
Here's my sales pitch for the Netherlands:
Politics
The Dutch political system is the most representative democracy in the world and politics is alive with a record of 28 political parties of which 14 are expected to gain a seat. Your voice and your problems are likely to be expressed by someone in parliament. The fact that we don't have a winner takes all system means you'll have to work together with other parties, ensuring political and social cohesion. Despite a populist movement getting a lot of air time in foreign media, it got less than 13% of the vote -in other words 87% of Dutch people aren't fearful but optimistic despite terrorist attacks and attempts. 80% of the people voted. We've got a democracy, the USA has a circus.
Business
It's one of the most business minded countries in the world dependent as we are on export. If you need a bespoke engineering solution: go Dutch. Thanks to good diplomatic relations and tax treaties with a lot of countries international trade is facilitated better than in any other county in the world. Also we lack the arrogance the French and Americans are known for and are therefore actually liked. Your new President wants to impose tariffs. Good luck with that when your market could be the world and you'll end up with only a domestic market.
Nature
There's more of it in the USA but the pollution you find there is totally absent in the Netherlands. the Netherlands is boring and it basically looks like a big village. It's clean and green.
We have one of the best infrastructure in the world, which makes it easy and affordable to get around.
Healthcare
is very good and accessible for everyone although it has its problems due to an aging population and rising costs of medication.
People
They are quite conservative actually, preferring people act "normal". Deviation from the norm is frowned upon but once something is accepted it becomes all Dutch (who remembers hating gays? That was still a thing in my childhood).
Living standards
yes, you cannot reach the stratospheric heights some people might in the USA but the depths are absent too. Did you know the absence of wealth disparity has a huge influence on happiness? Dutch people are very happy. Also, I don't believe in individual accomplishments so rewarding individuals for their work in the sense that they are entitled to a million dollar income is the real problem of the entitlement generation and I'm glad The Dutch entrepreneurial spirit looks beyond immediate shareholder value (and thus the directors are rewarded less) and keeps the well being of the company in mind. Part of the reason manufacturing died off in the USA is because the value extraction of profit by shareholders instead of positioning companies to innovate and compete with "cheaper" countries. The money extracted should've been invested. Dutch manufacturing adapted, the USA didn't despite having many, many more highly talented people.
And the Netherlands still sucks, it just sucks a lot less than about 190 other countries.
Hey, I said "likely", and "could be".
Here's my pitch for the UK:
We spell words like "colour" and "mum" properly.
The UK has sissified male "royalty." The USA has real men, like "the Rock" Dwayne Johnson and John Wayne, just to name two who have "Wayne" or "John" someplace in their name. The best action star the UK can muster is a middle-aged bald guy who learned a few martial arts moves. Check...mate.
Best country: USA
Best region: Southeast
Best religion: Secular Jewish
Best Gender: Non-Fluid Male
Best Political Party: Republican/Libertarianish
Best Sense of Humor: Sarcastic sexual deviant curmudgeon absurdism
Best Type of Cat: Black
Best type of Hat: Red Derby
Other than the hat, I've nailed it.
Another great reason to love the USA: Hamburger Helper spruced up with frozen veggies.
Nah, that'd probably be Putin. He's pretty good at his judo from what I hear.
He's tiny though.
You don't have to remember. You can go ask/poll the Dutch Muslim population to see it in the present.
Oh that must be why gay Muslims joined the Amsterdam gay pride last year in fear of rejection by their Muslim families. Dutch Muslims are as negative about homosexuality as Dutch protestants, which is to say, they don't like public displays of affection and are against gay marriage. That doesn't mean they hate gays or are prepared to use violence or banish family members.
In general, LGTB are confronted with more violence than straights but... compare that to a backwater like the USA, where you don't even have to be Muslim to hate gays and beat the shit out of them. For God's sake, my philosophy professor was fired from West-Virginia university because he was gay and came to the Netherlands to escape discrimination from his white peers.
As usual, your types of comments say more about the person uttering them, moving like an attack dog on Muslims, because you don't hear anyone complaining about the protestants.
Meanwhile, Hanover is enjoying his life in his fortress. Perhaps he never held philosophy in high regards, maybe a love-hate relationship? Only to use when convenient, much like how one uses a condom.
It's the Shoutbox, which was never meant for quality. The fact that it resembles other discussions (unlike old PF where it was confined to an actual box) is due to software limitations not conscious choice. Having said that, that is a quality quote, and quality is as welcome here as elsewhere on the site.
I do, but I'm glad you are not opposing that.
Personally though, I wouldn't mind seeing a lot more of the same, particularly a few from before. It's comforting to know that they didn't amount to anything either, and would bother checking back.
Just more padding on the inside of the cell that marks the boundaries of the Hanoverse. ;)
It's true that the quality has gone down, but then, the quality was going down 'over there', too. The classical Greek philosophers thought the quality was going down, as well. Recently discovered cave paintings in France show that the quality of troglodyte art was going down 25,000 years ago. Things started going down hill in the Garden of Eden by the second week.
"Declining quality" is the essence of the universe.
Wasn't it Plato who railed against the apathy and indolence of youth in his time, and about how they were insufficiently excited by geometry? And that was before time-sucks such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Tinder, and whatever else the kids are using these days.
I'm a male with plenty of fluid. In my humble estimation, that's better than having none.
Benkei, as I have suggested for years, the issues your country seems to encounter are usually a decade behind the mistakes we in the USA have made.
For example: Did the majority of the citizens of the Netherlands support entering into the EU? And how, my friend, has that worked out for the Dutch?
I listen to Tobias talk about how the Dutch people laid out the welcome matt to a speaker from Turkey and just how angry he is that Freedom of Speech was not allowed. Why is there soo much sunlight between two 'thinkers' such as you and Tobias?
You paint a beautiful picture of picnics in the park that is clear of pollution, both the environmental and the opposition. Your flower power attitude of sharing cookies so others will not go hungry is a role that our foundations, churches and donations support rather than looking to our government to provide.
Tell me what happens to a citizen of the Netherlands when they burn your countries flag?
Tell me what happens when a Dutch citizen wears a t-shirt calling an elected official or their spouse a "whore’ or a shirt with the slogan ‘all Muslims are goat f******s’?
Your painting gets a little bit messy when you start comparing Apples to Apples.
Ooh I know, I know! People roll their eyes at you and then shrug and smile.
The Netherlands office of Tourism called un and they would like you to be the greeter at the nation's airport. Where planes take off from and are shot down like MH17
I don't recall Benkei, did the Dutch ever bring Putin to trial? Or do the thug gangs, that supposedly don't exist, carry Bulk missiles instead of a personal firearm?
There's a special section of the education department that funds the burning of flags, the ridicule of religious symbols, the parody of heroes, and the slaughter of sacred cows to ensure that everyone maintains a sense of proportion.
Or if there isn't there ought to be.
There are always those who hate philosophy, and therefore philosophers. Philosopher-bashing is really no different from gay-bashing, and may actually be the original form of gay-bashing. Wasn't Socrates said to be gay? They hang around philosophy forums pretending to be philosophers, looking for a chance to lead the unsuspecting philosopher down the garden path, to some secluded spot,, for a good beating and robbing.
Speaking of apples, are you sending all those poison ones in the Netherlands' direction because you've finally figured out the US isn't the fairest country of them all? ;)
And so will ye end up choking on your own apple. But in fairness, it's fairly pointless comparing countries like the US and Holland. It's a matter of taste in the end. (And I'll have an orange).
As far as I'm aware, hate speech is a criminal offence, so your examples would probably result in punishment.
But according to this, the Netherlands is ranked second (behind Finland) in the 2016 World Press Freedom Index, so there's that at least.
No, I think that witnessing Trump become president and finding out about his widely publicised actions since becoming president have convinced Trump opponents that he is president and that he will certainly attempt to do some of the things that he said he would do by whatever means he has available to him, like the Muslim ban, for example. That first point is true of virtually all Trump opponents (do you seriously think that Trump opponents in general are that deluded?), and that second point is true of a very large number of his opponents - most, I think. You'd have to be very naive to think that he was just bluffing and that it was all just empty rhetoric. I don't think that the majority of his opponents are that naive.
No, no, no; his inauguration was FAKE NEWS!
Phew! Thank goodness. I'm such a worrywart.
If she had won perfectly legitimately, they'd nevertheless have protested in their thousands, chanting things like "Lock her up!" and calling her "Crooked". Does anyone here really doubt that?
Opposed to government? Republicans aren't anarchists, are they? I always thought that anarchy is closer to liberalism than conservatism.
Here in the U.K., the Official Opposition, Labour, have understandably taken up much of the airtime on this topic, and you'd be misrepresenting their stance by suggesting that the above criticism applies to them. They aren't persistently replaying arguments that they've lost and denigrating voters for voting the Wrong Way, they've accepted the result of the referendum and are moving forward with how to best go about leaving. They aren't like the Lib Dems or the SNP or the rebellious and outspoken 'Remainers' in either of the two main parties who are a small minority. They're taking a sensible middle ground. The opposition is neither gone nor missing nor out of touch with reality on this issue. That's just wishful thinking from an old Green leftie. You get the same rhetoric from the other lesser, sidelined parties who want to take Labour's place. It would have been both wrong and political suicide to take an approach similar to that of the Lib Dems, which is another good reason why Owen Smith, who argued for a second referendum and who wants Labour to be more 'Pro-Remain', should not have become Leader of The Opposition. Jeremy Corbyn, his allies, and the official party line, is not of the view that some sort of 'Remainer' coup would be a good idea, but shares the same view as you and I, which is one which respects the democratic result, which is only proper and shouldn't come as a surprise from a democratic socialist party.
If you want to distinguish this group of people who don't protest and label them 'conservatives', then so be it. But that overlooks the reality of the large numbers of right-wing Trump supporters who do just that, and would have done just that had Hilary have won. If you want to know why, it'd be better to ask them, but if you expect a reasonable answer, you might have to face disappointment.
Yes, that's correct. But I just don't buy these kind of defences of Trump that deny what he seems to be quite clearly suggesting. It just looks like apologetics. We're supposed to believe that he didn't suggest the above, he didn't suggest anything untoward about that disabled reporter, he didn't suggest anything on either of the two occasions about shooting Hilary, and when he is explicit about this kind of stuff, e.g. punching people in the face, grabbing women in the pussy, and so on... well, that's okay, it was just something trivial. It's all in your head or it's trivial, this is perfectly normal, nothing to worry about. Don't listen to fake news, unless the fake news comes straight from the horses mouth, i.e. Trump's.
I fear you may have the polarity of your horse reversed.
Oh, did I say [I]"mouth"[/I]...? :D
And politicians are never inconsistent, let alone their supporters.
So it's not that they're opposed to government, just opposed to government being involved in certain areas (e.g. welfare and regulation?).
Presumably they still want the government to provide basic infrastructure like roads, basic services like a military, a police force, and a judiciary (to enforce all those necessary business contracts), and also to enforce Christian social values like "traditional" marriage, no abortion, and cisgender identities, and also to keep out those damn immigrants?
Otherwise, again, it's just anarchy, which doesn't seem to be what conservatives want.
Is it different because you figure that conservatives all have jobs, families, and no time for that, but dirty degenerate unemployed hippies on the other hand...
But the style of defence is the same, right? Why stop there? He didn't [I]say[/I] anything mocking the reporter's disability, and he didn't [I]say[/I] that people should attempt to assassinate Hilary. Nothing that he said on those occasions has either of the aforementioned as a valid logical consequence. Sometimes there's more to something than words and logic.
Things that make you go hmmmm....
Conservatives like myself and NicK both have entertained the idea of anarchy but it is what comes after the pause in this absurdity that most do not consider.
No, before there is complete anarchy, you will see state cessions from the Union first.
Anything like Brexit?
Interesting. Do attorneys not like to be around one another? 8-)
One shark to many for the chum?
I don't know how it is in Lala land, but here in the land of propriety it is always the peasants that are revolting because the toffs have more effective ways of pressing their points, which they put in brown envelopes, and discuss in a civilised manner behind closed doors.
A majority supported it and a vast majority just voted remain to the extent that was on the table in the elections yesterday.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I'm not sure whether you have the facts straight. We were in the middle of our own elections and didn't have the manpower to guarantee the safety of a Turkish minister as they were tied up for all our own political rallies. It was the Muslim, former Moroccan mayor of Rotterdam who decided on that. They were welcome after our own elections but the Turkish government turned this into freedom of speech nonsense. There's also the issue of whether we should allow a would-be dictator to forward his autocratic agenda in our country. I don't see why as he isn't a Dutch citizen.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Yes, we're seeing how that's working out for your poor. Not very well. Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Nothing, nothing and probably a beating if you're in the wrong neighbourhood.
Also, if your idea of free speech is insulting people you're simply being uncivilised. Free speech is about being able to speak truth to power not to degenerate women or Muslims.
Not a lot, if protesting in their thousands is not a lot. Depends how you look at it, really. And that they would indeed protest cannot credibly be doubted. They did so at the peak of the presidential election, why would they suddenly stop after the result? That makes no sense whatsoever, especially given Trump's rhetoric. He encouraged it. They did react similarly in the presidential election. Supporters on either side amassed in great numbers to express pro- and anti- views. If you think the "Lock her up!" crowd would've just passively accepted the result, rather than protest, then you're kidding yourself.
Everything's already the ways they want it, and thus there's more to be gained from denouncing protest in any and all forms, one would think, when they're always aimed at you, and all of that self-preserving stuff you do.
That was in Germany from 1933 to 1945.
Bullshit. Northern Europe: the closest thing to paradise on earth. Unless you're an egotistical materialist consumer of course.
I think Benkei has it covered.
Quoting Hanover
Tragedy replayed as farce, I'd say.
I didn't say he was.
This saddens me when I read this.
I mean the EU is one of the greatest achievements ever achieved in the recent history of placing cooperation above individual gain.
Should I move back to Europe and apply for citizenship in Germany or Scandanavia?
You're the one denying the reality of the situation. They're similar enough to make comparisons. You yourself claimed that the left protested under the banner that the Trump presidency lacks legitimacy, and the evidence suggests that the right would've done the same thing with a Clinton presidency. Were there differences? Yes. For example, the anti-Trump protesters dwarfed the anti-Clinton protesters, but we're talkin' big numbers for both. You don't have a leg to stand on, Hanover. Just admit it. We both know the "Lock her up!" crowd wouldn't give up so easily.
You can't. Their immigration laws are too strict. Irony much?
If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, then yes. But since you're American, I can never be too sure what you're talking about, given your talk of pants and wardrobes. Perhaps to you, hot wings are a kind of musical instrument or an item of clothing.
Obviously Kentuckians are too. And we won't even start on WV.
Buffalo wings are similar to that, but not fried. Virgin optional.
I'd choose me over Benkei, too. Plus, I'm not a fan of Haagaarvaadaradddar.
We're in agreement there so I suspect you're interpreting something in my text I didn't intend there. I think it's quite easy to compare countries in a variety of measures and the "haves" in the USA will deny they have any bearing on anything because whatever we have in Europe they can buy better. Which is true and simultaneously misses the point by about a mile.
You tell me if I have his position wrong but before you assume, read his last sentence:
"(translation of my Dutch post below) One can agree or disagree about the need to refuse a foreign dignitary who wishes to addresses masses because of internal political reasons of that country, but it is at least partly understandable. If you are called a Nazi remnant in response, than that is highly insulting and annoying, but leave this undiplomatic nonsense be. When a minister drives to the Netherlands by car to hold a speech anyway, then this is a further provocation perhaps. However, if this ends with an anti terror squad who surrounds the car of a minister of a friendly country who wishes to enter a building belonging to her State... well.... then I cannot help but wonder if a better solution could not have been found..."
a further response from Tobias
"The mayor of Rotterdam acted as he should have acted, I have nothing but respect for him. But in this crisis he is not a key player. A diplomatic incident of this magnitude is chefssache. Indeed the govt made a statement, but why now and why in this case? Slam the refugee deal, impose sanctions because of the intimidation of Turkish opposition in the Netherlands, but not now... Erdogan has nothing to lose, but the Netherlands has, since everything plays out here. Pick your battles. Even Germany, a country with immense political clout chose de-escalation. So, you could just have let that minister speak and subsequently create a diplomatic toss up by withdrawing your ambassador and trade missions, but no...."
Doesn't sound like all is as Peachy in the Netherlands does it? To me it sounds like Tobi is disappointed in the Netherlands response and thinks that a de-escalation tactic might have been a better choice. Please correct me if I am reading him wrong.
Quoting Benkei
For our poor? Benkei, the poor are taken care of better by our nation than the average small business owner can take care of a staff of 9.
Those who are truly poor, a family of 4's medical care will be taken care of by the State. Those who are not poor? We are looking at $2,500 a month with a combined $20k annual deductible. So if you earn $125k a year and have to provide your own insurance? That is $50k dollars a year BEFORE penny one is paid by the insurance companies. Even if you never make a claim, that is still $30k a year in monthly premiums, that will renew every year and wipe away anything under your meeting your annual deductible.
How long do you think a family of 4 with a annual income of $125k a year, can survive on paying out $30k a year without a claim? Want to know how quickly your 401k is liquidated? I'll give you a hint, faster than you can say "And it's gone". It is called a 'redistribution of wealth' by gutting out the middle class from within by playing on their fear of dying as a result of not having health care.
Quoting Benkei
Are you sure about that? From the sources I was using it sounds like it could be up to 5 years in jail.
Quoting Benkei
That might be your narrow definition but as I suggested to Tobi, Freedom of Speech is not there for me to stand up and agree with you. Freedom of Speech is for Tobi to be able to stand up and speak, regardless of whether or not I care for what he is saying.
And just so you sleep well at night? If a male has the audacity to speak to a woman the way they talk about them behind their back, well I say she might respond with nonverbal communication.
You know, the Irish one isn't a four-leaf one, it's three leafed, and significant as a representation of the trinity. Also funnily enough the name of the genus "clover" is "trifolium" meaning "having three leaves".
So, a four leafed having three leaves entity is logically impossible. Ergo, they cannot be as good as finddleheads.
How bizarre. Who decides if the criticism of the treatment of women in strictly devout Muslim families or communities is speaking truth to power (patriarchal power), or "punching down" on Muslims? The point is that we come up with better decisions when all opinions are out in the open, and nobody is in the privileged position of being the arbiter of what is proper to say. Free speech is about allowing people to say things you don't agree with or that you find offensive.
You think insulting people ought to be outlawed? And do you think the re-emergence of restrictions on blasphemy--particularly regarding Islam--is a good thing?
Well, I am a Polish citizen, so that makes me able to live in any EU country (except the UK?) after establishing residency, which itself is supposedly kind of hard.
Anyway, there really is no reason apart from sentimentality for me to stay in the states, as I am exhausted by materialism and consumerism. All, I want to do now is just complete my degree at my local uni to have some job prospects once I move out there. MBA or QA, possibly to further enhance my job prospects. Paradoxically, once I get those titles, it would be more 'rational' to stay in the states, however, I never subscribed to the notion of rationality dictated by materialistic needs and wants.
Well, you can use the HDI to always make some comparison. And if homogeneity is really a problem, then take a basket of EU countries prior 2004 to make a closer comparison between the US and Europe.
Including the UK, as of now. After Brexit? Who knows.
There's nothing bizarre about what I'm saying but your interpretation of it certainly is.
Insulting other people claiming freedom of speech is an abuse of a right our forefathers died for and an insult to their memory. I can make that value judgment without calling for a change in the law.
Edit: to take that to the extreme, I'm sure it's legally fine to go out the door and insult everyone I meet but I don't think that's helping anyone.
I actually read your post as Jamalrob did. If all you're saying is that it's wrong to insult people, I'd agree (although reluctantly because I do like me a good insult). But it seemed like you were saying there should be some limitation on free speech when it came to insulting people, and I was going to say that was a stupid idea, bitch.
That's because you're a disagreeable old man and to the multitude of things we already disagree on you wanted to add another. That was to be expected, greytufted old fogey.
I'm sure this isn't entirely accurate. Would you object to vulgar language in a kid's show?
Wouldn't that count as a public nuisance or breach of the peace or something of that sort, and therefore not be legally fine?
Ah yes, found it. In the U.K. that could arguably be a Public Order Offence.
"There is truth in each of these accounts, but neither is wholly true and neither contains the whole truth. Philosophy is not a science, and there is no state of the art in philosophy. Philosophy is not a matter of expanding nowledge, of acquiring new truths about the world; the philosopher is not in possession of information that is denied to others. Philosophy is not a matter of knowledge, it is a matter of understanding, that is to say, of organizing what is known. But because philosophy is all-embracing, is so universal in its field, the organization of knowledge it demands is something so difficult that only genius can do it. For all of us who are not geniuses, the only way in which we can hope to come to grips with philosophy is by reaching up to the mind of some great philosopher of the past."
http://uwch-4.humanities.washington.edu/Texts/Philosophy%20Guides,%20Analysis%27%20and%20Resources%20(ver.2)/A%20New%20History%20of%20Western%20Philosophy,%20Volume%201%20-%20Ancient%20Philosophy.pdf
As I said, a matter of taste. Besides, paradise can quickly become stale for some. Where there be nothing rotten in the state, no Hamlets are there either.
Quoting Wosret
Yes, and today is St. Patrick's day. So, I win.
One word or name. Wittgenstein.
Russell pretty much preempted what you quoted and saw the genius of philosophy in Wittgenstein. So-much-so that he had a hard time understanding his philosophy himself.
I suppose the tongue in cheek smiley was necessary with my comment. Of course it's about taste, the point I was trying to make (vulgarly) was it takes a certain character not to appreciate the countries in Northern Europe.
I actually had no idea that St Patrick's day was any time soon, lol.
Maybe fourth behind Maldives, Qatar and Atlantis, if Plato is to be believed.
Neither did I until one of my Chinese students told me. There 's patriotism for you.
Quoting Benkei
Or lack thereof.
Are there countries one can fail to appreciate without thereby demonstrating a lack of character?
Sure, and a lack of character or a certain character could leave one unappreciative of others. Anyhow, if anyone wants to say one country is "better" than another, all they're really saying is it's better for people like them.
But you're like French-American hybrids.
Yet somehow I can't speak either.
Tru deat.
Fish taco jazz mountain sounds good. How's the price of real estate up there?
I wish I could say that South Park or someone made this up, but Saudi Arabia's supposed "first beauty pageant," involved...goats. It's almost as if severe sexual repression causes people to do odd things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNH7WU6swGM
Quoting Benkei
Can you speak up a bit young lassie? Can't hear you from up here with all the jazz and fish taco munching going on.
Just so I'm clear..."fish taco" is to be taken literally here?
Why don't you go grab us a beer, turn down that jazz a bit, and I'll go find a quiet corner so we can chat and catch up.
I'll defer to jamalrob on that. I don't claim to know what I'm talking about.
8-)
Well, all roads in any conversation involving Hanover inevitably end up here, eh?
:D
Or to be more exact, here. :-O
Clitoris? A woman's orgasm?
What nonsense is this?
I must ask: how do you know? :P
As for the "what's in it for you" question, probably better sex, and more. Below is a song which explains the principle.
A "deep sea diver who's got a stroke that can't go wrong" will be in more demand than a jackrabbit that is there, then gone, in 45 seconds.
I have come to the realization that talk about sex and orgasms and such ought to be not so open around here. This is a sentiment I carry over from PF because after all kids might be philosophizing.
Thoughts?
That being said, if you're looking for sex on the web, and you came here, your Google skills suck.
Couldn't actually have "form-fitting" armor anyway, it would have more edges, and possibility of ripping you apart if damaged.
Socrates said it best, that the only way to live with honour in this world is to be the things that we pretend to be. Suffering is not caused by things not being as they should be, but by you not being as you should be. By the mismatch, the disharmony, the disengenuous, mechanical, calculated splits that you make between the internal, and external. It causes you to diverge, to go in opposite directions, to tear yourself apart.
They gave a shit about being good for its own sake. Not because they would gain, but rather risked everything in doing it.
This refers to self inflicted psychological suffering, but what of those whose pain arises from chronic, painful illness like cancer or true psychological illness, like schizophrenia?
I would complicate things and distinguish between primary sensuous emotions, and secondary aesthetic, or rational judgments.
The only way to deal with the first is of course to take care of yourself the best you can, and minimize physical pains, discomforts, and environmental circumstantial suffering. None of it ever goes completely away, and some get hit with either harder than others.
The psychological stuff never goes completely away either. The devil is contained within the void at the end, he's never truly destroyed.
Self-inflicted suffering, sort of. But what about people who are suffering at the hand of others for being what they should be, and are?
Oh, he did expect to gain something -- your salvation, Wosret. He wanted to save your sin-sick Canadian soul from eternal damnation and the fires of hell.
And he probably was fairly impressive. I don't think folks got raised from the dead (like Lazarus) every day, and water wasn't changed into wine at every wedding, either. He attracted unusually large crowds which the authorities apparently found nerve-wracking. Plus, he didn't stay dead once he died. That one is hard to top.
You might prefer the Hazel Mopes' Church Without Christ, "where the lame don't walk, the blind don't see, and the dead stay dead."§
§Flannery O'Conner, Wise Blood. Not my favorite piece -- her collection of short stories is much to be preferred. O'Conner was a very faithful Catholic. The characters in the novel are kind of freakish. She was once asked why there so many freaks in southern novels. She said, "Because southern writers can still recognize them."
Oh, I do realize that. It also applies to my thread as well. I don't intend to post about such matters anymore as it is really a laughable matter to worry over.
Anyway, thanks.
Denounce them hopefully. Rehumanize whose that are dehumanized, help those that are harmed, speak out. I think most importantly though, never make it about getting their oppressors, but about helping them.
Again, some people get served a better lot in this regard than others.
Helping and saving others usually isn;t considered "gain", but cost, if one isn't getting paid. That's why people don't do that kind of thing truly selflessly.
Not at first! I of course started out in the lowest class (such is my life), but then worked my way up! It was nearly impossible to do, and you'd never have the resources or connections of everyone else, and maybe run into another one that got there through real work one other time in your travels.
Now that I'm lord of the outhouse though, it's time to exact some vengeance on grown adults that upset me twenty years ago as children.
But, I've wallowed too long. And besides, I am well grounded. I work with plants and feed them and water them and they bring me joy.
One of my most romantic experiences in life was having a mandarin tree next to my desk in my room. I fed it, watered it, kept it warm, and when the buds blossomed it was the most wonderful scent that filled up my rather dank and dark room, which made me very happy and jubilant. Then I helped pollinate her, as no bees or other stuff would do it, so I used a cotton swab. The fruits were so sour and pleasant to the taste.
Sadly, she didn't bloom next year.
Planning to grow some herb with high levels of CBD in it for therapeutic effects and less psychoactivity. Rather chill to something healthy that's neuroprotective and anti-amyloid along with cancer preventative properties than alcohol or booze.
Gonna be a nice summer.
Well, typically, you don't get leaves that size unless it's some mutant plant. It's possible; but, only from some really heavy indicia or something.
CBD is neuroprotective, antianxiety, antidepressive, and antipsychotic. THC is just all 'fun'. Combine the two and you mellow out the psychoactivity of THC and enjoy a more functional and healthy experience. Also, CBD counters the typical short term memory loss along with long term memory retardation induced by THC.
You should read up on the effects of CBD over on Wiki.
I can't say that it would take away your short term memory loss. I mean, if you already smoke herb, then the CBD will counter the detrimental efffects of THC on memory loss.
If you're looking for a drug to help memory loss and such, you can read up on Bacopa monnieri or supplementing Acetylcholine levels along with some newer drugs like Modafinil, that are proven to enhance short-term memory. There's also piracetam if you've never heard of it before.
But, really. The sex threads need to calm down a little.
Ok, I'll shut up for now.
I'm too old for experimenting with chemicals, I'll let the kids do that (with care of course). Messing around with acetylcholine levels sounds really really scary, to me.
You know, anxiety is good, it keeps you on your toes. Why not focus on finding constructive ways of using it rather than suppressing it?
It's not that scary. I mean, homeostasis always wins in the end.
Anyway, I don't really suffer from anxiety. I would say I suffer from a lack of healthy stimulation and seek out artificial methods of providing it. Hence, I am prone to addictive habits. Work has helped me tremendously when I don't think about wanting to go home and lay in bed all day. It's pretty complex shit with the brain and I understand your concern. I would just suggest exercising more, no safer method of improving blood circulation and balancing out excessive cortisol levels and such.
Just joshin'. ;)
Kids have to learn about cunnilingus sometime. I'm more worried about them potentially learning about something truly gross, deviant, and immoral like panpsychism.
Plato would say they need to learn more mathematics and tangent lines along with sinusoidal and cosinusoidal waves, asymptotic behavior, convergence, divergence, groups and sets, along with Riemann sums.
Plato would say that they need to recollect such things. Those ideas must be already innate within them in some panpsychic way.
Yeah, someone called me "420 Jesus" the other day as a passive aggressive aside. I thought it was funny, and it's an obvious flaw that people can use to ignore me.
Yup, you see the world going to hell in a hand basket, but from where I'm sitting, I'm winning.
People were smaller back then...
The Buddha used to have this sweet yoga move where you sit half lotus, with the tailbone sitting on the other heel. Really releases the libidinal energies apparently.
Either one'll do. :D
Beep.
My thoughts are concerning whether a "lol" or an eye roll would be best suited in reply.
Thoughts?
I get called "Jesus" at work 'cause I have long brown hair and a beard.
I get called it because I go on long extensive moralizing diatribes, and cultural critiques. Also the weed...
Beep beep.
So do most men, at least doing it right. 8-)
On the surface this makes sense but that is not how I understand CBD's work in the case of protecting the brain against memory loss. To truly reap the benefits of CBD's on the body, it takes a % of THC, although very low 3% and under, almost to .5 THC, with CBD's in order for the body to react to the CBD's. Most people would not feel .5% THC but some might, no two bodies are the same but we all have a Endocannabinoid system. There is some evidence that shows that using Cannabis keeps down the inflammation throughout the body, as well as in the brain, that keeps plaque from forming such as in the case of Alzheimer's patients.
Unfortunately, we are early in the controlled studies here in the USA with our Veterans using Cannabis to treat PTS because this study suggests that not only can Cannabis be used in the treatment of PTS but it COULD keep the memory that caused the PTS from ever taking permanent hold of the mind.
Oh and get this.... apparently, you are not allowed to speak unless answering a question. So I think I got around that by starting out with what I wanted to say and ended with the answer to the question. It was a very long, run on sentence and no one objected so maybe I got away with it.
Oh and Hanover, before the judge is present, is it okay for the prosecuting attorney to be talking with his client, about another case in which there was a teenage fatality on a hot microphone? In the middle of his ego swaggering gossip session, I asked from the galley "What is the name of the girl that was killed in this fantastic accident you are going to prosecute?" He stopped mid sentence and I said "I asked what is her name? You do realize you are on a hot mic". Ooooo I was one Miffed Off Tiff....how dare he sensationalize the death of a teenager and what if I was her Aunt?
I am ready to take back every time I stood up for attorneys when everyone else was saying nasty, nasty things about them.
OMG I think I am in love with Gorsuch (L) (L) (L)
Wow.....my eyes are like stars gazing at him. And then....he speaks...like a male Angel sent from above (L)
I think I have my first Judge Crush O:)
God he is gorgeous!
As I understand it THC and CBD has a multitude of roles in PTS. THC wipes away your dreams if you smoke it before bed at night. Thus, no bad dreams and nightmares (I think the most often occurrence of when PTS strikes). CBD has a role too, it quiets down the amygdala (center of emotional processing) that is on the fritz in PTS. It's obviously more complicated than how I portray the matter; but, as far as I know most veterans self-medicate successfully with cannabis and reap some benefits from it in terms of PTS.
Absolutely.
My point was that there is an idea of Cannabis being introduced within the first 48 hours of a traumatic event and in doing so will keep that event and all the lasting effects of the PTS, from taking hold in the soldier's memory.
Which brings me to another disappointment within the US government. The Cannabis that they are sending out to the FEW that qualify under FEDERAL law to use Cannabis is being issued moldy and looks nothing like Cannabis and tests for under 3% THC.
Dr. Sue Sisley is a Doctor working in AZ and had been fired from UofA for the work she wanted to do since Cannabis is still illegal under Federal law. Since Universities accept Federal funding they cannot break that law. Anyway, long story short she is right where she belongs In Arizona and she is changing the lives of Veterans everyday. Truly an Angel that walks among us~
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
He's a Republican, so he must be a bad choice.
Not that you are generalizing or anything :P
It probably means they paid extra for the fringe. Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Maybe, or they thought you just wanted to talk so they let you and discounted your testimony to some degree because you were rambling on. I don't know really because I wasn't there.Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
The prosecutor's client is the State, so I'm not sure what that really means when you say he was talking to his client. But, yeah, he can talk about any public information he wants to, and much of what he said is probably available under an open records request anyway, and if not now, it will eventually be. The trial, whenever it might be, will be in a public forum as is required under the Constitution. That is, the government is required to operate in the sunshine.Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
The real complaint you have isn't in him violating any particular law, but it's in his being insensitive. Keep in mind, though, that despite his demeanor, he will be prosecuting whoever killed this teenager, so if you were his aunt, you might be concerned with his matter of fact attitude of dealing with a death, but you might be grateful he was prosecuting the person who killed her.
Well, he was asked if he'd rather fight 100 duck-sized horses or 1 horse-sized duck.
I can't think of a better thing to do after a traumatic event than to smoke a big fat joint.
Yes you are absolutely correct in identifying what my real complaint was and still is. >:o
And that was asked by the great Senator, Jeff Flake, from the state of Arizona.
And to think that it may be a way of protecting yourself against a lifetime PTSD? That would be amazing.
Why in the hell is PTS called PTSD?
I suppose to distinguish it from post-traumatic stress that isn't long-term or serious enough to be considered a medical condition.
Why would medical conditions be called "disorders" as if to stigmatise the issue?
Maybe it does, but I don't think that's the intention. I presume it's more about accurate description. A medical condition that affects you over time can be distinguished as either physical (a disease) or mental (a disorder), right?
Why would the word "disorder" stigmatise the issue? It's an apt description; disorders are disruptions in the ordinary function of things, and a mental disorder is a disruption in the ordinary function of one's mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity
"Challenging pervasive social norms and stigmas, it frames autism, ADHD/ADD, dyslexia, bipolarity and other neurotypes as a natural human variation rather than a pathology or disorder, and rejects the idea that neurological differences need to be (or can be) cured, as they believe them to be authentic forms of human diversity, self-expression, and being."
I call bullshit on that. Bipolar is most definitely something that needs to be treated.
Again, the language is not perfect, but I would prefer that it be available than not. Like alot of language, it's a tool: useful along some dimensions, not so much along others.
I agree, the fact that people get therapy and take medication for these sorts of psychological issues seems to me to be evidence of their underlying problematic nature, even if they do allow for greater expression and creativity.
This is the crux. How can a standard be established in the realm of psychology? That would seem contradictory to the goal of the profession itself.
Also, what Street said.
Uh-oh. Searle's been naughty boy....
Well, accused of being a naughty boy...on buzzfeed. Hope it's not true. I've listened to a lot of his lectures. I like his clear common sense approach.
Well the buzzfeed article had the lawsuit documentation on there. But there are some more links:
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/03/23/berkeley-renowned-philosopher-john-searle-accused-of-sexual-assault-and-harassment-by-former-cal-aide/
http://www.dailycal.org/2017/03/23/renowned-uc-berkeley-philosophy-professor-emeritus-accused-sex-assault/
I don't know, I always found his philosophy mediocre. The last time I heard from him, it was from an interview, and what he said throughout was not impressive, if I were to be euphemistic.
http://www.newphilosopher.com/articles/john-searle-it-upsets-me-when-i-read-the-nonsense-written-by-my-contemporaries/
"Aside from your own work, are there any books concerning philosophy of mind that you can recommend?
John Searle: I don’t think any of them are any good really. Wittgenstein is always an inspiration to read and mostly because it is a dialogue, you’re having an argument with him. But I have not found philosophers of mind who say what I think needs to be said. That’s why I write so many books about it. You’d think I could write one book and that would be enough, but now I’ve written several books about the mind and no doubt it will keep going because there are just so many mistaken views that are still out there."
He does tend to be overly dismissive of those who disagree with him. And I doubt he has that many fans around here. A lot of his work is more or less Austin plus refinements. But I like some of his positions and elucidations. If he's guilty, I'll be disappointed if not exactly shocked.
(And, yes, you're right, the fact it's on buzzfeed doesn't really matter in this context.)
Only to the extent that appreciation is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of emotion - to do a Shakespearean reversal. But no, it wouldn't cause me to reevaluate his philosophical positions or anything.
It looks pretty bad for Searle. He has been arrested and put in solitary confinement. His lawyer complained that she's only been allowed to communicate with him through exchanging cards with Chinese characters printed on them.
Lol :D
Once when I was working at a desk in the Dance Department an older dance teacher arranged his balls and dick on the edge of the desk for my benefit (he had tights on -- normal attire when teaching dance). There was nothing breathtaking about his equipment. Was I harassed? (I was slightly surprised by the gesture (and moderately amused) but I would have appreciated it more if it had been somebody with more impressive endowment.)
You said that exact thing about Israel already.
There's no place like great smelling home. Not enough info on the peaceful planet, it could still suck there.
And a forum to pontificate in.
But bread - Make bread, make love, every day.
Then I would prefer to call it an acquired smell.
I think that's gross and I'd prefer to live as a skeptic, accepting the fact that I never really know these things.
Though Hanover has yet to achieve a monopoly on this questionable quality, he is close to cornering the market, and your apparently sincere disgust will probably do naught but add extra liquidity to the foul goo that oozes through his lizard brain.
What a peeve. I came!
Forgot the exact wording but it was something like for one case it's a delusion, two, a conspiracy, three, a religion.
Quoting Hanover
I think most people would rightfully object to a mental hospital admitting as a patient a newborn baby.
Looks like he was dieting at the time.
True, but my understanding is that he was treated poorly last time he came to town as well.
You're assuming he didn't later do a spectacular fly-past.
He was plumper on the earlier coins in the series and thinner on the later ones. There were no automated coin press machines at the time; and Gautama had to stand still for the whole time it took the artist to engrave all the coins.
Ich Bin Ein Berliner
Poor guy.
http://www.11alive.com/news/massive-fire-burning-under-i-85-in-atlanta/426986746
That's a traditional Polish p?czki.
No Shitski
They're pretty tasty.
https://fauxphilnews.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/kripke-resigns-after-allegations-of-academic-fraud/
"At this point, an argument broke out between this reporter and Williamson as to whether inconsistency constitutes a red flag or whether being a red flag supervenes on inconsistency without being constituted by it, and it was clear that the interview was over."
X-)
The Atlanta roadway that caught on fire was apparently caused by crackheads doing what crackheads do. BTW the "Cash me outside" girl, 13 year old Danielle Bregoli was charged with assault (at one of my favorite pizza parlors :-# ) on 3/22...keeping up her image. She has already been in a few advertisements, has 8.3 million Instagram followers, estimated net worth is currently over $150,000 and she plans to be a millionaire by next year.
Living the dream, each in their own way.
But, utility has to be maximized!
You mean in the coming nuclear war between the US and Russia? Hope not.
Good luck, I'm in China and I can't even get Sichuan McNugget sauce.
This is all they have. :(
It has to be the one time promotional Mulan Szechuan McNugget sauce.
So while Rick may have to wait 9 seasons, hopefully I won't! Growl growl.
That would be pretty math, but I don't know his email unfortunately.
...oh, wait...
So now the question becomes: If I am a third generation Alzheimer's daughter: meaning my Great Grandmother (Maternal side) had early onset of Alz, my Grandmother (Maternal side) had early onset Alz, and my Great Aunt (Maternal side) was diagnosed with late onset of Alz. My Mom is clear at 74 but she is still nervous as my Great Aunt was 80 before she started to fall victim to it.
What do I do? Do I get the test? What are the chances that this information will be banked for future insurance qualifications?
But the question I am struggling with the most is: what do I do if I am tested and it comes back positive for Alz? There is no way to unknow the knowledge I would gain if tested, yet there is no treatment or cure, so what good would come of knowing?
Pondering.....thoughts?
Or a Viking boat headed for the mouth of the Seine where all hell is going to break loose once you and your insane Viking buddies arrive (you'll eventually be made the Duke of Normandy, so it's going to work out in the end.) But the sneezing guy is just a poor viking who inhaled too much of whatever psychedelic weed the Vikings used.
Or a spaceship.
He's a cocaine-addled ex-Goldman Sachs exec who, having spent his working life vacuuming money from the pension funds of poor grandmas, has been cursed by the Karma fairy with a permanent nose flu and has come to hide out in your building in waiting on an operation with a Harley Street plastic surgeon on who he'll expend some of his ill-gotten hoard on a replacement nose made of solid gold. Unbeknownst to him said plastic surgeon is a progressive hero whose grandma, thanks to the likes of our villain, now lives in a cardboard box on the New Jersey Turnpike, and he plans to replace the dastardly execs nose not with a gold replica but with a carrot and then put a hat on him and place him standing up still anesthetized in an Icelandic garden with a T-shirt reading "I am frosty the con man, please stone me".
Why would that get deleted?
It's there. In Feedback.
Thanks!
He might be using snuff--that used to be quite popular. People snorted it for the pleasure of the brief nicotine high and the exaggerated sneeze (nasal masturbation).
Quoting Sapientia
If he's allergic to air, you could solve his problem by introducing a pipe into the floor of his apartment (through your ceiling) and attach the pipe to a vacuum pump. By exhausting the air from his apartment, he and you would both be relieved of his air-allergy. Be sure to get rid of the equipment after the sneezing stops, and do an extra good job of patching up the hole, so investigators won't find it.
Or, maybe it's you that is making him sneeze?
Once a guy who lived below me started playing an excruciating recording of a heart beat late at night. At first I thought there was something wrong with the plumbing, or something. It was driving me wild. Then I figured out it was a recording. I asked him about it; he said it helped him get to seep. Only years later did it occur to me that I was keeping him awake by making too much noise (I worked odd hours).
Poorly sound-proofed apartments (95% of them) prove Sartre's point that hell is other people
And yet even then the USA road fatality rate is more than three times worse than the UK. Or Sweden, which always wins in social democratic contests :)
Actually Google tells me that Brits can get naloxone alias Narcan from any prescribing chemists, without a prescription, which is a limited over-the-counter thing.
The birds were chirping this morning, and so I quieted them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQkntcq0jBI
Yes, an armed society is a polite society... ;)
That's because our roads and big and wide with all sorts of safety rails, so people drive crazy fast. When your roads are steep and winding and your only protection is an occasional wooden post with a reflector, you slow down in fear of death. It's the irony of making roads safer. People feel too safe for their own good.
Any Republican will take you socialism or rather nowadays social democracy makes people docile and lazy. Bad for that all-important GDP, 'ya nou?
Here's their latest trick: they claim to have shown you're more productive if you work less hours. What kind of an example is that to set to the rest of us?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/the-six-hour-work-day-increases-productivity-so-will-britain-and-america-adopt-one-sweden-a7066961.html
I'm aiming for a zero-hour work day.
Oh, but this is certainly due to only cultural differences, claims the supposedly 'absolutist' conservative.
God has a cold??
He needs to read this. (I believe there's a section on yoga).
You mean the the guy upstairs from the guy upstairs? I don't know. But I do know that the guy upstairs has a bad case of trumpet nose.
I remember when that book came out. I had a country mate who saw the title and dismissed it with "Real men eat what they bloody well like."
https://theconversation.com/snout-sniff-and-sneeze-the-language-of-the-nose-76043
[sub]Tania Lombrozo[/sub]
[sub]NPR[/sub]
[sub]Apr 2017[/sub]
What's female porn? And who's gay? I assume you mean gay men. If porn with females in, then yes, some do. If porn with [i]only[/I] females in, then no, probably not many who do so regularly. Why would they?
Wish I'd known that when I gave up lollipops. :(
Interesting, do you think homosexuals watch porn with heterosexuals for fun?
Do you think heterosexuals watch porn with homosexuals for fun?
Anyway forget what has been said.
However, what has been said cannot be unsaid.
He's good with China now too. He'll need all the friends he can get with North Korea and Russia breathing fire at him. Of course, who knows how much of that is just pantomime.
I can prove you wrong on that account.
Yes, but they're always wearing distressed moto-cross jeans and green tiger-print t-shirts.
Oh wait.. that's me.
I didn't even know people watched porn with other people. Whatever happened to solitary pleasures?
I can imagine why a gay guy would want to watch porn with females. Some gay guys do watch straight porn, however, for various and sundry (mostly devious) reasons. I resolutely refuse to elaborate.
You totally spoiled the fantasy.
I remember this pain from real small, like grade one maybe. No doubt that the herniated bowl problem I was born with was making me hunch over too much and I was using too much lower back, and not enough chest.
Been doing some physio, and got my chest opened up, there's like all these little knuckle dealies or something throughout the body, and you can work them free and move them. I can pull them into good alignment around my ribcage.
It's the outside of the foot muscle, and because I was like 100 lbs over weight all through my teens, I just leaned mainly into this group, meaning that my pinky knuckles, and Achilles tendons are huge.
Got it opened up though, just gotta balance it. Got my range of motion back as long as I keep the weight out of my back. Can't release my core, no big meals for awhile.
If Robert Downey Jr. can pull it off...
A hero o Pamela Anderson anyway.
I now have Dish Network.
Dish allows this magic they named Pandora that sings Bob Dylan and all who might resemble him like it reads my soul and sings to me. I would strike it dead for its sorcery but for the sound of the siren diverts me.
If I owned the house, I'd just keep on juggling around with their offers and calling up their manager. It's amazing the deals they cut you.
That's cause they're out to fuck you over. Game theory 101. Nice guys finish last.
I could get a few stations on the over the air antenna, but as you know, most of the over-the-air programming is low grade slop. Even PBS has gone stale by chronic under-funding.
Or won't cut you.
This is very true.
Be sure to use a VPN on non-HTTPS websites. Never know who's snooping on ya. Personally, on my private home internet, I don't even if some ISP is selling my info. But, on a public network, hmm.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Google has their own phone service now. I used to use Republic Wireless. They're the cheapest in town and pretty good since they started.
My new phone doesn't have an FM radio... I'd have to use data to use the radio...
Yeah... but you should try the radio, it's pretty good.
You really need to something about your roads.
Cyclist survived, but he is critical condition.
Get help from Keanu Reaves and Sandra Bullock.
Heterosexual sex will include someone of their own gender.
Didn't know that. How sad.
I've been reading about the French election again.
The frontrunners in the French election, Macron and Le Pen, are bad and worse, respectively (with Fillon between the two). Macron calls himself a centrist, but he seems pretty right-wing to me, with planned cuts to corporation tax, cuts to civil servant jobs, and cuts to public spending, as well as waving a big stick at benefit claimants, and what he calls "flexibility" in the jobs market, which seems to suggest he will be more on the side of companies than workers, and that workers rights and job security don't mean all that much to him. I really don't like this 'race to the bottom' approach in politics.
Despite the problems with Mélenchon (e.g. his support for Putin's war effort in Syria), I think that he has a better approach than the others, and I'm glad that he has recently had a surge in the polls, even if it is still unlikely that he'll get far.
What? Who does "their" refer to? You've confused me. I can see at least two different ways of interpreting that.
I doubt that that was the reason.
Sorry, was referring to porn. You said that homosexuals wouldn't watch heterosexual porn because they "get off on porn with someone of their own gender in it". I was just pointing out that heterosexual porn includes someone of their own gender in it.
:D
I didn't say that, I said the opposite, and that was precisely my point.
I'm confused. Question's question was "do you think homosexuals watch porn with heterosexuals for fun?" and your response was "No, I think that it's mainly because homosexuals get off on porn with someone of their own gender in it."
So you're saying that they wouldn't watch heterosexual porn because they get off on porn with someone of their own gender in it?
I was saying, no, I don't think that homosexuals watch porn with heterosexuals [i]for fun[/I], I think that they mainly do so because they get off on porn with someone of their own gender in it, and the rest was implied: since heterosexual porn has someone of their own gender in it, then they get off on it, and that's why they watch it.
Depends what he meant by "fun", I suppose.
Ah, I see. You were saying "no" to the for fun part. My mistake. Carry on.
She's channeling her inner Trump with this flip-flopping.
I can't look without paying. Here's a better link.
Oh dear. I fear that will not bode well for Labour, but you never know. If there's one thing we've learnt of late, it's that polls can get it wrong.
Me neither. Guess I got one free page view?
Quoting Sapientia
Yeah, I'm hoping for an "impossible" Lib Dem victory. I think a lot of people want to stay in the Single Market, and if they're the only party who are running on that platform then otherwise Labour/Conservative voters might vote the other way.
Pfft! The Lib Dems? Really? They seem to have become a single issue party, like UKIP, but the opposite. There are other, more important, issues. Tiny Tim recently made a statement indicating that his miniscule party would jump right back into bed with the Tories if need be. They were rightly punished in the last general election, and I hope that their recovery is slow.
Quoting Michael
Yes, a number of them most likely will. More fool them.
Like what? The only thing that really matters to me is the price of food, rent, and bills (and my wage, of course). I think staying in the Single Market is better on this front then being out of it.
Unless the Lib Dems intend to raise taxes a lot (enough to offset the expected lower price of things from being in the Single Market), then I don't know what the other parties will offer me that's better.
The NHS, Education, the police force, transport, cuts, cuts and more cuts. These things matter, even if you don't think that they really matter to you.
Labour would raise the legal minimum wage to £10 an hour, nationalise the railways, reverse cuts to corporation tax, give the NHS and our state schools the funding they desperately need, free university tuition, a greener and more equal economy, clamp down on tax dodging...
Gotta go get ready to see T. Rextasy.
Well, the minimum wage, railway, university tuition, and state school stuff isn't relevant to me.
And do the Lib Dems differ from Labour on any of those issues? I know at least that they don't want to nationalise the rail service.
Guess I'll just have to wait until the new Manifesto is out to get a proper picture.
So which party are you ... Whig?
K, but I thought his motto, last election was 'Tippecanoe and Hanover Too'
Yes. Whatever the Lib Dems say about tuition fees, you can't trust 'em.
No true Scotsman wears anything under their kilt.
I recall reading somewhere about a hypothetical mechanism that uses negative and positive mass to achieve faster than light travel.
Edit: Ah, misleading article. It's negative effective mass. The actual paper is here.
I recently watched Pls Like on the BBC iPlayer, and that kinda reflects how I feel about this sort of rubbish.
I got nine seconds in. Couldn't stand any more. Using impact strategies is fine when presenting anything but affectation does not sit well with philosophical topics.
And the pointless and irritating background music.
Agreed. They'd make a video like this instead:
Impact without affectation.
PhD thesis: The earth is flat (Gulf News, Apr 2017) by Nidhal Guessoum
The second was Facebook, but what was the third?
Choice of barber?
:D
What's your diagnosis of Trumpo? Interested in your input on the matter.
Thanks.
EDIT: Just hit triple 7's, must mean I am closer to Hanover than ever before in exaltation of the tongue.
Well speaking as a psychological philosopher, I'd say he is an emblem of the crisis of modernity, what we in the trade call a 'crashing bore'. The Simon Cowell of politics.
Cancer of the ego. Fatal. Possibly for all of us. Except for the hair, which will probably survive along with the cockroaches.
"Cheeto Jesus"
Helen Pluckrose
Areo Magazine
Mar 2017
There is always this sense of entitlement that merits special treatment as though they inherently deserve to be privileged. Social narcissism.
I have always like the idea of the fertile crescent, which is also somewhat Freudian I guess.
Depressing.
Mystifying.
Confounding.
Thought that I was fighting my huge pinkies, and that's why it was so hard to keep things in alignment. I also thought that I had damaged my right wrist boxing, and my right knee playing backet ball. Nope, I probably hurt myself both those times because I played too much video games!
My wrist and knee hurt frequently because I couldn't fully extent them, because my inside thumb tendon, between the thumb and index finger is hard as a rock, and wasn't moving at all. When I was able to rotate my elbow fully, I was able to put my right shoulder into joint, which makes it a hell of a lot easier to pull through to the left,
Like a little snake slithering all through you, this was the thing I needed to find. That tendon runs along the low chest, and bottom of shoulder blades, down the left side, and then around the low butt and pelvis and down the right leg -- and getting it down past the knee allows me to rotate it just a little more, which allows me to extend my caff on the inside fully, and no more bad knee!
Also put an inch on my arms in like two weeks. 15" now.
What I got from that is you play too many video games and you think you can magically grow bigger even though you are already fully grown, In other words, you play too many video games. :P
I figure probably "gamer's thumb" has something to do with it, as I did spend pretty much the entirety of my childhood doing that -- which is what came up when I look up my thumb symptoms, and the exercises it recommends are actually fantastic,
Particularly that wrist flexion one with your thumb in your fist. That one feels super effective.
As for growing, it's all about having and creating space for it. It just so happens that I found some unused space, I just have to keep it open.
Actually my cousin fairly reliably claims to have grown an inch in adulthood, so I'm not a complete skeptic on this. Gonna buy me a rack I reckon.
That holds. What also seems to hold though is that when it comes to politics, the bad guys always win.
I didn't mean that I grew in height, I meant my arms. Though I did once think that. I thought that I had grown to 6 foot a few years ago, because I used my older brother's measuring tape which was missing the first two inches, and then proceeded to make a fool of myself by telling people.
I told a friend of mine, and he disputed it immediately. He said he was 6'1, and I was no 6 foot, lol. I discovered the faulty measuring tape, and had to show him, so he would know that I'm an idiot, not full of shit.
Playing games makes your thumbs grow longer?
Dunno, but constant gaming when you don't do anything else ain't great for the thumb. I'm not implying that games are dangerous, just stretch and do other things than game.
Try tying a hockey stick too it while you're walking around at home!
Hitch-hikers have great thumbs.
Lol, I never saw the show, but I read the book series and watched the one movie.
I agree
Debunking Relativity
[sup]Exposing the Superstitions in Science[/sup]
Srinivasa Rao Gonuguntla
I wonder if Gonuguntla ever use GPS in his car.
:D
Great article, it explains just how bad relativity theory really is.
(Y)
Lots of stuff. Maybe "Shaking my head" is the one you want.
Lord of the Moon and the Lady of Dreams... sort of. Ur was a cult center for their worship and they were the primary divinities of southern Mesopotamia around 2500 BC.
Like, oh mah gawd!
Have you ever fell in love with Wittgenstein?
Do you ever dare to do things you daren't do? If I dare say something is nonsense, have I said it? The redundancy theory of dares maintains that a dare is simply a command, but dare we accept this?
Alles klar!
Don't be hating on the Germans, they're not infallible and too got duped into a situation without recourse.
My fingers are convulsing with joy.
What if I'm gay. Why would you assume I'm heterosexual? How conservative of you!
Why would you assume that he assumed that you're heterosexual? Maybe he assumed you were a woman.
I might have turned gay over the time?
What aspect of the homosexual agenda recruited you?
Quoting Question
There's no turning. You either are, or you are not. Let's hear it: RU?
That's what I figure as well.
Lol, that's great. I'ma share that one.
Thank you Baden, that makes sense in what I was reading. (Y)
The same thing a lady would do with them?
I fear I may have confused you. My comment was a subtle nod to the progressive view that gender isn't biological and so a self-proclaimed man might use convulsing fingers in the same manner that a proper Republican woman would – assuming that this proper Republican woman engages in such sinful behaviour.
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: crying
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
RIP Hubert Dreyfus: http://dailynous.com/2017/04/24/hubert-dreyfus-1930-2017/
I did that too. I didn't realize at the time I was just buying their stock. So, yes, paying a supplier for the pleasure of working for them. I'll trade the amusement for a world where I didn't bother :P
[NO EXPERIENCE (of bullshit)] > REQUIRED
Yes, whereas it should be the other way around. We should be unnerved that we spend so much time doing work we wouldn't pay to do.
Well, one wouldn't. Life ain't that sweet.
Anyway, I'm Chinese now. Yellow lives matter. I should go back and get that job and now no one will laugh at me.
Well, they weren't there to eat you... probably.
Well a Georgia Chinese Cracker might just appeal to a dump-ling house.
That does have a nice ring to it.
Samsung C3050 with an O2 pay as you go SIM. Top up £15 a month and you get 100 free minutes and 100 free texts.
(Y)
None of that fancy smart phone crap.
I was thinking of going back to Republic Wireless or GoogleFi, but phones cost an absurd amount nowadays. I'll give the free phone service a try and see how it goes. I just need to buy a compatible phone with that carrier and don't have much to spend.
Anyway, thanks for the tips.
Quine-ly stop that or at least make it more entertaining-ly.
Once I find a safe space, I'll go higher and see what lies over the rainbow.
Vodafone's Big Value Bundles are a better deal. A £10 Big Value Bundle gets you 150 minutes, unlimited texts, and 500mb of data for one month.
They're tax avoiding scum, but they have a better deal.
500mb of data? Sounds like smart phone nonsense. Pass.
Lol! Nice pic bro' (Y)
The safe place won't have any LSD.
Does look way different.
That one must have been taken a few weeks before your avatar.
Alas, poor Noam...
I don't know. I don't remember much of what any of you look like. I think @Michael has blonde hair and you have freakishly long arms. That's about it really.
Here's me from a few years ago:
Nah, those lads were on PCP. I'm not into PCP.
If you look hard enough.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuAvRCSWu8I[/video]
What do you think about me? I've aged a little.
I like to smile to myself a lot.
Perhaps senile dementia is creeping up; but, it's not as bad as a heart attack.
I just love posting about philosophy:
You're an Oompah Loompah??
Ok, here's what the doctor ordered:
This is brilliant. I'm a big fan. Keep up the good work. (Y)
Wow that is a flash from the past! 8-)
Seeing as I have a fairly good memory about guys, personality and looks, especially Fire Fighters and Lawyers, I can tell you that we have one classy, sexy, set of male "thinkers" here at TPF.
As far as females? I only know of one other lady here ;)
There's a very unclassy photo of me, too. Had it up on the old PF but uploaded images seem to be broken so can't get it for you.
Yes there was and I remember it well. 8-) I do believe you were wearing black nail lacquer on your fingers. Is that the picture you are speaking of?
I am quite sure about the ladies 8-)
Mhmm ;) My photographic memory rocks and verbal disagreements from decades ago can be ACCURATELY regurgitated as requested or needed. 8-)
I can be a LONG day in an argument. :-}
I do choose to be both and that my friend is what is commonly known as "her perogative" O:)
I just have to say that you, Pneumenon, have a gift in how you approach a topic that is so classy it is a pleasure to read you~
Oh, the irony.
When will they just admit that it clearly isn't safe for every Tom, Dick, and Dirty Harry to be carrying a gun?
This thought occurred to me today for various reasons. Wonder if I'm right...
Yep.
Yes, I sleep on my back and Michael sleeps by my side. Sometimes Hanover lies in between the two of us.
Baden stands in the corner and stares at us intently with jealously in his eyes and anguish in his heart.
I was too tentative to give the whole vision, but I see that it was accurate in every detail!
"Other than the victim, it's a victimless crime!"
If your drug habit is responsible for these pics, please stop. Actually, please stop anyway. None of this is good for any of us especially you.
[Social responsibilty requirement fulfilled.]
Thought you said something about LSD before. Who's Harold and why is he worth the MB?
What's in my hand though? :-x
Actually, I've discussed this previously. We lie packed in a circle so that all our noses touch as we sleep. I like to be on top, nuzzling in. We all agree beforehand not to touch lips because that would be gay.
As to the Netherlands, where I'm from, there have always been anti-immigration parties but back in the 80's and 90's we had a Dutch politician who claimed the Netherlands was full and he was ridiculed for it from left to right, conservative to liberal. There was already a slow shift taking place from 1996 onwards. Nowadays, two mainstream parties will say that and worse and we have Geert Wilders and two or three fringe parties with similar ideas. The spectrum with regard to social conservatism has certainly moved in the political arena, although I don't believe a similar shift really happened with Dutch people in general. I think many people with social conservative ideas weren't represented as politics was a relatively elitist occupation and the pent up frustration on a lot of subjects (not just immigration) has now galvanized in a lurch to social conservatism and even populism. Nowadays, I think they are being taken too seriously (e.g. are overrepresented in the debate simply because they yell a lot harder and more often).
We don't have large communities of illegal immigrants in the Netherlands. There are some but they are mostly immigrants who no longer have a right to stay (their refugee status wasn't granted) and the receiving country won't cooperate with the repatriation. Municipalities generally support these people with housing and food but jobs are impossible unless it's on the black market.
Of course. If it hadn't been, the US would be an Indian nation. The first group to come over after the original pilgrims were the Dutch, which explains some of the US's inherent problems.
As to the question of whether the Dutch during colonial times wore stupid hats, the answer is apparent:
You've been funnier.
Because I'm unable to wear the rest of the outfit.
Tough crowd.
What do people become supremacists? I mean, I don't really know of that many black supremacists or Asian supremacists or Indian supremacists or Hispanic supremacists or any other kind of supremacists apart from white supremacists.
I mean, yes, there are black gangs and Hispanic gangs, a lot of Hispanic gangs; but, their mentality doesn't seem motivated by a sense of supremacism over other races.
So, what's the phuqing deal with white supremacists? Was Nazism really that strong of a belief or does this go back further?
Hanover, any well educated and informed thoughts?
Duh.
Why do you ask such obvious questions?
Well, it's not obvious until it is said. Just that not everyone is willing to say it in public. It's taboo after all.
No, I'm asking for honesty. I also haven't gotten an answer to my previous question as to why such a sorry state of affairs arises in any homogenous or non-homogenous group.
But, we live in an egalitarian society. Clearly, it is morally wrong to discriminate against people of various ethnic origins from those of the indigenous group?
You should provide some sort of evidence for a claim like that. I'm not sure, just off hand, whether Hanover has, actually, been funnier. Maybe a poll?
The hats aren't that odd, and you'll note they are wearing sensible shoes.
What is the guy in the center of the picture looking at?
He's looking at the photographer.
Once in high school, I had a mouth full of water, and at an opportune time, I nonchalantly let it seep out of my mouth onto my shirt and onto the floor. That was funnier I'd say.
Quoting Bitter Crank
The shoes are sweet no doubt. Made for dancing, cutting the lawn, or making love to your wife. Yes, your wife. Go figure.
[
If some people were superior, it would make sense for them to be supremacist, wouldn't it?
Quoting Question
Well, how many black people do you know as well as you know white people? Just ask them where the black supremacists hang out. Go talk to them.
Quoting Question
Either white people are superior (hence supremacist) or you don't happen to know enough minority supremacists.
Quoting Question
Why do you think black gangs, hispanic gangs (a lot of hispanic gangs) are in any way significantly representative of black people or hispanics? I would imagine that superior blacks and hispanics (a lot of hispanics) have better things to do with their time than walk around spray painting walls and shooting each other.
Quoting Question
You misspelled "fucking". It's not that hard to spell. You may not be eligible for white supremacy.
White supremacy is much older than Naziism. Whites have been a superior group of people for a long time--ever since the Garden of Eden. Possibly before. Isn't God white?
I don't know... do we really live in an egalitarian society? Maybe that is not true.
Are you sure it is really morally wrong to discriminate against people? People discriminate for and against other people all the time and think hat they are being perfectly moral.
For instance, most people select their mating partners from among their own race and exclude others. Most people prefer to live among people more or less like themselves, and they go to considerable efforts to achieve homogeneous surroundings.
Symphony concert audiences are made up of mostly of whites. The performers are mostly white and asian. Aren't classical music buffs discriminating against blacks, hispanics, and native Americans? How many Hispanic orchestra conductors do you know, aside from Gustavo Dudamel (Venezuelan)?
Rastafari! But we smoke ganja with you whitey and everything be irie.
It doesn't seem that clear to me. We still have a disproportionate amount of blacks in prison over minor offenses. The list goes on in terms of representation of blacks in congress and the senate. Our history is rife with discrimination, which only those who were discriminated against bringing it up.
I don't recall any policies being implemented by republicans in regards to this despite Lincoln being the first president to recognize this issue or rather make it an issue worth resolving.
Why is that?
Why would they think they are superior?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Black supremacists? Never heard of any. Maybe the Black Panthers or Malcolm X to some degree? However, Martin Luther King is the mainstream, not Malcolm X nowadays.
Quoting Bitter Crank
False dichotomy. However, it could be that there are just more white supremacists than Asian and black's and Hispanics.
Quoting Bitter Crank
This doesn't make sense. It would be more fruitful to talk about the population of prison inmates if we are to talk about the ratio or percentage of which ethnicity to whichever ethnicity thinks they are superior over the other.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Please, do go on.
Well, prima facie we do live in an egalitarian society. It's only that we don't talk about that which is so clear to Hanover.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well, then what is said to be so 'clear' isn't really applied in practice. So, that would make it a kind of law that isn't enforced. And, here's the crux of the matter. How does one make such things as supremacism or racism or discrimination an immoral thing? I mean, we have come quite a way from slavery and such things; but, still, I would think our current President exploited such "clear" things to his bidding.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well, I assume you live in a city. Don't folks get along quite well there without such discrimination?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Why is that so? What are you trying to prove here?
Scalia and Thomas (arch conservative Justices) voted against the mandatory nature of federal sentencing guidelines. My home State (Georgia) has dramatically restructured and liberalized the criminal justice system and it is overwhelmingly Republican.
In short, you know nothing, other than to complain about racism, which I think we all agree is bad.
Naziism is a rare double "i" word. Skiing is another. Can you think of any more?
Wasnt that Civil Rights Act only filibustered by some few segregationist Democrats? Furthermore it seems to me that it was Kennedy and Johnson who actually supported pressed pushed and finally passed the bill. Obviously I might be wrong but those seem to be the facts. As far as I know almost every democrat was for the bill exempt the blue dogs of the south. Am I wrong?
Liberal Democrats were mostly from the northern states -- like John F. Kennedy (MA) or Hubert H. Humphrey (MN). Earthy Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson was from west Texas. Meanwhile, the Republican Party had a conservative wing (Barry Goldwater, AZ), and a liberal wing (Nelson Rockefeller, NY).
Over the course of the 1970s and 80s there was a major realignment.
The Republican Party largely lost its liberal wing; there are no Rockefeller Republicans at this point. Conservative Republicans (merely conservative to severely conservative) now dominate. As the old Democratic Party lost support in the South, the Republicans picked it up. Ronald Reagan's two terms covered this shift, to a large extent.
The Democrats in the South are now more liberal than they used to be (William Jefferson Clinton) and northern Democrats are maybe a bit less liberal than they used to be. Wisconsin's Republican governor Scott Walker has done things that were once unthinkable in a mainline liberal state. Wisconsin would not normally have voted Republican in the presidential election.
Johnson got the Civil Rights and Medicare bills through congress because he was, among other things, a congressional insider and knew the players and the system very well. Same for Hubert Humphrey, his VP. The Democratic leadership had to work very hard to get the bills passed.
Not all that much. Just that egalitarian ideals are honored more often in the breach than in the observance, and that while most of us whites wouldn't proclaim we are supremacists, we probably are. Do white people operate an oppressive apartheid regime over blacks? No, of course not. Apartheid is too cumbersome to manage. One can keep out the poor people you don't want to look at quite effectively, just be mandating large lot sizes and banning subsidized multifamily housing. Big lots make housing more expensive, and an absence of subsidized multifamily houses discourages low income people from moving in. Plus, northern whites have perfected ice-nice. We'll freeze you out nicely.
Quoting Question
Minneapolis was 90% white in 1950. It is now about 64% white, 19% black, 10% hispanic, 5% asian, and 2% American Indian. Minneapolis and St. Paul are both economically segregated: prosperous, stable neighborhoods tend to be about 80 to 90% white. Mixed neighborhoods tend to be poorer and have considerable churn. There is a very sharp (and persistent) divide in school performance between whites and all others. Blacks, hispanics, and asians perform poorly in schools, regardless of income, parental education, ratio of white to non-white students, the existence or absence of remedial programs, and so on.
The suburban rings around Minneapolis and St. Paul tend to be mostly to exclusively white.
There isn't a lot of conflict between whites and non-whites, partly because of unofficial segregation. There just isn't that much contact, and maybe not much desire for more contact.
Hispanics and whites seem to have more in-common culture, while many blacks seem to live in almost a different society altogether than whites, hispanics, and asians.
It seems I was right in general. Wikipedia helps. But, thank you for the juicy details.
Instead of wallowing in it, what has been done already that has helped this situation? And furthermore, what ought to be done in your opinion?
I find it repugnant that (at least) since the Bush administration (from when I can recall given my age group) not much has been done in this regard.
I was just around Santa Monica the other day, and last I recall I was there, there weren't SO many homeless people. Many talking to themselves, wandering aimlessly, smoking pot to self-medicate in some manner, etc.
Not only is it a huge drag on the economy to maintain such homeless when they really get in bad shape (through drugs or yeah... drugs and alcohol); but, also the image of a city.
I've always been conservatively leaning independent and as an aspiring economist, I have believed that market forces just grow the pie, and even the most downtrodden person benefits from such growth, but despite the rather good economic growth for the past twenty years the problem seems to have gotten worse. Which means I ought to be talking about policies put forth by the government that has been either ineffective, lacking in need or inefficient.
What do you, and for the matter, other members think ought to be done in this regard?
I can think of 54 more (although variants of skiing make up 5 of them).
Well, according to Wikipedia, the voting breakdown was:
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
Interesting. So what made the Republicans so warm hearted over such a thing and the Democrats acting like Republicans would today?
Must have been that they thought it would make them more money. Only explanation. ;)
Indeed, more people for positions would drive down wages. There's that enlightened self-interest in action again.
If you could step away from your "Republicans are racists" mantra, you might see that Democratic policies have been no better than Republican ones in alleviating poverty, discrimination, and other shortcomings. As Trump asked (and this statement was actually true), why are African Americans continuing to vote Democrat when those policies have done nothing to help them.
It's also the case that the polarization you see today hasn't always been the case. For that reason, if you look at this historically (which you have, with your citation to Lincoln), there have been plenty of Democrats who have been very conservative and plenty of Republicans who have been liberal. In the 1980s, a New Hampshire Republican would have been far more liberal than a Georgia Democrat..
As I see it, all this talk of injustice is really a waste of time. Go feed a hungry person instead of chastising those who don't feed the hungry. Yeah, I know. So Republican of me.
Market forces do not have an agenda; they are as likely to bring booms and expansion as busts and recession. Whether "the rising tide of a growing economy raises all boats" depends on other factors, like tax policy--something that definitely has an agenda.
World War II produced full employment and a fairly high rate of savings (war-time rationing limited buying opportunities; there were no cars produced during the war, and housing expansion wasn't a priority either). After the war there was 'pent up demand' for housing, autos, appliances, furnishings, and so on. The post-WWII boom lasted until the early 1970s. Since 1973 (give or take 15 minutes) inflation, relatively low rates of growth, structural changes in manufacturing (like automation and off-shoring of manufacturing) coupled with regressive tax policy has resulted in a severe maldistribution of wealth.
Most Americans have not benefitted greatly from the increases in wealth which have occurred over the last 45 years, and for less technically skilled workers or low skilled workers, (the bulk of the old-line manufacturing workforce) the share of wealth has decreased significantly. The share of wealth has also decreased for more skilled and those with college degrees. The groups that have gained a much greater share are professionals (lawyers, doctors, corporate managers, some technical specialties (silicon valley), and wealthy investors. The share of wealth flowing to that last group -- wealthy investors -- has been especially large.
So, to make a long story short, there isn't much allocated for the care of downtrodden, homeless folks camping around Santa Monica and everywhere else. Homelessness in an otherwise rich country is the result of policy, not accident. There are numerous social, economic, political, and taxation policies that have resulted in very, very, very rich people at the top and a growing army of destitute people at the bottom.
My old xylophone is my exxylophone. You'll note that the two Xs are distinctly pronouncable. The first sounds like "eks" and the second like "z."
If I were in charge of Exxon, I'd pronounce it Ex-zon. That'd make the second X relevant. In fact, I might just name my next cat Exxon and pronounce it that way. As I recall, Exxon's logo is a tiger, so it makes sense to have a cat named Exxon. I'll get two other cats, naming them Texaco and Standard Oil respectively.
Double q.
Consider this sentence however: "Yesterday the Iraqquake destroyed the final few buildings not otherwise destroyed in Operation Desert Storm."
Maybe I'll name my other cat Double Q.
Castlemaine.
The UK is alien-hostile in a different way that's hard to put your finger on. There was a deeply racist period in the 1960's when Enoch Powell, a Classicist and Tory, imagined 'rivers of blood' because of black and Asian immigration (it was a quote from the Aeneid). But the vote for out-and-out racists (their logo usually bedecked in a Union jack) was a tiny percentage for decades.
Something changed to my mind in 2004, when the EU substantially enlarged itself, and the UK didn't place any short-term limits on immigration, which most other EU countries did. Half a million Poles came in the next eight years, along with lesser numbers from the other accession states. The public mood changed. The British National Party (BNP) - previously a small group of tinpot racists - polled over a million votes in the 2009 EU election and got two members of the European Parliament (I recall it well because I was campaigning for a Green in Yorkshire who missed election by a narrow margin). The BNP has since imploded but its vote was inherited, and greatly enhanced, by UKIP, the UK Independence Party.
Alongside that, New Labour and the Cameron-led Tories began to seem, from a vantage point like mine in the old industrial heartlands of the north, not dissimilar in their attitudes - aggressively dealing with benefit claimants, for instance, lacking an industrial policy, hand in hand with bankers after the 2008 crisis, and investing heavily in London and the South East where tremendous infrastructure spending has taken place while we trundle along on third-hand trains. So Brexit (for which I voted) is also partly a reaction to alienation from the political elite, who haven't recovered their reputations since the scandal of MP's expenses came out in 2009.
Well, that's how I see it.
Sure, if you ignore a sizeable chunk of recent political history in the UK and France...
Does this guy not watch the news?
Well, it's just an opinion. But other people think it too...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/08/mervyn-king-mps-attitude-made-brexit-inevitable/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-calhoun/brexit-mutiny-elites_b_10690654.html
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/betraying-brexit-revolt-elites-people/#
http://time.com/4381313/brexit-vote-david-cameron-elites/
Neat.
Wosret, is your vomeronasal nerve bundle in good order?
Philosophers tend to have active vomeronasal organs, but rather than being plugged into the amygdala or hypothalamus, philosophers' vomeronasal nerves run right up to the pre-frontal cortex. This results in philosophers being hyper arouseable whenever they detect a poorly constructed argument, or an idea they disagree with. Indeed, deviant vomeronasal nerves are why ordinary healthy people become philosophers in the first place. People with normal vomeronasal nerves rarely show a sustained interest in philosophy.
The deviated vomeronasal nerve is what compels philosophers to sniff around a room and identify who holds views contrary to their own. Given the right scent, the philosopher (male or female) will either hump into ideological rut or fly into ideological rage. It makes for interesting cocktail parties.
Many philosophers have strong flehmen responses. Thinkers who keep jackasses may have observed this: It's a behavior in which a donkey, for instance, curls back its upper lip exposing its front teeth, inhales with the nostrils usually closed and then often holds this position for several seconds. It may be performed over a site or substance of particular interest to the animal or person (e.g. urine or faeces) or may be performed with the neck stretched and the head held high in the air. You've seen this quite often, no doubt -- academics walking around with their noses in the air.
Unfortunately the flehmen response is involuntary, so you sometimes find philosophers embarrassing themselves by this unsightly performance.
My left side is as proficient as most people's rights in dexterity, accuracy, and strength. Throwing, catching, writing. Though, I'm still right side dominant, I try to use my left side at least as often though.
Yes, it reverses in all kinds of weird ways at different points. I can tell someone's handedness as well by looking at their face. The ball of the cheek, if the right one is bigger then they're left side dominant, and vice versa.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Republican tax and public health policies now being rolled out will contribute greatly to that.
First time in the history of TPF that I actually lost my coffee during my morning read! :D
God that sounds like what Charles Keating did to my checks working at the Phoenician Resort in Arizona. Slimy creep >:O
In what way? Evidence over the last decade or so, and as recent as the last couple of years to the present day, has indicated increased nationalism and xenophobia in those two nations. Yet his comment seemed to be suggesting otherwise.
In Britain, there has been the rise of UKIP and the SNP, increased nationalism within the Conservative Party, immigration becoming a dominant and persistent theme in British politics, Brexit, and hate crime soaring in the aftermath of Brexit.
In France, there has been the related banning of the burqa and the burkini, the inevitable nationalist backlash against terrorist attacks, and, of course, the significant rise in popularity of Marine Le Pen of the National Front, who has made it to the final round of the French presidential election.
So no, given the above, not "other than" the UK and France...
[I]Including[/I] - and perhaps [i]especially[/I] or [I]to a greater extent[/I] - the UK and France.
Settle down? Don't patronise me. I'm just trying to make sense of his comments, as conveyed by you, and explaining why I believe the contrary to what he seemed to be suggesting to be the case.
You're not doing a very good job of clarifying his comments, hence they still make little sense to me. But then, perhaps you have little to work with.
He was explaining to me why being in the EU doesn't mean much to eastern europeans. I thought it would mean they could go work in Denmark or whatever. He said absolutely not. There was a time when they could go to Britain or France. And that very issue is probably why the British have started to become a little more nationalistic and anti-alien.
If you're interested, Americans actually aren't nationalistic in that exact same way. We don't really have anybody in whose face we can wave our flag. The dominance of the US is partly due to a sort of mythical identification with the British and partly just circumstances. Maybe some devotion to capitalism and democracy, but not exactly nationalism. I'm sure some folks would disagree.
Factually untrue. He could work in any other EU country.
Yet so many of you somehow manage to do so nevertheless, and with such characteristic ardour.
Your perception of us is bound to differ in some ways from our perception of ourselves. I was just explaining that nationalism requires some consciousness of other countries. That consciousness is not robust in the US. Partly just a geographic thing, I think.
Yet 46.1% of you voted to build a wall to stop those damn Mexicans from stealing your babies.
Nor without the Russians.
(Now where's that mic-drop emoji?)
The issue isn't xenophobia generally, it's fear of very specific immigrants, not all immigrants. And, it need not be labeled a phobia unless the fear is irrational.
If we can agree that there are certain characteristics of a good citizen in terms of work ethic, fidelity to certain ideals, attitudes towards others in the country, views regarding assimilation, and whatever, then it would make sense to be fearful of groups that don't share those values. So, for example, if the people of Suckothia believe that women are chattel and that Suckothia members are specially blessed by God to have certain rights, then, yeah, maybe we shouldn't let them pollute our place.
Since we don't live in Suckothia, but we live in liberal Western countries (yes, even the US fits that description), we get really uneasy when we discriminate on the basis of nationality because that usually triggers issues about race and religion, things we don't want to discriminate upon.
And let us not pretend that each of us doesn't practice their own form of residential discrimination. We choose very carefully where we live so that we live around those like us, who vote like us, and who act like us. A conservative white male doesn't just find himself living in the suburbs and a gay couple doesn't just find themselves intown. Whether it's flight (running away) or fight (building walls and passing laws), you're just as phobic if you insist upon living among those people you share values with.
My guess is it's a little of both. The most rational reason for the UK and France to reverse policy on being friendly to aliens is if their unemployment rates are high.
And of course the racists come out of the woodwork to pee in the pool. Wooden pool?
There's free movement of labour in the EU, you don't need a visa.
There's also free movement of capital, of course, which is another thing entirely. There's a good long article by James Meek in a recent London review of Books (here) about how Cadbury the choc firm closed down their operation in Somerdale in Bristol and moved it to Poland - aided in Poland by EU subsidies - and with lower wages in Poland - leaving a bunch of Brexit-voting angry ex-workers behind in the UK.
Americans usually don't accept the executive and congressional control being of the same party (for very long). It would be normal for Democrats to take control of the House. If they don't... that would be a little weird.
Steven Colbert
:D
Actually, very possible.
Someone in EU apparently provided full details of her fracas with Junker over dinner a few days ago in a German newspaper. She says EU is trying to affect the outcome of the electron, spinning it of course to the effect that the EU does not want her as head of state because she is likely to be a very tough in the Brexit negotiation process (vs. Corbyn). May spins this into a very familiar a nationalistic cause of a election process being interfered with by another nation.
Tusk today tells May to calm down, patronizing her. So yea, I could easily imagine a comment something to this effect.
It need not be about fear at all, actually (it often isn't), but rather about dislike of, or prejudice against, immigrants. It's more about the way the word is used than the composition of the word itself. So I wouldn't focus unduly on the suffix [I]-phobia[/I]. It's something of an exception to the rule.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, we can agree that there are certain characteristics of a good citizen in such terms, but the devil is in the details, and context matters. Tolerance is a particularly important factor in these kind of considerations.
Of course I, like most others, discriminate in certain ways, and am intolerant of certain things. But, basically, there's a right way and a wrong way to go about it. (The latter includes xenophobes).
Yep, she's playing the man and not the ball. That's the Tory plan of attack in a nutshell. Labour's policies have gone down well with the public, but unfortunately the Labour leader has not, and she intends to take advantage of the situation, and large swathes of the public will probably fall for it.
I, however, am most definitely with the underdog.
Today was actually the first time in my life that I have ever voted for Labour, and also the first time that I have voted in a local election.
Is this a quantum theory thing?
Yea, something like that. Politicians
As if you've ever played a sport with a ball and are qualified to use that analogy.
I'll have you know that a swift kick to the shin while completely disregarding the ball is often the best play.
I didn't see my mistake, tks.
Well done. You've just described alt-right Americans. So the Netherlands is entitled to ban all US citizens for these beliefs regardless of their actions. Good to know. :D
Shin kicking is a different sport. Like all good sports, it originated in England in the early 17th century.
According to this, only 1 sport was invented in England in the early 17th century:
Aunt Sally.
I could see @Hanover liking Aunt Sally.
Aunt Sally was much fun. It was a sport that my fellow Cavaliers and I came up with one time when we were bored. I would also watch the horse racing until Cromwell banned it along with Christmas and having fun in general.
I can't believe that this is (more-or-less) true. Today I learned.
Quoting Sapientia
I agree.
On an unrelated note, isn't Hanover's lady's name Sally?
The grand purposes and death defying feats of mutation were
same shit
different day
The balm of melancholy.
Don't look back. Don't know where it all comes from. That will only reward you with the balm of melancholy.
Everything Is Meaningless
1 The words of the Teacher,[a] son of David, king in Jerusalem:
2
“Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”
3
What do people gain from all their labors
at which they toil under the sun?
4
Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.
5
The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.
6
The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.
7
All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.
8
All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10
Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11
No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them.
Wisdom Is Meaningless
12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I applied my mind to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under the heavens. What a heavy burden God has laid on mankind! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
15
What is crooked cannot be straightened;
what is lacking cannot be counted.
16 I said to myself, “Look, I have increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.
18
For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.
Such was the attire of the adults, but the teens wore a guard over the right testicle, and the youth a full shield adorned with their family coat of arms. The women bore an obvious advantage, thus requiring no such shield, although if matched against a male, an ancient condom made of sheep lung was used to protect against a misstep. In traditional circles, you still might see them still in use, but modernity has brought about the advent of high tech carbon fiber ones. They are both aerodynamic and pleasing to the touch, but, to be sure, rather pricey. I myself own a rather handsome one, which offers a reassuringly audible "click" when put in place. I must let you try it.
But, should you read on, it's not all a tale of futility:
A Time for Everything
3 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
2
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
9 What do workers gain from their toil? 10 I have seen the burden God has laid on the human race. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet[a] no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.12 I know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live. 13 That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil—this is the gift of God. 14 I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that people will fear him.
I've heard it "same shit, different toilet".
On a related note, Google keeps getting better. Back in the '70s when I was teaching Catholic college students to improve their study habits, one of the courses some clients came from was Old Testament. In the text we came across this verse
Much later I remembered the text, and that it was from Jeremiah, but I couldn't remember the verse number. Of course I didn't want to go the trouble of reading the whole of Jeremiah to find one verse. Way too much trouble. Ever since Google arose from the silicon desert, I have been trying to locate the verse. Recently it popped up on yet another query.
12:5 (at least taken out of context) also speaks to the doom of man to sometimes fail, however valiantly.
Once I quoted it in a class, as a support for the idea that smoking cessation is probably not the most difficult thing people will ever attempt. One of the adults in the room (a devoted smoker) said "that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard." Sigh.
No need to be redundant.
What's with all the poetry here?
Now that you've got annoyed about them being annoyed, I suppose it's now their turn to be annoyed at you being annoyed at them being annoyed. Any takers?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/05/will-ukip-win-or-lose-votes-general-election-2017
But you only step in the same shit once.
[sup]Carole Cadwalladr
The Guardian
May 2017[/sup]
Hmm. What's going on?
As a young kid my Grands would take my brother and I for the summer to Paw Paw Lake in Kalamazoo, Michigan. And I remember the summer I figured out the meaning "Same shit, different day!" I even had a shirt that said it and I swore back then that I would get a gold charm made with the phrase on it. Never actually had it done but it was a kick to say it.
Though today? It would irk me to hear it because of my need to be optimistic. Optimistic almost to a fault, if that is possible.
The latest phrase that makes me uncomfortable is "It is what it is". OMG talk about lighting the spark on that deeply ingrained Chicago attitude fire! Those closest to me know it because, if I respect you, I will abruptly stop my side of the conversation and let you know that I just don't buy it and I am no way interested in such a "No change possible" attitude.
Hopeless romantic? Maybe
Desire for Utopia? Possibly
Allowing the ability for us to find a better way of looking at a no win situation? Likely.
It's very hard to distinguish what's going on. There is quite a big increase in reporting of hate crimes in the last year, see the Indy. But since there was believed to be a high incidence of previous under-reporting, does that mean there's really been an increase? I think the liberal commentariat need to calm down.
Yes. Civitas looked into it last year and concluded as follows.
[quote=Civitas]There was a rise in reported hate crime incidents in the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum. Precisely what this signified, however, is open to question. First, it should be noted that the vast majority of recorded hate crime incidents consist of verbal harassment rather than physical violence. Further to that, the police definition of a hate crime is one that is "perceived" by the victim to have been based on prejudice; this means that in the strictest sense the surge in reported incidents only represents a surge in perceived prejudice. This is an important caveat usually ignored in media coverage. Many crimes reported as being hate crimes, most notably including specific incidents that have been highlighted by the media in recent weeks, actually have little evidence to support them being classified as such. By the same token, there is usually little if anything to connect individual incidents with the EU referendum, even if there have been many more people reporting "hate crimes" since the vote.
It should also be noted that reported hate crime has been trending upwards for the last few years, long before the EU referendum campaign began. Does this reflect a widespread increase in intolerance towards certain minorities? Or does it reflect the rising profile of hate crime as a category of offence and the opportunity to report it via, for example, True Vision? It is difficult to say with any certainty but there is no objective barometer signalling rising intolerance. Similarly with the surge in reports in the aftermath of the referendum. It seems as likely that reports of hate crime were being fuelled by the perception of a rise of intolerance, which was in turn fuelled by police and media reports driven by that perception, in a vicious circle. [/quote]
http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/hatecrimethefactsbehindtheheadlines.pdf (PDF)
But the atmosphere these days is not conducive to honest debate. Notice how difficult it is to argue that the apparent surge in racism and xenophobia has been exaggerated without looking like a racist or xenophobe oneself.
No, that's not a sure thing by any means. There are other important factors to take into consideration. That expectation makes sense outside of the context of certain recent events. Their sharp decline is only a very recent occurrence, and that's largely because the Tories made them redundant in important respects, so the UKIP voters have swung to the Tories. Not because their sentiments have changed drastically - which they probably haven't - but because they feel that the Tories have a better chance of fulfilling those sentiments. They have a vastly better chance of obtaining the required power, i.e. a PM and more seats in parliament, and likely a decent sized majority. They trust May and think that she's sensible and competent ( or "strong and stable"), and they want her to [i]get on with[/I] the whole Brexit shebang which they voted for in the referendum. That in addition to losing their charismatic leader and all of the embarrassment and kerfuffle picked up by the media.
I think that there's quite a stark contrast between the Tories under Cameron and under May. The former was undermined and lost much credibility and potential appeal to the average UKIP voter when he came back from negotiations with the EU with what many people view as little-to-nothing and a big disappointment. It's different with May, a.k.a. "the submarine", and of course we've now triggered article 50.
And Nuttall pales in comparison to Farage in terms of charisma and appeal.
Yes, voters know a dead duck when they see one, and under Nuttall UKIP is quacking up (Hoho!).
jamalrob may be right about the hate crimes though. I never understood the logic there. "We won! Now let's go crack some heads!"...??
Well, obviously, when you put it like that it seems particularly absurd, but whatever the rationale, I wouldn't expect it to be reasonable. Like jamalrob's wording suggests, this is more a matter of sentiment than reason.
It would make sense to me, and would not come as much of a surprise, if hate crime has indeed increased, as the evidence seems to suggest (although I accept that there are grounds upon which this can be disputed), given that there has been an increased consciousness among the masses on things like immigration and national interests, with much of the focus on the former being negative, e.g. scare mongering and scape goating, and much of the focus on the latter being conveyed positively or with a sense of urgency and priority. This is bound to stir people up and affect them, and, in some cases and to some extent, count towards the motivation of people who turn to violence or some other form of abuse.
Brexit has undeniably been divisive, and the ring-wing media has undeniably inflamed matters in the kind of ways that I've outlined above. This is going to have consequences, and some of them will be detrimental, and so it shouldn't come as a surprise when we find out about them on the news.
Yes, but all of this was at its peak during the long campaign leading up to the vote. I would expect the immediate aftermath of the referendum to have been the beginning of a period of relative calm considering the xenophobes got what they wanted. It would be in the event that they hadn't that I would have expected some kind of backlash.
I've tried to just not think or care about it, and I've tried thinking about it in a cognitive dissonance kind of way (e.g. "I didn't really want the promotion anyway"), but it keeps playing on my mind and annoying me.
Maybe just distract myself with other things?
Lol, I just found this. I need someone like this:
The peak may have come and gone, but I think that this mood or state of mind among the national population will persist for quite some time. The triggers are still active, and people are receptive to them. Plus, winning may have just reinforced this kind of attitude.
Probably it was so for about 10-15% of the voters in favour of leave. That tends to be the average for most societies for those voters that let themselves be guided by their xenophobic sentiments when voting. And let's not forget the murder of Jo Cox ("Britain first!" he yelled as he stabbed and shot her). Brexit was (and is) for a serious amount of people very much about racism and immigration and it was for that reason that Britain First said to vote UKIP (which is weird since UKIP explicitly rejects ethno-nationalism and embraced civic-nationalism).
It's annoying, because Labour has also respected the result of the referendum, and has embraced it in a way which differs from that of the Tories - a way which appeals more to the interests of someone like me. It just so happens that Labour's stance throughout has corresponded very closely to my own, but if I had voted for Brexit, and that was my main concern, then I'd still vote Labour on that basis because I trust Labour more than the Tories to bring about a Brexit with the interests of the working class at the front and centre.
Jeremy Corbyn: 'May's plan is for bargain basement Brexit' - ITV News
It was about bananas and cucumbers. We vote for strong government because we feel powerless, and stable government because we are desperate for change. It's about the death throes of the working class. It is a mistake to try and rationalise irrationality. Why do turkeys vote for christmas? Because they've run out of sand to bury their heads in.
In my experience, festering resentment evaporates when you talk to the target of your resentment. It may not end in the result you want, but things don't feel as bad. In this case, maybe ask your boss "hey, what about me?!" or words to that effect.
We have a saying in our little company, which became necessary to bear in mind while living and working together for years: "don't harbour balls [of resentment]". I don't go along with the idea that one should always get everything out in the open, especially when the issue is traumatic and private, but with things like this, it works. Resentment is seductive, and you can almost revel in it, but boy does it feel good when you get over it.
With few exceptions, you vote for whatever or whoever business wants you to vote for. Feel free to use whatever phrasing makes that sound like a virtue though.
("We distrust government so let's vote for politicians who'll deregulate everything! Yeah!" Like the financial industry. Because that'll end well...)
For a long time I was resentful about this and similar behaviours, but I finally got my balls (of resentment) out and told him it pissed me off, and he said sorry, he didn't realize.
Actually though, he then carried on doing the same thing, until after three years we'd all had enough of each other and got our own apartments. But we stayed friends, which might not have been so easy to do if we'd had years of resentment building up.
EDIT: Seeing as I'm toying with writing a sitcom based on my life over the past few years, I wonder if it's better to start with something mundane in the first episode, like the Kikkoman soy sauce--to, you know, establish the characters--or to go for something spectacular like drunkenly making a massive bonfire and accidentally burning down the house you're meant to be looking after?
What business were you compelled to vote for?Quoting Baden
Let's vote for more government control because that'll end well.
If he'd have poured a cheap imitation into the Kikkoman bottle, you wouldn't have noticed the difference.
What would probably have happened in your hypothetical situation is that I'd have carried on using it for a few days without any difference registering, but at some point I'd have thought "this doesn't seem as good as it used to be" and would have put it down to slipping standards at the Kikkoman factory.
Yes, it's ending very well in counties like Australia, Holland, Canada etc who have robust economies, healthcare systems far better than the US (just ask Trump!) and were much less impacted by the '08 crisis, which you would not have had if you hadn't gutted financial regulations on the sayso of business lobbyists, a monumentally stupid idea conveniently packaged and sold under the mantra of "small government". And that should be a non-partisan point except the meme is just too hard for some to overcome.
Thanks for the advice. I am definitely not going to bring this up directly with the person in question. I have considered enquiring into it indirectly, through others in the know, but I am concerned that I won't like the answer.
Look out for me on the news. ;)
I was going to suggest that the guy who has his house burnt down should be the guy who keeps using up the other guy's soy sauce, and that it is later revealed that this was no accident, but an act of revenge by the guy with the soy sauce, and that, just as the other guy finds this out, he watches in dismay as, to add insult to injury, the guy with the soy sauce drives off in the other guys car.
But you shouldn't Kikkoman when he's down.
And that goes to you as the owner? I should be the owner. Then I'd shoyu whose boss.
I don't disagree with Jamalrob's advice, but I'd also suggest that sometimes you've got to move on, whether it means breaking up with someone, finding a new job, or getting a new roommate.
Stick with festering resentment; it's much more fun, and allows you to be a justified arsehole yourself.
I do. I think that it would be bad advice for me, but may be good advice for someone else in a similar situation. If it was a colleague, rather than the boss, then things would be quite different, and I wouldn't think of it as being so out of the question. I think that it would most likely make matters worse, with the costs outweighing the benefits. A direct confrontation would be one of the very last things that I would resort to. I am very determined to keep my job for a number of reasons, so it would have to get a lot worse for me to do anything too drastic or risky. I still enjoy my job, get on well with most people at work, and have finally been offered what is more or less a full-time contract, which is something that I've been after for a quite a long time now - ever since I started.
So, I am still thinking that I'll cope with it in my usual way of stoicism, distractions and cognitive dissonance, and then at some point I will have moved on and gotten over it or forgotten about it.
But I appreciate the advice.
I think even talking about it on here has helped, now that I think about it, and I don't feel annoyed about the whole thing right now as I'm thinking about it.
Oh, and by the way, to give you some background, it has only been about a year-and-a-half since I quit my last full-time job, pretty much on-the-spot and with immediate effect, for, to put it lightly, not seeing eye-to-eye with the store manager. So I have been down that road before, and not too long ago, and I want to avoid it happening again unless absolutely necessary.
:D
Stress is a killer, and it of course cannot be entirely vanquished, but try to minimize the sources of it in your life, and have creative, and physical outlets for relief. Even just a walk or something.
That's how I'd handle it anyway, probably.
I can't believe that [i]three[/I] of you have now advised me to directly confront them. Are you all crazy?! Lol.
You're making me realise just how much I'm averse to confrontation in the workplace. Which is kind of funny, because it has often been the exact opposite on here. It was also a bit different in my previous job, where I was (in effect) a supervisor and had more authority.
To the effigy bargain barn!
President Trump was just wanting to protect any future Presidential nominees from enduring what Mrs. Clinton had to. Now can you see how empathetic our President can be? :P
For reasons that are none of your God damn business (so butt the hell out), I once saw a therapist who pointed out very quickly that I was overly non-confrontational and that I'd benefit from being more direct over day to day matters. No shit.
It seems I have very uncompromising standards (whether good or bad) and as long as those aren't compromised, I'm generally able to tolerate anything, viewing every other dispute as petty. But once we hit some boundary, I'm unmovable, uncompromising, and dismissive of every objection. So sayeth the shrink. Sound familiar?
Can't go full speed unfortunately, as I'm not trained with punching, so both my hands can't take my full speed, and I can't throw the punch properly, because a few things have to happen first. Basically throwing a really good punch requires more range of motion than I normally employ when I'm playing around. It involves pretty much three important steps. Gotta close (or pull tightly together) your shoulder blades and sitting bones and then violently open them, as well as properly channeling the force of the strike to your grounding leg.
Because I haven't trained, I'm not yet super fast at doing this fluidly. I also require a lot more motion than like a professional does, they're super fast at it. I can't even ground properly without rolling over the knuckles of my toes like I'm going to push off for a step. All this increases my punching force by multiples, but, like I said, just have to work on speeding up the execution.
My kicks are already pretty devastating. My dad was telling me that they probably aren't blockable, don't aim for anyone's head. I can fairly easily, and quickly replicate a lot of kicks. I also don't think that people ground properly through the standing leg, and tend to come up on to the toes in order to get more height with the kicking leg, but doing that makes it so you can't close your hips properly, and drastically reduces follow through.
I have nothing else to offer than this book cover. My own experience is that being overlooked, underestimated, misjudged, discriminated against in every conceivable way through preferential treating being laid on others, while I get exclusion... goes with the territory.
Guns are no fun.
Your kicks feel like a gnat landed on my knee.
A big one though, right?
That's a joke, right?
Very. For me, I reckon it's a coping mechanism I developed as a result of my very dysfunctional upbringing, which involved constant provocations and confrontations which could very quickly escalate into full-blown out-of-control fights.
Quoting Sapientia
For me, I reckon it's an unwillingness to agree with falsehoods. I'm dogmatic in my acceptance of facts over fictions.
Doesn't virtually everyone think like that though? I bet even conspiracy nuts think like that. If I recall correctly, I've seen it myself quite recently in a video of an interview with Alex Jones. He was very insistent that he was speaking the truth and that "these are facts!".
Not Scottie Nell Hughes.
But aside from her, yes. Everybody thinks like that. The difference is that what they think are facts aren't facts but what I think are facts are facts.
But here's the problem: I am always right, and we have disagreed.
It's not a problem. You're just wrong. That's proven by the fact that I'm right and you disagree with me.
I disagree. (And since I am always right, you must be wrong).
Well, it would deal less with questions of fact than of preference or opinion. Let us suppose you are married (it's a hypothetical, so anything can happen) and you want a practical car that gets high gas mileage. Your lovely husband (remember, it's a hypothetical, anything can happen) wants a Bentley and insists he can afford it on his salary as a dock worker loading and unloading large packages for seamen. You realize the strain this will put on your finances, and you see no other way. Instead of considering his concerns and maybe allowing something between the Bentley and the mini coup (which seems very English, so that's why I chose it), you cross your arms and refuse to consider his concerns. You formed a boundary around financial security that you would not allow to be violated, even at the cost of alienating that handsome young thing lying next to you.
Better might be talking to him, holding his hand, validating his concerns, expressing your own, and then mutually climaxing to a reasonable conclusion. And by "climaxing," I mean ejaculating into his mouth, in case there were some confusion.
Of course not. Gentlemen never suggest such a thing!
Quoting Sapientia
They haven't; can't; don't; won't; aren't planning on it. You labor ceaselessly and heroically to bring light into darkness and the darkness flushes all your fine work down the toilet.
I think you've already made up your mind on your problem so it's probably safe to give you advice now, which is you've nothing to gain by opening up about your displeasure of getting passed over. If your superior really passed you over for nefarious or spurious reasons, he or she is unlikely to admit it. More likely they'll mark you as a troublemaker while making you feel like you're just a whiner. If they didn't pass you over they'll mark you as whiner and make you feel like you're a whiner. Consider it more evidence that life isn't fair, but don't let it turn you into a whiner.
(Alex Jones is playing a character so he doesn't believe his own "facts".)
Shut up and get older.
Of course, my opinion in this situation is the correct one, and your concerns (in this hypothetical, you're my husband) are foolish. And that's a fact.
Love is never foolish, and I'd resent the implication if I weren't generally apathetic.
Couldn't have said it better myself. (Actually, I could have, because I'm brilliant in every way imaginable).
Mongrel is barking redly and no-you-shut-up-and-get-olderly.
I disagree. (And how dare you treat my hypothetical great-aunt with such disrespect?)
Ours would only ever be a marriage of convenience;
You win the advice competition. I'll give that a nine out of ten. Almost perfect, but it was lacking in terms of mango-ness and monkey-offering-up-ness.
Existential comics is the closest I'm ever going to get.
Quoting darthbarracuda
I can't believe what I've been missing out on all this time. I have a new favourite website.
There was a movie called [I]Kill Castro[/i], in which the CIA appears to have hired the three stooges. The events that movie presents all really happened. It's nothing new.
It boggles the mind.
If I am not mistaken, Bill Kristol says Comey wants to testify but he wants to do it in an open session for the public. He said he can use a "skiff" if necessary for sensitive information. I believe in Comey's moral compass more than I do Trumps words so I really would like to hear what Comey has to say.
There's a phallic innuendo in there somewhere, I know it...
Speaks a lot about the party he's from, and well the population too, unfortunately.