Other than that they're social and intelligent, they're just like you.
I’ll admit it, it’s the loudness I like best.
Deleted UserOctober 25, 2025 at 04:49#10208200 likes
"Old Father's Quote #28. We argue over truth and knowledge and play politics with it. Sometimes we even kill for it. (2021-11-02)" [i]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/I]
My day is postponed until the cat decides to leave my chest. Could be minutes, could be hours.
Been there, done that. Lots of fun if there are two of them. :grin:
Deleted UserOctober 26, 2025 at 05:15#10209580 likes
"Old Father's Quote #29. The truth is not determined by democratic process - you can not vote it into being. (2021-11-24) How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence
javi2541997October 26, 2025 at 06:00#10209600 likes
I ate for breakfast something that probably only exists here. It is called Sobao, and it is cooked mostly in Cantabria. Because I care about all of you, I am sharing the recipe in case you want to try making it at home:
I have to say I've never heard that type of measurement before. What is a "zest"? Does it have a weight? Is it indescribable or otherwise varies from lemon to lemon and so warranted this new, haphazard form and term of measurement? If I'm out of sugar and just need a tiny bit to complete whatever it is I'm preparing, can I go to my neighbor and ask for "one zest's worth" of the stuff?
I will have to do more research on this.
javi2541997October 26, 2025 at 12:55#10209780 likes
Reply to Outlander Honestly, I had never heard of it either. I only eat sobaos in the morning, not cooking them!
However, reverso.net uses the following example: [i]Add the zest of one lemon and slices of lemon on top of the salmon.[/I]
So, I guess that the zest is the result of putting a lemon in a grater.
I often use lemon zest. Outlander seems to be quite unfamiliar with food.
I come from a simplistic background. Food is not guaranteed from one day to the next. Well, that's not entirely true in my current given circumstance. But I don't let such happenstance delude myself into thinking that's how the world is, has to be, or would be organically. It's called humility.
What piqued my interest was (though perhaps it was his unintended formatting) the idea of "1 zest of lemon", as if it was a predetermined or widely-established and formal measurement.
Otherwise, I just put a "squirt of lemon juice" either from an actual lemon or a commercially manufactured container of such. Though, lemon pepper seasoning (powdered) is pretty good as well in most instances.
I looked it up. Presumably that's just a grinding or shredding from the skin of one lemon. Now I know. I owe you both my thanks, I suppose.
I reverse seared brussels sprouts last night, speaking of food stuff. Start with the cut half down in oil with pan covered. Don’t need to add any water because there’s plenty in the sprouts already. Simply remove the cover for the last few minutes and add additional seasoning (lemon zest perhaps). Works like a charm.
It comes from the French word zeste, which originally meant the peel of a citrus fruit.
I was about to reply: "Thank you, Jamal. Your knowledge of entomology and language itself is not only legendary but worthy of being revered—nay, envied—by all." Though perhaps that's more of that "saying the same thing twice" I've been scolded about before.
Man, your avatar's have grown to become eerily (or perhaps bewilderingly) similar.
javi2541997October 26, 2025 at 13:27#10209910 likes
Reverse seared. Interesting! What does that offer as far as taste, texture, or perhaps even nutrition, or anything else? Is it just something fun to do or does it have measurable utility? Depends on the foodstuff, I would imagine?
Alas, my only greens these days are from bagged salads (which I never get to, seeing as they barely last 3 days), the lettuce in the sub sandwiches at the one local shop we have, and if I go into the nearest town to get a burger. I'm a bit of a meat and cheese man, myself.
I suppose I could just eat grass. Works for cows. Or, try those "nutrient powder mixes" that all have the word "green" in the name. Yes, perhaps I should do that.
As an aside. I would have quite enjoyed seeing a photo of your meal as prepared. Some of the staff here do that occasionally. And it's always a delight. Living vicariously, or perhaps a latent voyeur inclination I need to keep an eye on, but whatever it is. It's always fun to see what other people have going on. I understand, particularly for folks of advanced age or habit, the process is a bit burdensome, if not difficult. But if you're ever able to find the time to do so, it would certainly not go without appreciation. :smile:
In other news, I purchased a 5 gallon bucket of laundry detergent. Buying in bulk saves time and readies me for the end of times. I then needed to move it from that bucket to a 5 gallon container with a spigot so that I could then pour it into a quart sized container that could easily be poured into my washer.
My first idea was to buy a $10 battery operated pump that is propeller driven. It moved water very well, but it could not begin to pull detergent of such viscosity. I spent a good deal of time then learning about types of pumps and their viscosity tolerance.
I was to find out that a propeller driven pump would never work, but that a suction based pump would be needed. Some pumps required an air compressor to operate and others a 12 volt power source I'd have to purchase.
The time and money commitment was making me rethink my money saving buy in bulk strategy.
I then settled on a manual pump, which I show above. It worked very well, and it did require some strength (which I have an abundance of) to suck the detergent from one container to the other.
My thought is that one day there will be a water flood issue and everyone will be at a loss as to how to remove the water and I'll heroically arrive with my water pump, saving the day.
In the meantime, the pump hides itself on a garage shelf, just because it's easier to explain this episode to you guys than my wife. The 5 gallon bucket of detergent that sits prominently on the laundry room floor already took a bit of explaining.
Reply to Outlander I suppose I should have presented my problem here for ideas first, although I couldn't locate an Archimedes screw pump online now that I just checked. The only ones they had were educational ones.
I suppose I could carve the screw from a wax block, pack clay around the wax, put that in a kiln and drain out the melted wax, then pour molten steel into the emptied mold, cool it and then break away the hardened clay and thereby fashion my own screw, then create a cylinder with perfect clearances, and from that make my own pump.
Metaphysician UndercoverOctober 26, 2025 at 17:56#10210410 likes
The Archimedes screw is very common as the grain elevator.
The Archimedes screw is very common as the grain elevator.
Today I learned flour is combustible. Though I never considered using a loaf of bread as an improvised explosive before, it is no wonder the aristocrats strive to keep large quantities of bread from us peasants. We simply do not know any better and legally speaking could not be blamed for whatever we may cause as a result of being left to our own devices.
Today I learned flour is combustible. Though I never considered using a loaf of bread as an improvised explosive before, it is no wonder the aristocrats strive to keep large quantities of bread from us peasants. We simply do not know any better and legally speaking could not be blamed for whatever we may cause as a result of being left to our own devices.
Not just flour, whole grains in general. Silos and other facilities for storing grain require special protection to prevent dust explosions caused by flammable dust in poorly vented enclosed spaces.
We just opened two holes in an old bucket lid, a small one for a car tire valve and a larger one for the pipe where the paint comes out. All of the piping and fittings can be PVC.
we used to place the full bucket inside an empty bucket to reinforce it and wrap a cinch strap over the lid to hold it down. A small 12v. emergency car compressor (that you probably have in your car already) can de used to push the liquid out of the big container to the little one. Once you have the lid and connections made you can just put it onto any other bucket. The video gives you an idea how it works.
Reply to Sir2u That might have worked. The viscosity creates an issue. Paint isn't as thick. The pump you showed pumps .02 gallons per pump, but mine pumps out .125 (16 oz (a pint)) per pump. The detergent came with a small plastic pump, but that tired my pumping hand, and so my adventure began.
Imagine this. You're throwing a party, you've concocted a thick smoothie tequila surprise, you fill a (new) garbage container with it, you put my mega pump through the lid, and with one quick pump and you fill a red Dixie cup with a pint of it. That's bad ass. I mean the first 20 or 30 will taste like detergent, but after that, totally bad ass.
Metaphysician UndercoverOctober 26, 2025 at 20:26#10210680 likes
Oh yeah, my brother read about that when we were kids. And of course, we had to test it out. Boy does it ever blow! Sometimes I wonder how I ever managed to make it to adulthood.
In college, this guy filled a record album sleeve (old school vinyl album cover) with powder and put it under some guy's dorm door and then stomped on it, creating a heaven like effect in the room. We enjoyed the outcome and were prepared to share it with others, but someone told us it could combust and leave us all dead, creating a more literal heaven effect, so we chose other mischief.
Metaphysician UndercoverOctober 26, 2025 at 21:53#10210830 likes
That might have worked. The viscosity creates an issue. Paint isn't as thick. The pump you showed pumps .02 gallons per pump, but mine pumps out .125 (16 oz (a pint)) per pump. The detergent came with a small plastic pump, but that tired my pumping hand, and so my adventure began.
We used it for kind of heavy wait latex paint and even industrial ship grade paints without problems, even pushing it up 20 or so feet. You could also try putting the bucket on a shelf with a hose and valve directly to the washing machine.
Imagine this. You're throwing a party, you've concocted a thick smoothie tequila surprise, you fill a (new) garbage container with it, you put my mega pump through the lid, and with one quick pump and you fill a red Dixie cup with a pint of it. That's bad ass. I mean the first 20 or 30 will taste like detergent, but after that, totally bad ass.
Please remind me to always arrive late at your place for cocktails. :lol: :rofl:
You could also try putting the bucket on a shelf with a hose and valve directly to the washing machine.
Nice. Maybe hang it from the ceiling and dress it up like a disco ball.
I had a friend who rigged his wiper fluid hose back into the car so that he could serve himself drinks by pulling back the wiper control. Probably had the same issue with the first few drinks tasting like wiper fluid.
javi2541997October 27, 2025 at 17:22#10211710 likes
Reply to javi2541997 I filled up today and it was $2.72 per gallon. Convert that to whatever I'm looking at here.
As I recall, you guys sell it by the kiloliter, which is roughly a quart and then there's the euro to dollar thing. My guess is that our gas (as we call it) is cheaper than yours, but when I was Portugal, the prices for food and lodging was really low comparitvely.
javi2541997October 27, 2025 at 19:19#10211910 likes
Reply to Hanover Yeah. It is well known that the price of a gallon of fuel is cheaper in America than it is here.
I just wanted to put a random picture of my local gas station because I was waiting in my car without knowing what to do. :halo:
DifferentiatingEggOctober 27, 2025 at 19:58#10212040 likes
Phallusophy mostly be like "my dick is mine, but maybe it could be hers (and theirs!) too?" :cool:
Years in the planning, over in seconds, thanks to the vigilance of the mods, no damage done - their evil plan to abduct us all to... whatever it was... thwarted!
Deleted UserOctober 28, 2025 at 05:53#10213090 likes
"Old Father's Quote #30. Just like beauty, truth is in the eye of the beholder. (2022-11-24)" [i]How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence[/I]
Australians never have anything good to say about Bali! What I know about it is mainly through my interest in gamelan, although of course I'm aware of the presence of foreign hippies and pissheads.
I am now considering nasi goreng for breakfast, as I'm quite close to a restaurant that serves it.
Australians never have anything good to say about Bali!
I think that might be a misinterpretation... the things about which we never have anything good to say are very often the things we love most. That Celtic irony stuff is deeply ingrained. Gamelan is wonderful. We use it and Tibetan Bowls for relaxation.
think that might be a misinterpretation... the things about which we never have anything good to say are very often the things we love most. That Celtic irony stuff is deeply ingrained. Gamelan is wonderful.
If you have Hulu, watch Alien: Earth. It's pretty good, with androids, human-android hybrids, and synthetic bodies that have the consciousnesses of children downloaded. All done in that gen-z self-conscious nostalgia.
There's also an alien that is just an eyeball with legs who seeks to pull out the eye of a host and take over its brain.
There's also an alien that is just an eyeball with legs who seeks to pull out the eye of a host and take over its brain.
That seems difficult with just legs. Perhaps they're multi-functional. And thanks for spoiling the best part. It's obvious how it ends. All these movies end the same. Humans win. Totally unrealistic. But people like fancy graphics and colorful imagery coupled with rehashed plot lines that haven't been used in a few decades so it'll likely be top-rated.
javi2541997October 28, 2025 at 14:31#10213540 likes
Kierkegaard's reproach of Hegel was that he had the whole universe figured out, but he had put to the side the only thing one really knows: what it's like to be alive.
I emphatically disagree with your statement that the laws of nature have no existence!
Metaphysician UndercoverOctober 30, 2025 at 12:51#10218230 likes
Reply to Pieter R van Wyk
Where can i find these laws, so I can read, interpret, and decide whether or not to follow them? And if they have no morality or legal standing why would anything bother to read them, or follow them?
Deleted UserOctober 30, 2025 at 13:00#10218260 likes
Try any physics handbook, it should contain a few of these laws. It is not your decision to follow them or not - you are subject to them. Whether you like it or not.
They have as much existence as any philosophy - even more so.
Reply to Hanover
Agreed. I guess a natural follow up question would be to ask how that judgment is carried out. What was thrown off by one set gets to be a problem for another.
Try any physics handbook, it should contain a few of these laws. It is not your decision to follow them or not - you are subject to them. Whether you like it or not.
The laws of physics are descriptions concerning the interactions of inanimate objects. These descriptions do not apply to the freely willed acts of living beings. Therefore I am not subject to them. And when I use them to figure something out, they are subject to my actions, as my tools, not vise versa. I think you are a little confused on this matter Peter.
If you replace "theism" with "religion" it would work better, no?
But even then, beliefs, which are true or false, matter to a lot of religious people.
I think the more generic the better, which would suggest "belief" be substituted for "religion," and then theism just being a specific example of religion and belief.
The reason I think "theism" is more provocative in my quote is that it faces atheism more head on, but that's admittedly just rhetorical value, not substantive.
I don't know if what I've said is just a restatement of James's will to believe or if something is added by my form of life reference, suggesting the proof of a belief"s value might be tied to its public performance.
Or, I might just be articulating my own religious beliefs in secular terms unknowingly and thinking I've discovered something new. We all need internal justification for our beliefs. Might as well be self aware of it.
Deleted UserOctober 31, 2025 at 05:10#10220140 likes
I've seen much worse, so I'll have to agree with your father.
:up:
I am going to tell him right now because we were having a heated discussion. Everything started because my father skipped a gas station purposely. I told him it was our chance to clean it because there weren't many cars, and perhaps the rest of the gas stations are full.
But now we are more relaxed with your opinion and point. Thanks, Jamal!
javi2541997October 31, 2025 at 13:36#10220650 likes
Reply to javi2541997 When I was a kid, you'd drive up to the gas station and drive over this air hose and it would make a ding sound and a guy would run out to your car to pump your gas. You'd say (or my dad would because I was a kid) "fill er up with regular." Then he'd fill up your car with regular gas (as opposed to high octane or unleaded), check your oil, and clean your windows. The gas pump would also make a dinging sound as I recall.
Then they started adding self serve lanes. Then they eliminated the full service lanes. That was the beginning of the end. Now we talk to bots like they're people. It's very sad. At least you had a real life conversation with your dad today, even if it was a heated argument over whether you should clean your windscreen that should have been called a windshield.
javi2541997October 31, 2025 at 15:45#10220780 likes
I see why you feel nostalgic. Those times seemed to be beautiful, and you miss the human interaction which is likely forbidden in today's society. You have good memories of your dad but also of the filling station worker, and this is very gorgeous. We never had that kind of modern stuff where our cars made a dinging sound after they were filled up. However, I also miss the rumbling noise that the filling station used to make. Now, it appears that everything has lost its soul because we only focused on dehumanising everything.
The other day I was in a hardware shop because I wanted to make copies of my keys. The owner started to draw the shape with his hand. I almost started to cry because of his human ability. He didn't ask the AI or whatever.
The other day I was in a hardware shop because I wanted to make copies of my keys. The owner started to draw the shape with his hand. I almost started to cry because of his human ability. He didn't ask the AI or whatever.
I lost my key a long time ago and keep my garage door unlocked. It's been unlocked for years. Sometimes, like if a repair person needs to come over and I'm not in, I tell them they can just walk in, but they won't do it. They think they might get bitten by my dog or they'll get shot. It might be that an unlocked door is scarier than a locked one because they think either someone's home or that they're being set up.
So take my advice and just leave your door swinging in the wind.
When I was probably 6 or 7, I would walk up to the gas station and convenience store about a mile from my house and buy candy. My mom would watch me cross the street and I'd come home a while later. They don't let kids do that any more. They'd probably call the police if they saw little kids unattended. I don't know that's gotten less safe though really. We didn't wear seatbelts or wear bicycle helmets. We ate pure sugar cereal every morning. We left the house in the morning and returned when the street lights came on at night. I feel like I'm part of the last generation that cared enough about their kids to leave them alone to grow up.
I saw this documentary on TV of an African village that was provided running water, but everytime the system broke, they went back to their old way. They enjoyed the convenience, but they refused to become dependent on it. We get a phone that can track our every move and it immediately becomes and indespensible part of responsible parenting. There were commercials on TV when I was a kid that would say, "It's ten o'clock, do you know where your kids are?" And they would run them at different times. As in, there was a time when parents had to be reminded to round up their kids and get them home.
Good times.
unenlightenedOctober 31, 2025 at 17:26#10220890 likes
When I was a kid, you'd drive up to the gas station and drive over this air hose and it would make a ding sound and a guy would run out to your car to pump your gas. You'd say (or my dad would because I was a kid) "fill er up with regular." Then he'd fill up your car with regular gas (as opposed to high octane or unleaded), check your oil, and clean your windows. The gas pump would also make a dinging sound as I recall.
I was that guy, for nearly half a day. I actually got paid an unmemorable amount. ( It might have been ten shillings, which was nearly half a guinea!)
——————————————————————————————————————
"An aphorism in the shoutbox is worth two in the thunderbox."
This is the phenomenon known as "inflation".
You have been warmed.
————————————————
Two what?
javi2541997October 31, 2025 at 17:30#10220900 likes
We all have familiar memories. Since you shared one special memory with me, I am going to share another nostalgic memory:
Christmas dinner (In Spain, we celebrate Christmas at night I think I have already said this in The Shoutbox) has always been celebrated in my home. I watched a TV show or film (I can't remember) about human sacrifices. In my innocent mind, I had the confusing idea that Christmas would not be celebrated if I couldn't make a sacrifice. Then, I took a razor blade from my father's drawer. When I was in the shower, I started to cut myself (just in one finger). I cried, but alone because I didn't want anyone to know this.
When I returned to the hall, perfectly suited and combed but with red eyes because I was crying, my mother asked: 'What happened?' And then I replied, 'I am thrilled because the spirit of Christmas is saved!'
Reply to javi2541997On Passover, we would slaughter a lamb and pour its blood on the door so that Yahweh would pass over the homes of the Jews and only kill the Egyptian first born. You'd think he'd have known who was who, but given I don't lock my doors, he's was scared shitless just to walk in and have to wrestle Fred like the time he wrestled Jacob.
javi2541997October 31, 2025 at 18:07#10220970 likes
Why do you find it odd that I can move away from other things? Can't you?
Duh! Yes I can move. For this to happen I need to convert energy, because I am moving in a gravity field. Therefore still subject to the law of gravity. I can also pay Elon Musk a lot of fiat money to take me out of earths gravity field - this will require a lot of energy because we are all (YOU INCLUDED) subject to the law of conservation of mass and energy. Whether we like it or not.
Seems to me you skipped a few science classes in grade 6.
You asked what was my point in making the original statement - apparently to teach you that you are, in fact, subject to these laws, whether you like it or not.
Furthermore, you also stated that the laws of nature have no existence. This is odd indeed, since even you yourself is subject to them, yet you claim they have no existence.
You might ask yourself what other laws of nature exist, in fact, to which we all (YOU INCLUDED) are subject to - you might come to the understanding that the quest for wealth is due to the laws of nature, not the rules of man. This will be some real progress in your understanding.
Deleted UserNovember 01, 2025 at 05:43#10222010 likes
Your formulation is a common justification for denial of deserved protections.
Quite so, unless you, diametrically, disagree with the politics of the institution that grant such an entitlement. Then you will, most probably, maintain that the denial is justified. Again, mere politics.
unenlightenedNovember 01, 2025 at 09:26#10222140 likes
Yes please. Let's have less shoutbox, and more songbox.
Here's one from the afterlife, curtesy of The Grateful Dead —
[quote= Uncle John's Band]Well, the first days are the hardest days
Don't you worry anymore
'Cause when life looks like Easy Street
There is danger at your door
Think this through with me
Let me know your mind
Woah-oh, what I want to know
Is are you kind?[/quote]
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 01, 2025 at 13:16#10222340 likes
For this to happen I need to convert energy, because I am moving in a gravity field.
Read your physics handbook. The gravity field is not a law, it is a property of spacetime. This is the inversion brought about by the Einsteinian revolution. Gravity is no longer understood as a law, it is a property of the substrate.
Quite so, unless you, diametrically, disagree with the politics of the institution that grant such an entitlement. Then you will, most probably, maintain that the denial is justified. Again, mere politics.
Rights are not granted by institutions. Institutions are obligated to protect rights you already have.. Rights are an inherent part of being human. When one says they are entitled to rights, they are not saying the government is duty bound to do anything. They're saying the government is restrained from taking things from them.
As in, no one grants me the right to own property. They will violate the rights I already have if they steal from me.
The distinction is critical, dividing US ideology from much of Europe, imposing Lockean Enlightenment standards of natural rights into the the system.
This is where your conversation with @Metaphysician Undercover got confused. You said "the laws of nature have no morality," where you were referring to physics, not natural law morality, which says something different, but then it shifted to your entitlement comments, so it seems now both sorts of nature's laws are being discussed.
My criticism of your book is (1) it presents unprocessed theses statements as if crystallized wisdom, (2) your reference to your comments being "old father quotes" is pretentious, as if the comments are time honored bits of common sense being passed down, when really they're just bite sized meanderings of a guy peddling a book.
Deleted UserNovember 01, 2025 at 14:50#10222470 likes
Gravity is no longer understood as a law, it is a property of the substrate.
And you are part of the substrate of which gravity is a property - still subject to it. Your statement that the laws of nature have no existence has been refuted, thus, my original statement is making a valid and constructive point.
Deleted UserNovember 01, 2025 at 14:58#10222480 likes
Rights are not granted by institutions. Institutions are obligated to protect rights you already have.. Rights are an inherent part of being human. When one says they are entitled to rights, they are not saying the government is duty bound to do anything. They're saying the government is restrained from taking things from them.
Really! Who provided humans these rights? Was it provided by some God? Is it a result of our evolution from Homo Habilis to Homo sapiens? Or some other cosmological endowment?
Really! Who provided humans these rights? Was it provided by some God? Is it a result of our evolution from Homo Habilis to Homo sapiens? Or some other cosmological endowment?
Theistic (and deistic) bases exist as do secular ones. Human rights can exist without God and can transcend government. The question is of moral realism generally. Why would a nation be wrong to legalize rape if the nation decides what rights there are?
And you are part of the substrate of which gravity is a property - still subject to it.
No, objects are separate from the substrate, and the interactions of objects are sometimes described by laws. But the two are definitely very distinct and in many ways incommensurable. This is what creates quantum uncertainty, the gap between the substrate, described as fields, and the objects (particles) which are supposed to interact. Strictly speaking the particle is not a part of the field, that's why it must be assumed to take every possible path, and why people talk about a collapse of the wavefunction when the particle appears. Even though we talk about a wave/particle duality, the two can't really coexist. So one is not a part of the other.
javi2541997November 01, 2025 at 16:31#10222550 likes
I feel weird and melancholic because I just realised that it has been a while since @Shawn posted a picture of a pig. I know he comes and leaves sporadically, but the big question is when we are going to see another picture of a pig shared by him.
Quite so, unless you, diametrically, disagree with the politics of the institution that grant such an entitlement. Then you will, most probably, maintain that the denial is justified. Again, mere politics.
I would’ve thought more it was a question of morality.
[...]
Woah-oh, what I want to know
Is are you kind? — Uncle John's Band
Very nice!
A rarity, also kind'a dealing with spiritual themes, I found in a very early addition of Jack London's "Martin Eden" as a preface:
Let me live out my days in the heat of blood!
Let me lie drunken with the dreamer's wine!
Let me not see this soul-house built of mud,
Go toppling to the dust a vacant shrine!
You have not answered the question: Who provided humans these rights? Not some God, not some evolution, not a cosmological endowment, but some moral realism - thus humans themselves? Therefore it is decided by the politics we conduct - just get the right person in the White House then any person will be entitled to abortion on demand and to hell with the morality of it. Although, claiming this entitled human right in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be kind of a problem ...
Is politics conducted on what is morally right or wrong or is what is regarded as morally right or wrong decided by what is politically expedient? — Pieter R van Wyk
Neither.
Correct.
It is all governed by what is metaethically right and wrong. As we all know. Hence virtue and righteousness and all the rest. The problematics of it all is that, though we all know this, coming to actually know what in fact is metaethically right and wrong is in and of itself utterly immoral. Or so much of our current mores assert. Something to do with apples.
Forbidden Fruit:A God decrees prohibition of his own fruit’s flesh. The incomprehensible rationalization that you should resist obtaining that for which you’ve been preprogramed to seek.
Sitting with your back against tree, you now contemplate the forbidden knowledge that lies just within your reach—an unfolding of the spirit’s battles with temptations never before felt.
Afterward, there’s the glimpse caught of a tiny worm’s severed organs still swirling from within an eaten apple’s core: the digestion of nutritions tainted, and an ancient serpent’s dreams now traveling through a human’s newly reawoken soul. Former ignorance becomes tattooed with bitterness at wisdom’s arrival, and then the onset of dire needs to comprehend, to truly see, and to eat the flesh from the offerings of—at least—just one more apple.
Then, please enlighten me; by whom or under what authority can a decision be made that something is morally good or not?
As far as I’m concerned, that’s outside the scope of this discussion. All I did was point out that it was primarily a moral issue and not a political one, which is what you claimed. Maybe you would say that the issue is “merely moral.”
DO you think the ones in the White house are good?
It is not for me to give judgement on the people currently in the White House. I can confirm, in my opinion, that the current government in South Africa is fundamentally corrupt. The people of South Africa has two options to change that: by democratic vote or by a revolution. I believe it is the same in America. Personally I prefer the democratic vote way - it is normally conducted by less tears and bloodshed. Thus morally a better way, not so?
Deleted UserNovember 02, 2025 at 04:26#10224550 likes
As far as I’m concerned, that’s outside the scope of this discussion.
So be it then
Deleted UserNovember 02, 2025 at 04:29#10224560 likes
"The distribution of wealth is severely skewed - a few rich humans and a lot of poor ones. This is a result of the Laws of Nature, not a result of the Rules of Man." How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence
"The distribution of wealth is severely skewed - a few rich humans and a lot of poor ones. This is a result of the Laws of Nature, not a result of the Rules of Man."
What on earth do the Laws of Nature have to do with the man-made economics of a global pyramid scheme grounded in the supposition of infinite resources?
It is not for me to give judgement on the people currently in the White House.
A cop out. Who else is going to do it for you?
But you don't have to answer, because the answer you give is not really about them. It's about you. Folk who do think them good are moray bankrupt.
I haven't paid much attention to what you have been saying, but there are folk hereabouts who think that because we don't find moral truths lying around the place in the way we find physical truths, that there are no moral truths. You and I know better. If someone says that kicking the puppy for fun is a good thing to do, you and I know that they are wrong.
So back tot he issue that grabbed my attention. Folk have rights if you and I agree that they have rights and agree to enforce them.
javi2541997November 02, 2025 at 05:26#10224660 likes
A fable saddens you, thinking of all the people who couldn't board the ark, but relieved to know the horses, iguanas, frogs, and polar bears made it.
The saddest part though, which I actually learned in an Irish bar, was that a long time ago when the earth was green, there were more kinds of animals than you've ever seen. But, to make a long story short, the unicorn didn't get to board the ark. Now there are none, and its existence has been relegated to being used as an example of an entity without a referent.
Perhaps it might be considered beautiful if we no longer see death as something horrible.
It's an ancient piece of art hanging on the wall, subject to interpretation. I see the availability of a holy cleansing always present regardless of how impure things may be, but also a promise it will never happen again.
But maybe some see the undescribed drowning of babies, mothers treading water holding them high for one last breath, spinning, twisting dying last survivors, clawing and killing before they take their final plunge.
Whatever floats one"s boat. Pun intended.
javi2541997November 02, 2025 at 06:41#10224770 likes
The point is that you see it as the beginning of something, but Reply to Banno seems to see it as the end. Both interpretations are perfectly suitable. A drowning is something terrible, but I skipped important elements because I didn't know the theological meaning of Noah's Ark or whatever biblical narrative.
I think the flood actually happened in Mesopotamia. It was not a myth; the Tigris–Euphrates river system was flood-prone, and perhaps a big river avulsion happened, which influenced Moses when he wrote the Genesis.
But, to make a long story short, the unicorn didn't get to board the ark. Now there are none, and its existence has been relegated to being used as an example of an entity without a referent.
I read a fascinating novel last year about Noah's Ark: Not Wanted on the Voyage by Timothy Findley, in which Noah, friend and loyal servant of Yahweh, is an abusive authoritarian patriarch obsessed with following Yahweh's laws, to the exclusion of love and fairness within his family. One day Yahweh visits him to complain that humanity is showing him no respect and to cheer him up Noah shows him a magic trick in which a coin disappears in water. This gives Yahweh the idea to wipe everything out and start again with a big flood, and he instructs Noah to get busy building the ark. Noah dutifully agrees, and the drama plays out in exciting and disturbing fashion.
In this telling, Yaweh and his loyal patriarchs seem to be a tyrranical gang, jealously guarding their power and acting cruelly out of frustration at not getting the respect they think they deserve.
EDIT: To find out the shocking truth about the unicorn, you'll have to read it (the Wikipedia page skirts around it)
javi2541997November 02, 2025 at 07:48#10224840 likes
Reply to Jamal Fascinating and interesting, indeed. :up:
Noah shows him a magic trick in which a coin disappears in water. This gives Yahweh the idea to wipe everything out and start again with a big flood, and he instructs Noah to get busy building the ark.
I see a metaphor in this. Perhaps the trick of the coin means that the big flood was also a way to deceive the people. :chin:
Well, what a beautiful way to start November – discussing some narratives from Genesis.
What on earth do the Laws of Nature have to do with the man-made economics of a global pyramid scheme grounded in the supposition of infinite resources?
Not much I am afraid, this thing you are speaking of has much to do about the shuffling around of vast amounts of fiat money - which has almost nothing to do with wealth.
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 02, 2025 at 12:58#10225150 likes
Reply to Pieter R van Wyk
How is it consistent to argue that there are laws of nature, but no natural rights? Doesn't the very same principle of realism, which makes the laws of nature real for you, also make human rights real for you? Where do you draw the line between the two?
Deleted UserNovember 02, 2025 at 13:12#10225230 likes
But you don't have to answer, because the answer you give is not really about them. It's about you. Folk who do think them good are moray bankrupt.
I haven't paid much attention to what you have been saying, but there are folk hereabouts who think that because we don't find moral truths lying around the place in the way we find physical truths, that there are no moral truths. You and I know better. If someone says that kicking the puppy for fun is a good thing to do, you and I know that they are wrong.
So back tot he issue that grabbed my attention. Folk have rights if you and I agree that they have rights and agree to enforce them.
Not a cop out, no! Since I am not a US citizen, I have absolutely no influence on who sits in the White House. I do not think there are moral truths, definitely moral rights and wrongs - sure my mother taught me that to kick any other living being is wrong - accept in self defence. You and me seem to agree that kicking a puppy for fun is not a good thing to do but there are cultures in our world in which this is quite acceptable.
Also, I will never say that human rights does not exist - they surely do - you and me might agree on them but in order to enforce them we do need a government, a government that is put in place by "we the people". You might disagree with the laws that the government of the day enforces - that is your right to do so. You cannot disobey the laws that are in place - it is exactly these laws that keeps civilisation in place. You disobey them at your peril, unless you intend to start a revolution - but in my opinion that would be morally wrong.
Deleted UserNovember 02, 2025 at 13:32#10225330 likes
How is it consistent to argue that there are laws of nature, but no natural rights? Doesn't the very same principle of realism, which makes the laws of nature real for you, also make human rights real for you? Where do you draw the line between the two?
The Laws of Nature is time-invariant. What you call "natural rights", I have defined as Rules of Man and they are time-variant.
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 02, 2025 at 14:07#10225400 likes
Reply to Pieter R van Wyk
But that's just a matter of ruling out the possibility of time-invariant natural rights by means of definition, which would be begging the question.
My criticism though, is that it appears to be inconsistent to define the laws of nature as time-invariant, but natural rights as time-variant.
"Socrates asks whether the gods love the pious because it is the pious, or whether the pious is pious only because it is loved by the gods."
And then the clearer question from Leibniz:
"It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
Your suggestion that the "good ones" decide the good falls in line with both Plato and Leibniz because to have a good that can permeate one person and not another speaks to an independence of the good, not determined by its host., even if parasitic to the host and incapable of survival without it.
I also think your position is more aligned with a natural rights theory, inconsistent with @Pieter R van Wyk,s because he sees it as a nod to mysticism (as in what is a transcendent enity?). And I do think a mystical nod is necessary to avoid subjectivism and relativism (as in Trump is right because he has might).
Yours is the dilemma of protecting atheism while arguing absolutes. Mine is in protecting rationality while allowing the deux ex machina to solve dilemmas. Pieter's is in creating moral universals.
Since I am not a US citizen, I have absolutely no influence on who sits in the White House.
You were not asked to influence them. You were asked if what they were doing is right. You have an answer to that already.
Similarly, that if there are cultures in our world in which this is quite acceptable to kick puppies for fun then you and I agree what they are doing something they ought not.
No, Reply to Hanover not the Euthyphro. To say of something that it is good is to adopt an attitude towards it, not to discover a previously unnoticed property it has. There's no issue of whether it's good because of the attitude adopted or the attitude is adopted because it's good. It's being good and one's the attitude are the same.
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 02, 2025 at 21:10#10226240 likes
No, ?Hanover not the Euthyphro. To say of something that it is good is to adopt an attitude towards it, not to discover a previously unnoticed property it has. There's no issue of whether it's good because of the attitude adopted or the attitude is adopted because it's good. It's being good and one's the attitude are the same.
Would you make the same declaration about saying that something is green? That this is not to discover a property of the thing, but to adopt an attitude toward it? I don't see why anyone would say that one is an attitude, but not the other. But if you would, what makes one an attitude of the subject, and the other a property of the object?
As you said, we do. Not just the folk in the White House nor the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
I might be able to entitle some rights to my children, for the rest I can only play some politics. Perhaps you should explain to Trump, the King of Saudi and perhaps also Putin that they are exceeding the rights that you have entitled to them.
Deleted UserNovember 03, 2025 at 07:29#10227460 likes
"... if competition and innovation are driven by a reduced change in entropy, instead of an increase in (fiat money) profit, we just might be able to avert the looming environmental disaster," How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence
I might be able to entitle some rights to my children, for the rest I can only play some politics. Perhaps you should explain to Trump, the King of Saudi and perhaps also Putin that they are exceeding the rights that you have entitled to them.
Seems odd to suppose that only those with authority can decide on your rights. They might well deny you your rights; but if they can deny you your right then it follows that you have a right, the one being denied...
If Trump denies the right to due process to a suspected illegal immigrant, then it follows that they have that right. And yes, he would be exceeding the rights to which we have entitled him.
Political power operates within the framework of rights, not as their source.
Do you not take anti-realism to be assigning the good to social construction? But I don't mean to put words in your mouth. Why is the Trumpian expression of morality not consistent with what reality dictates to be the truth? If my phrasing "with what reality dictates to be the truth" is not of relevance to you, then you don't seem to be a moral realist.
Who provided humans these rights?
— Pieter R van Wyk
As you said, we do. Not just the folk in the White House nor the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
These express two different positions:
1. You say that good people determine morality and the bad people (the White House people) are excluded. How do you distinguish the good people from the bad people without already knowing the good from the bad.
2. You then say the good is determined by the global "we," not just the folk in the White House. That is, this seems to allow the White House a vote, but everyone gets a vote, not just the White House folks.
But I won't try to dissect this anymore and just ask you where you think morality comes from. Why can't I kick puppies for fun? Why is it so self-evident? How do I use this self-evidence for those moral quandaries that are not as clear?
Seems odd to suppose that only those with authority can decide on your rights. They might well deny you your rights; but if they can deny you your right then it follows that you have a right, the one being denied...
This is an agreement with Enlightenment principles adhered to closely by American conservatives, offering an argument for a limited government subservient to higher ideals. Maybe you're a federalist. Who'd have thunk.
What do you want, a world were puppy-kicking is a legitimate pastime, or one in which it leads to a reprobation?
Realism is the view that there are truths. Anti-realism, most coherently is the view that there are no truths. Now if it is true that one ought not kick puppies, then that is about what we ought do, and so is a moral truth. Hence, it is not anti-realism. Anti-realism tends to translate “truth” into verification, consensus, or usefulness, but truth is simpler than these, and is presumed by them anyway.
Further, what is good is not decided by a vote.
Morality comes from considering what you want in the light of recognising the needs of others.
Hence the "we".
You decide what you want, while interacting with others decides what is good.
One of the errors here is the naive moral solipsism that thinks of good as if it were independent of other people. Good is about what we want, and so evaluative; it is about what we do, and so normative; and it is about others, and so communal.
From what you have said, I gather you think that good is determined by god and tradition. As if good were commanded. Notice that that is your choice? It's about what you want to be the case, and what you think ought be the case. That's stuff about your deciding what is good. Why ought you be obedient?
What you think about kicking puppies for fun will be a large determinate of what we think about you.
You decide what you want, while interacting with others decides what is good.
That's pure subjectivism. If I get to decide and you get to decide then we're the definers of the good.
The problem is that plenty of bad people do decide. While puppies aren't kicked for fun these days, I remember the post on Descartes who cut up puppies thinking they felt no pain. There have also been societies that have held the victims of rape ought be murdered, have allowed humans to be traded as chattel, and have protected the rights of the elite to rape the underclass. If every single person in those societies but the victim said rape was morally acceptable, they'd all be wrong but the person being raped.
That is, it has nothing to do with what Hanover says. My say is irrelevant. If you wish to say something about the reasonable person, and you want to say I am that person, then I matter. But "reasonable" here is circular because I'm defined as the guy who knows right from wrong.
From what you have said, I gather you think that good is determined by god and tradition. As if good were commanded. Notice that that is your choice? It's about what you want to be the case, and what you think ought be the case. That's stuff about your deciding what is good. Why ought you be obedient?
I have the choice to be right or wrong, not to decide if I am right or wrong. If you claim we can create what is good and what is bad, you're a subjectivist. If you claim we can discover what is good and bad, you believe in absolute morality.
The path you've described leads anywhere is also the problem. If within me lies the omnipotent force of deciding the proper basis for why I should believe as I do, then I suppose I can decide that once I've decided, I will never decide otherwise. That's my moral decision. So, once I decide, I stand incorrigible. So, should I believe god told me I can't kill and so killing is wrong regardless of what anyone says, and should you tell me the 1,000 of reasons I'm wrong to rely on god, you waste your time, as I've slammed down the gavel and decided. The same holds true for the puppy kickers who insist upon its moral goodness. They have decided to kick. You have decided to tell them not to kick. Everyone is right in their own head. But in my head, you're both wrong. And while you tell me that is my subjective belief, I disagree because I've so decided. And don't get me wrong, I don't carry lingering self-awareness that maybe I'm not wrong. I am positive that I am right.
The problem is what happens when I say it's right to kick puppies?
That's pure subjectivism.... If you claim we can create what is good and what is bad, you're a subjectivist
Well, no, since it is very much about the other. That's what the comment about ethical solipsism fits. The bolded "we".
And sure, bad people do make decisions about what they do. Are they good decisions? Are you going to leave that to them?
Your say is fundamental, not irrelevant. But also, not the whole.
To see what is going on, you will have to leave behind the ethical solipsism, together with the idea that ethics is a fixed moral code handed to Moses. It's a negotiation between you and I. Which is much the same as everything else.
To see what is going on, you will have to leave behind the ethical solipsism, together with the idea that ethics is a fixed moral code handed to Moses. It's a negotiation between you and I. Which is much the same as everything else.
Reply to Banno My thoughts on this is that you seem to bevcollapsing the distinction between morality and law. We accept the latter is arrived at by social negotiation, whether highly formalized (as in legislatures) or limited sophistication (as in tribal leadership).
We typically think of morality as coming from an alternate source.
In Enlightenment societies, we draw a clear line between the church (morality) and state (law). We don't deny some laws are also moral, but we see the two as distinct.
When I asked whether a vote determines the good, you said it did not. You didn't want to defer to the majority for the rule, but instead to those who meant to do the best. This strikes me as still a political system, but it defers to the morally elite. If that's the case, we enter the world of philosopher kings for deciding the good.
In your collapse of the moral/legal distinction, you make the good determined by the hand of the elite, blurring any meaningful distinction between a theocracy and a secular state. In both, it's a small class that dictates the law, but also the moral because the two are the same.
So, my question is: what is the difference between law and morality other than the procedure that is used to get it to be made the norm?
My thoughts on this is that you seem to (be collapsing) the distinction between morality and law.
Not at all. But someone who sees morality as a set of rules might think that.
A church cannot function as the source of one's personal morals unless they intend them to do so. The responsibility for that choice, the acceptance of the moral guidance of the church, remains with the person concerned. It's what they want, or what they choose, ore what they consider themselves obligated by, or some other excuse.
In deciding what to do there's what one wants, which only takes oneself into consideration. Then there is what others also want, which is were ethics enters. Then there are the social institutions involved, which is where politics and Law enter.
But if morality is just a set of rules handed down from on high on a mountain, then the difference between it and law would indeed dissipate.
But if morality is just a set of rules handed down from on high on a mountain, then the difference between it and law would indeed dissipate.
No, if morality arises from something other than the morally elite properly weighing the varying goods of others, it maintains that distinction, namely that it is not a product of subjective time, place, or person.
The dissipation of the legal/moral distinction occurs under your interpretation because the distinction in methodology between the two is arbitrary. That is, it is unimportant how the human created rules arise - whether by informal agreement or legislative act, they are of the same import.
If the law is determined by considering the other, why does morality get priority over the law? If it is decided by you, me, and the 3 wise men that puppies shouldn't be kicked, why does our judgment prevail over an act of Congress?
Can the law be more moral then whatever it is we agree to after our deliberation?
Is there a final, correct answer to a moral dilemma? If we know puppies can't be kicked, why can't we list that in our Holy Set of Rules? Why must we reprocess our basis each time? Wouldn't it behoove us to write down all our truths this way for easier access, and we can just learn the rules without the rigamarole?
If the law is determined by considering the other, why does morality get priority over the law? If it is decided by you, me, and the 3 wise men that puppies shouldn't be kicked, why does our judgment prevail over an act of Congress?
I don't know. It's your theory. I am arguing morality is discovered, not created. But my questions remain:
Why can't a law be more moral than a moral decision we reach?
Why can't moral decisions be codified into a list?
Do moral determinations change over time?
If puppy kicking is determined moral on Monday but immoral on Tuesday, was it immoral on Monday but we were just wrong on Monday? How can we be wrong if we went through the proper deliberation process?
If we can be wrong about what's moral, doesn't that mean we don't decide what's moral but that we're searching for what it's moral?
This points up the incoherence of @Banno's ethics quite well (and it hints at Reply to Hare's). :up:
Banno is a moral realist only via fiat truths (i.e. he is a voluntarist, which is classically not moral realism in any thoroughgoing sense). He never defends why, say, it is immoral to kick puppies. Instead of answering the questions put to him, he tries to shift the attention onto religious accounts. Your point about the Euthyphro is apt given the way Banno grounds morality in "wants" (i.e. will).
Which is to mistake what is the case for what ought be the case.
Where do we find moral laws?
No, it's not. The naturalistic fallacy is to claim the world is X so it ought be X. I'm saying the morality which governs is Y, so if the world doesn't behave as Y, it's immoral. The world's being X doesn't determine Y.
Reply to Hanover Since you plainly haven't understood, I am trying to understand what I'm arguing against.
Go back to the origin of the conversation, the question of who decides human rights. The suggestion is that we decide human rights. You objected with the Euthyphro dilemma, asking which came first the right or the good folk who decide them; I pointed out that this was to misconstrue what was being said. You moved on to claiming I was an antirealist, I explained that there are moral truths and so antirealism is in error. You returned to the misconstrued piece, oddly suggesting this was an example of conservative 'mercantile dogma, and calling it subjective despite the central place played by community, both of which I refuted. Then you moved on to asking about the difference between morality and law, which I explained in terms of social institutions. You then started to talk about moral elites, a puzzling move which I have been probing.
Now you say, despite all of that, that I am not answering your question...
So, if rights are not the result of human interactions, as I suggest, but are "discovered", as you suggest... where do we discover them?
LeontiskosNovember 04, 2025 at 04:09#10229750 likes
What do you want, a world were puppy-kicking is a legitimate pastime, or one in which it leads to a reprobation?
Realism is the view that there are truths. Anti-realism, most coherently is the view that there are no truths. Now if it is true that one ought not kick puppies, then that is about what we ought do, and so is a moral truth. Hence, it is not anti-realism. Anti-realism tends to translate “truth” into verification, consensus, or usefulness, but truth is simpler than these, and is presumed by them anyway.
Further, what is good is not decided by a vote.
Morality comes from considering what you want in the light of recognising the needs of others.
So why is it a truth that one ought not kick puppies? Apparently because of something Banno wants in the light of some need that the puppy has. That's pretty thin in the first place, but it sure does seem to commit the so-called "naturalistic fallacy" (given that what Banno wants and what the puppy needs are "is" claims).
You need to ask? That tells us about you, not about kicking puppies.
This is the standard non-answer that you've offered for years.
LeontiskosNovember 04, 2025 at 04:22#10229800 likes
I may write a thread about how Hume held to "oughts" derived from "is's," that he did not object to such a move when it involved what he called "sentiment" (either directly or indirectly), and that his broader project was to oppose the moral theory grounded in self-interest or divine commands found in folks like Hobbes and Locke, offering instead a thicker moral theory grounded in "sentiment." Contemporary confusions on this point have more to do with Moore's "open question" than Hume, although misreadings of Hume also contribute.
Now you say, despite all of that, that I am not answering your question...
I have provided answers to your questions. Maybe not satisfying to you, but nevertheless responses.
My reference to the moral elites was to point out that an elite group that offers moral decrees (which excludes Trump and his ilk) that convenes and decides the moral decisions for society (don't kick puppies) is only irrelevantly distinct from Congress, both being social constructs for rule determination. That is, law and morality are the same under this system, social norms passed and enforced, either by handcuffs or social stigma.
It was why I asked whether the law as passed by Congress could be more moral than those by whatever method your morals were passed. If a law can be more moral than morals, we've reached a point of reductio that should cause reconsideration of our theory.
You criticized the idea that morals might be enumerated like a list, and I asked why we couldn't codify our rules and were forced to redeliberate the same question as it posed itself repeatedly.
I also questioned whether morals were immutable or whether they changed from deliberation to deliberation dependent upon the deliberators or perhaps the season they met for negotiation. Can the good today be the bad tomorrow or was the bad the bad even though we all agreed it was good?
All my questions were labeled as such, and I don't see them answered.
Where do I find morals? Morals seem revealed through the conscience, refined through reason, and analogized to one another. I look upon prior ethical decisions or controlling and persuasive regarding new considerations.
I am also unapologetically theistic, but I don't hold to literalist traditions and I don't suggest every word of scripture is ineerant and true, but I do believe reliance upon thousands of years of others' exploration into what the good is offers substantial direction into what the good is.
If every last person agrees we kick puppies, we live in odd times for sure, but every last puppy kicker is morally wrong.
You need to ask? That tells us about you, not about kicking puppies.
I'll leave you to your footwork.
You're arguing self evidency or something. I really don't follow this. It's bad to kick puppies and if anyone disagrees it means they're a bad person and if you ask why they're bad, be careful, because you too will be bad.
LeontiskosNovember 04, 2025 at 04:50#10229840 likes
In your collapse of the moral/legal distinction, you make the good determined by the hand of the elite, blurring any meaningful distinction between a theocracy and a secular state. In both, it's a small class that dictates the law, but also the moral because the two are the same.
The standard conflation on the part of the democrat is between monarchy or aristocracy and tyranny (to take Aristotle's terms). The presumption is that there could be no moral elite that is not a tyranny. Or in other words, that the only way a moral elite could rule would be through coercion and force.
This isn't true, and in order to understand human social life one must also understand its falsehood. The virtuous man exercises rule precisely through his virtue. He is recognized by others as virtuous, and that is why they defer to him and follow him, much the way a child defers to and follows their father or mother. For Aristotle, if the demos is incapable of recognizing virtuous leaders, then monarchical or aristocratic regimes are eo ipso ruled out.
Thus trust is a natural phenomenon, present in politics, morality, and religion. The reason the democrat tends to think that politics is merely a matter of vote-casting, and that politics is therefore separate from morality, is because they can't conceive of any non-democratic form of governance. Robust moral realism requires the ability to answer questions and reason about morality, but it does not exclude forms of trust or faith. The ability to recognize the competence of another and place one's trust in them is intrinsic to humanity, even when it comes to morality.
LeontiskosNovember 04, 2025 at 05:07#10229880 likes
If I say the sun ought shine because the book of morals says it ought shine, it's not [the is/ought fallacy].
But why not?
I tend to think the is-ought divide is taken too seriously. I'm not sure why it is taken so seriously. Doesn't everyone who holds to substantive moral truths "violate" it? The ones who profess not to violate it tend to end up in very awkward poses, regardless of their philosophical tradition.
The simple case I've argued on TPF is that to understand what pain is is to desire to avoid pain. Anyone who understands what pain is also believes that pain ought to be avoided (ceteris paribus).
I think @Count Timothy von Icarus has written ably on the is-ought topic, but perhaps it needs to be rehashed at a more rigorous level.
It's bad to kick puppies and if anyone disagrees it means they're a bad person
Well, what do you think? Did you answer that? - if so, I missed it. And it's pretty much pivotal. If you think it bad to kick puppies, then we agree, and can move on. If you think good to kick puppies, then other folk will reach conclusions about you.
Were does that go astray? And what do you think about kicking puppies?
I have provided answers to your questions. Maybe not satisfying to you, but nevertheless responses.
Reply to Hanover explicitly:
I don't understand were your notion of an elite comes from.
The comparison between morals and laws
Since ethics is a negotiation, while one might codify the result, to codify the negotiation would be to end it.
One of the more obvious characteristics of morality is that what is ethical does change over time.
Each of these answers were given previously, implicitly if not explicitly.
Where do I find morals? Morals seem revealed through the conscience,
Then they are not discovered, but revealed. Moral intuition or the voice of god? I could go along with the former. The latter, I'd need convincing it wasn't the medication...
If every last person agrees we kick puppies, we live in odd times for sure, but every last puppy kicker is morally wrong.
Good to hear - is that your answer? Tell me, was that written in the Big Book Of Morals? I suspect not; and conclude that the Big Book Of Morals is also irrelevant.
Deleted UserNovember 04, 2025 at 06:48#10229920 likes
only those with authority can decide on your rights
Please, who gave authority to those with authority, the electorate or your parents who taught you to respect authority - but not blindly? So these rights are determined by politics, thus not an entitlement.
You agree with natural right theorists that rights exist?
To date I have not met or spoken with any "natural right theorist' but to my understanding there is only one [i]natural right[/I] - the right to live - because you were born. (Refer to Old Father's Quote #22 - already posted).
Of course rights exist, we humans create them with the politics we play - thus not an entitlement.
So, what you or I want, does not entitle us anything.
Why not? Why should we deny someone something they want...?
...and there is were we start to do ethics.
So again, your decisions are yours alone; but then, you must take into account other people, even if to ignore them - and that's when your decision starts to be ethical.
javi2541997November 04, 2025 at 08:11#10230040 likes
Yes, sir, the exchange you had is fascinating and all, but I didn't understand anything.
However, I truly believe that Greek yoghurt with a small portion of brown sugar is a perfect combo.
Deleted UserNovember 04, 2025 at 08:28#10230070 likes
Quite so, but then my ethics might differ from your ethics - then who decide who's ethics is right and who's are wrong? You and me? Then we could meet tomorrow at dawn, with our seconds - you can choose the weapons, swords or pistols? Or should we rather leave this to the politicians that you and I authorised to adjudicate these and other matters?
So again, your decisions are yours alone; but then, you must take into account other people, even if to ignore them - and that's when your decision starts to be ethical.
Quite so, my decisions are mine, as is yours. If you think my decisions are unethical we can sort this out tomorrow morning - I prefer with swords. If, however, you and me agree that we both are right, but the politicians that we authorised to adjudicate have it wrong, we have a few options:
We can try to vote them out at the next election and replace them with politicians that conform to our [i]ethics[/I].
If we are unsuccessful with this, or do not want to wait for the next election, we could start a revolution.
We might even come to the conclusion that the problem is actually the political system itself, then we could change the constitution - if unsuccessful start a revolution.
Yes, we could ignore them but I doubt they will ignore us; especially if we start to ignore federal law.
My statement: claiming any right as an entitlement is a fallacy, still stands.
Deleted UserNovember 04, 2025 at 08:31#10230080 likes
"Each and every distinct object of my perception or my thoughts, is a state of some components of my brain." How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence
So, If I want to kick my puppy in my back-yard, you will not deny this - you will grant me this entitlement?
Would you? I'd be on the phone, since you would not be the sort pf person who should have a dog.
But if you want ice cream, I'll not stop you.
There's a difference. I hope you can see that.
If the only way you can think of to settle our differences of opinion is a duel, that's also about you. But you see, this does not only involve you and I. That's kinda the point.
A church cannot function as the source of one's personal morals unless they intend them to do so. The responsibility for that choice, the acceptance of the moral guidance of the church, remains with the person concerned. It's what they want, or what they choose, ore what they consider themselves obligated by, or some other excuse.
For the most part, this is wrong, because most religious people have been born and raised into their religion, they did not choose it. Their sense of right and wrong is so inextricably defined by their early internalization of religious teachings that they cannot think without them. To say that such people "choose" to follow the religious teachings is like saying you chose English as your native language. They do not, and you did not.
Phenomena that contextualize a person are beyond said person's choice. The concept of choice doesn't apply in such situations.
The moment you suggest, like you did the other day, that religion might well be merely a useful fiction, but that that's alright, as long as people and society are happy and productive -- this is when you stop being theistic.
but I don't hold to literalist traditions and I don't suggest every word of scripture is ineerant and true,
Why are you saying this? What is your motivation for saying this?
A man might say, "I haven't beaten my wife in ten years." Why is he saying that? Does he thereby admit that he used to beat his wife? Is he seeking validation, approval?
When we make factual statements, we make them for a reason. So what is yours, here?
but I do believe reliance upon thousands of years of others' exploration into what the good is offers substantial direction into what the good is.
I'm not disagreeing, but there is the no small matter of cruel optimism.
A person can have very high standards of morality. But if they cannot act on them, or if acting on them is significantly disadvantageous for them, then they have a problem. To avoid insanity, the person will have to change the moral standards they adhere to, or at least change their meta-view of morality.
If every last person agrees we kick puppies, we live in odd times for sure, but every last puppy kicker is morally wrong.
The question is, are you willing to let yourself be burnt at the stake for believing/claiming this?
Why can't moral decisions be codified into a list?
Because it seems practically, pragmatically impossible to produce a comprehensive and concise list of such moral decisions.
For example, while the Ten Commandment forbid killing, elsewhere, the OT goes into considerable detail as to who should be killed. Why is that? What does it mean?
Do moral determinations change over time?
If puppy kicking is determined moral on Monday but immoral on Tuesday, was it immoral on Monday but we were just wrong on Monday? How can we be wrong if we went through the proper deliberation process?
If we can be wrong about what's moral, doesn't that mean we don't decide what's moral but that we're searching for what it's moral?
My intutition is that the problem here is actually one of how to present moral principles in the abstract, in general, with practical consideration for the length and complexity of such a text.
Is there a final, correct answer to a moral dilemma? If we know puppies can't be kicked, why can't we list that in our Holy Set of Rules? Why must we reprocess our basis each time? Wouldn't it behoove us to write down all our truths this way for easier access, and we can just learn the rules without the rigamarole?
It appears that somehow, a crucial part of proper moral reasoning is that it is not codified with a text, but resides in the person somehow.
That morality is in the acting on moral principles, in living by them, rather than in being able to come up with a comprehensive, exhaustive, finite list.
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 04, 2025 at 13:34#10230360 likes
Why can't moral decisions be codified into a list?
This question, I believe, holds the key to understanding the mystery of morality. Moral decisions cannot be codified into a list, because each and every one is specific to the particular circumstances. The list would include an infinity of possible circumstances. Morality therefore, is best described as having a specific type of attitude toward the particularities of the circumstances.
But this inclines us to try and fit all "correct" particular acts into one universal type of attitude, the "moral" type (Kant's categorical imperative). But that's the exact opposite of having the correct attitude. The correct attitude must allow flexibility to the type, to shape the type to meet particulars of the circumstances. So even approaching the question with the attitude that there is such a thing as a type of act labeled as "the moral type", is a self-defeating approach which will result in endless discussion going nowhere. That is because morality (as a proposed type) must be shaped to the particulars of the circumstances, and this denies the possibility of any formal typification.
Because it seems practically, pragmatically impossible to produce a comprehensive and concise list of such moral decisions.
For example, while the Ten Commandment forbid killing, elsewhere, the OT goes into considerable detail as to who should be killed. Why is that? What does it mean?
It's common that we document prior decisions and use those decisions to form future opinions. It's the basis of Talmudic law and anglo-saxon based legal precedent based law. It's not pragmatically impossible, although you are correct that hundreds of thousands of volumes of information have been stored that document our prior judgments. We don't reinvent the wheel every time.
Regarding the Ten Commandments and biblical text generally, the idea that it can be interpreted from just reading the literal meaning from the pages without reference to other religious text might describe certain 19th century fundamentalist Christian literalist traditions, but that is not the most common way of interpreting and it's particularly recent. That tradition has its own unique history.
As to the specific commandment you refer, the Hebrew text states ?? ???? (Lo tirtzah), with tirtzah having a very specific meaning. The best English word would be "murder" which describes an unlawful taking of a life, very distinct from "harag" (???), which means to kill. That is why it is permissible to kill an enemy in battle but impermissible to murder your neighbor. Quoting baker
The question is, are you willing to let yourself be burnt at the stake for believing/claiming this?
Probably not, but of what relevance is my personal integrity to a cause when assessing whether something might be moral?Quoting baker
It appears that somehow, a crucial part of proper moral reasoning is that it is not codified with a text, but resides in the person somehow
That morality is in the acting on moral principles, in living by them, rather than in being able to come up with a comprehensive, exhaustive, finite list.
No, you've decontextualized this part of the conversation. @Banno stated that moral rules were not written but they were the result of agreement between parties. My response is that the two are not mutually exclusive. We can arrive at truths and then write them down and then use those prior decisions to assist with future decisions. That seems an organized way of doing things.
This idea is also not limited to religious reasoning or legalistic reasoning, but it forms the basis of rule utlitarianism, where the idea is that the creation of rules leads to the moral good and so you adhere to the rule as opposed to arriving at the good each time you are faced with it.
Moral decisions cannot be codified into a list, because each and every one is specific to the particular circumstances.
The use of prior decisions does not require blind adherence to unnuanced rules, but it allows the opposite, where each prior decision can be considered for the principle it contains, but if there are important distinctions to make the prior decision inapplicable, it will not be considered (or will be limited in its value).
This is pretty straightforward Anglo legalistic reasoning, which not suprisingly has its origins in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Edit: The way this would look in the legalistic tradition would be that you would have a law. You would then have citations in actual cases where that law was interepreted. The law would mean what it says and how its been interpreted, with varying entities empowered for arriving at that meaning.
In religious traditions, hypotheticals can be considered, so you're not limited to actual cases in controversies, but the concept is the same. We don't limit ourselves to just reading a simple rule everytime and divorce ourselves from our prior considerations. We also rely on the rule itself though for some type of grounding to know what we're interpreting.
As to the specific commandment you refer, the Hebrew text states ?? ???? (Lo tirtzah), with tirtzah having a very specific meaning. The best English word would be "murder" which describes an unlawful taking of a life, very distinct from "harag" (???), which means to kill. That is why it is permissible to kill an enemy in battle but impermissible to murder your neighbor.
Yet somehow, this distinction didn't make it into so many Bible renditions in other languages, even when those languages have that same distinction. And this goes back for centuries. The KJV, for example, has "Thou shalt not kill". In my native language, when children are taught the Ten Commandments, the word used is also the equivalent of "kill"; and this is the RCC version which goes back for centuries and can hardly be accused of decontextualized reading.
The question is, are you willing to let yourself be burnt at the stake for believing/claiming this?
— baker
Probably not, but of what relevance is my personal integrity to a cause when assessing whether something might be moral?
It casts doubt on you as a relevant participant in a discussion about morality.
Ad hominems are not always fallacious, especially when it comes to matters of morality. It's at least strange that people will defend particular moral principles and judge others for not living up to those principles -- yet they themselves do not live by them. One has to wonder what is going on, and whether it's all just a matter of virtue signalling.
It appears that somehow, a crucial part of proper moral reasoning is that it is not codified with a text, but resides in the person somehow
That morality is in the acting on moral principles, in living by them, rather than in being able to come up with a comprehensive, exhaustive, finite list.
— baker
No, you've decontextualized this part of the conversation.
No, I was furthering my own point.
We can arrive at truths and then write them down and then use those prior decisions to assist with future decisions. That seems an organized way of doing things.
Slavery was "organized" as well, for example.
This idea is also not limited to religious reasoning or legalistic reasoning, but it forms the basis of rule utlitarianism, where the idea is that the creation of rules leads to the moral good and so you adhere to the rule as opposed to arriving at the good each time you are faced with it.
Except that in day-to-day practice, rules still come down to "might makes right". One has to do something that someone with more power said that one has to do, or else face consequences.
So again, your decisions are yours alone; but then, you must take into account other people, even if to ignore them - and that's when your decision starts to be ethical.
In other words, you're not saying anything. You have a nice clause there about ignoring others which you can always refer to when other people don't think, feel, speak, or do as you want them to.
Morality comes from considering what you want in the light of recognising the needs of others.
Feudal landlords and slave owners, for example, also "recognize the needs of others".
Point being that you're not actually "recognizing" the needs of others, but merely taking for granted that you know what those needs are, without ever actually asking those people about their needs.
It's a classic case of an authoritarian personality. Even while you talk about others, even to others, you don't actually acknowledge them as persons.
You decide what you want, while interacting with others decides what is good.
In other words, might makes right.
Say, an employee wants a raise and communicates this to his boss; the boss says no and threatens the employee with dismissal. And the good in this is ...?
The use of prior decisions does not require blind adherence to unnuanced rules, but it allows the opposite, where each prior decision can be considered for the principle it contains, but if there are important distinctions to make the prior decision inapplicable, it will not be considered (or will be limited in its value).
As if people could not decide on their own. Of course they do, all the time. The issue here seems to be the justification of one's decisions, the purpose of which is that the decision-maker can exonerate themselves.
The virtuous man exercises rule precisely through his virtue. He is recognized by others as virtuous, and that is why they defer to him and follow him, much the way a child defers to and follows their father or mother. For Aristotle, if the demos is incapable of recognizing virtuous leaders, then monarchical or aristocratic regimes are eo ipso ruled out.
Thus trust is a natural phenomenon, present in politics, morality, and religion. The reason the democrat tends to think that politics is merely a matter of vote-casting, and that politics is therefore separate from morality, is because they can't conceive of any non-democratic form of governance. Robust moral realism requires the ability to answer questions and reason about morality, but it does not exclude forms of trust or faith. The ability to recognize the competence of another and place one's trust in them is intrinsic to humanity, even when it comes to morality.
Now envision the above being said about, for example, Nazi Germany. It fits.
Yet somehow, this distinction didn't make it into so many Bible renditions in other languages, even when those languages have that same distinction. And this goes back for centuries. The KJV, for example, has "Thou shalt not kill". In my native language, when children are taught the Ten Commandments, the word used is also the equivalent of "kill"; and this is the RCC version which goes back for centuries and can hardly be accused of decontextualized reading.
You should have known something was amiss just from the grammar. Hebrew doesn't have a third person objective perspective (the depersonalized "thou," as if to suggest it applies to anyone anywhere). It literally says "no murder," not "thou shalt not," and it would apply to you, as in you personally dear reader, because it is the product of a specific covenant between God and his people. If only you were more educated in ancient semitic languages and OT themes you wouldn't have had to endure the trauma of your youth. I blame you for teaching any children otherwise, not Moses. Moses did all he could do, walking about for 40 years while his peeps kvetched. It's really much to blame him.
As if people could not decide on their own. Of course they do, all the time. The issue here seems to be the justification of one's decisions, the purpose of which is that the decision-maker can exonerate themselves.
And so in a fell swoop you eliminate the idea of considering other's views when deciding one's own. That makes me wonder why I should consider your position here and why I don't stand boldly independent.
LeontiskosNovember 04, 2025 at 17:29#10230810 likes
So again, your decisions are yours alone; but then, you must take into account other people, even if to ignore them - and that's when your decision starts to be ethical.
— Banno
In other words, you're not saying anything. You have a nice clause there about ignoring others which you can always refer to when other people don't think, feel, speak, or do as you want them to.
Pretty much. My comments are about the way in which deontic statements function, setting a grammar that is consistent.
There's much that is presumptive in your critique. It's more about you seeing your antagonisms in others than about reading what is being said. It's unclear, for example, how you manage to characterise an ethic centred on finding common values and working through those as "authoritarian". Is that because you think that I should not point out the kicking puppies is wrong? That we should not tell you what to do? There's something quite odd in your asking if I would die in a ditch for the pup; as if that were the only reason for some value being relevant, some all-or-nothing account. It's unclear what you are advocating as an alternative, but it seems to be some sort of libertarian, laissez-faire arrangement. Now there is nothing much to say about folk doing as they please, up until what they do effects someone else. And that is were we might look for agreement and negotiation. Or we might just reach for our guns. Which would you prefer? Are we going to discuss ethics or warfare?
All this by way of asking what the point of your responses is. What are you offering?[/hide]
Geez. Can you guys just get a [s]room[/s] thread and take this elsewhere. You're making it hard for us everyday schlubs to get a useless word in edgewise. Nobody will even see poor @javi2541997's thoughts on greek yoghurt and brown sugar.
Geez. Can you guys just get a room thread and take this elsewhere. You're making it hard for us everyday schlubs to get a useless word in edgewise. Nobody will even see poor javi2541997's thoughts on greek yoghurt and brown sugar.
I did. I prefer honey. But there is something to be said for the caramel in brown sugar.
But point taken - my apologies. I'd already said as much to Hangover in a PM, but got sucked in again this morning before I had my first coffee. I'll try again.
Nobody will even see poor javi2541997's thoughts on greek yoghurt and brown sugar.
I thought my opinion about the taste of Greek yoghurt with brown sugar went unnoticed like a handful of salt in a soup. But I am now pleased that you actually could read it. :smile:
There remains something oddly contradictory in the idea that one can have a right to which one is not entitled.
I can't see how you might reconcile that.
I can see that you have not grasp my point, yet. Let me try and explain it more fundamentally, without the use of stupid examples:
We humans claim free will, but our whole civilisation is based on collective decision-making. This is a contradiction. One might claim some fundamental, chimerical, ethic or morality or some greater good to which humans should freely make a collective decision on - this foundation has not been found yet. We humans, especially the more philosophical ones, have been barking up this tree for millennia. This way of understanding has met with great success according to some and great failure according to others - depending on who are the current winners in our political games.
Thus, the entitlement to any right is solely dependent on the specific political environment in which this right is claimed. Therefore, claiming any right as an entitlement is a fallacy.
Thus, the entitlement to any right is solely dependent on the specific political environment in which this right is claimed. Therefore, claiming any right as an entitlement is a fallacy.
If "the entitlement to any right is solely dependent on the specific political environment in which this right is claimed", then there is an entitlement to a right, albeit dependent on a specific political environment.
So one could claim such a right as an entitlement dependent on a specific political environment.
Your conclusion, then, still does not follow. There remains something oddly contradictory in the idea that one can have a right to which one is not entitled, even if one thinks of rights as only happening within specific political environments rather than a consequence of our ethical consideration.
I can't see a contradiction between free will and collective decision making. I don't see that you make your case very well. There doesn't seem to be a reason folk could not choose freely to act collectively. But in any case the notion of free will is fraught with confusion. A whole 'nuther barrel of fish.
DifferentiatingEggNovember 05, 2025 at 06:33#10232180 likes
Reply to Banno Every "right" is created by the valuations of man, valuations nature doesn't give a fuck about. Pretty easy concept to understand I think? Rights to something not actually entitled...
"Claiming any right as an entitlement is a fallacy."
still appears very odd; as if one could have a right but not an entitlement -- picture that cop saying "you have the right to remain silent but you are not entitled to remain silent"...?
Deleted UserNovember 05, 2025 at 06:54#10232230 likes
ll appears very odd; as if one could have a right but not an entitlement -- picture that cop saying "you have the right to remain silent but you are not entitled to remain silent"...?
Still missing the point, still using stupid examples. The mere fact that a cop must inform you of your rights, thereby granting you this entitlement; is due to a political environment ... nothing else.
javi2541997November 05, 2025 at 07:14#10232300 likes
Reply to frank Yes, he does it. But I think it is fantastic; I am going to quote myself too:
Javi - the mad linguist.:"Holy cow" is an idiom of most Anglo-Saxon nations; however, "bloody cow" is said in the suburbs of Glasgow. I heard it many times even though I didn't record the conversations to prove it.
Javi -- 29th Vice President of the United States.:Anglo-Saxon nations are where modern philosophers belong.
javi2541997November 05, 2025 at 07:53#10232330 likes
Talking about the Vice President of the United States: Dick Cheney passed away yesterday.
Here in Spain, folks call him "the architect of the 2003 Iraq invasion".
:scream:
DifferentiatingEggNovember 05, 2025 at 09:57#10232430 likes
Reply to Banno Language is an irreducibly platonic representation of our ideas presented in a reduced form. Often a ghastly and hamfisted representation.
javi2541997November 05, 2025 at 12:58#10232570 likes
Here's one from the afterlife, curtesy of The Grateful Dead —
Well, the first days are the hardest days
Don't you worry anymore
'Cause when life looks like Easy Street
There is danger at your door
Think this through with me
Let me know your mind
Woah-oh, what I want to know
Is are you kind?
— Uncle John's Band
Dearly beloved,
Nature is harsh, and nature is gentle by turns, and This concerns all of living nature, including humans. Don't get too comfortable or you will be in for a nasty surprise.
Let's discuss it together honestly.
All that I I need to know about you is, 'are you kind?'
______________________________________________________________________
A mouse does not ask the cat if it is kind, and the cat does not consider it either. Nature is kind and cruel without distinction; it is only a consideration for humans, and the bible has the right of things in explaining that these considerations and reflections eject humanity from the innocence of nature into the world of morality, and therefore of immorality.
It is possible to delight in cruelty, as it is possible to delight in kindness, and one can flip from one to the other and back. These are the gates of heaven and hell, and not to know the difference is to pretend to be a mere beast.
It's a buck dancer's choice, my friend
Better take my advice
You know all the rules by now
And the fire from the ice
Will you come with me?
Won't you come with me?
Woah-oh, what I want to know
Will you come with me?
ibid.
There is no point in arguing that War, War, is better than Jaw Jaw. The performative contradiction defeats the argument. You know the rules - will you come with me; are you kind? It's the same question.
It's the same story the crow told me
It's the only one he know
Like the morning sun, you come
And like the wind you go
Ain't no time to hate
Barely time to wait
Woah-oh, what I want to know
Where does the time go?
ibid.
The story in question is a nonsense tale, The answer to where the time goes is that it gets sucked into the infinite void of self, another nonsense tale.
I live in a silver mine
And I call it "Beggar's Tomb"
I got me a violin
And I beg you call the tune
Anybody's choice
I can hear your voice
Woah-ho, what I want to know
How does the song go?
Anybody's choice. You can choose kindness or cruelty. But it's nonsense to choose cruelty. That's how the song goes, all I want to know is 'are you kind?'
Come hear Uncle John's Band
By the riverside
Got some things to talk about
Here beside the rising tide
Thus saith the Grateful Dead, and here endeth the lesson. We've got some things to talk about and let's try not to talk nonsense, the tide is rising as we speak.
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 05, 2025 at 17:15#10232860 likes
I've always wanted to say this when someone comes into my office to complain about whatever they are complaining about:
I see you've got your list out, say your piece and get out
Guess I get the gist of it, but it's alright
Sorry that you feel that way, the only thing there is to say
Every silver lining's got a touch of grey
EDIT: Philosophy is allowed in the Shoutbox only if it is relaxed and friendly and doesn't involve personal attacks. Those who are determined to debate these issues can make a new discussion. Those who are determined to carry on attacking people personally can find another website to go to.
Reply to T Clark The Missus met his Missus once. Apparently Mrs Cheney was polite enough, although she had several large friends who wore dark sunglasses inside, had obvious sub machine guns stuffed under their suits, and no sense of humour. That seem'd out of place, given that the location was an institution for advanced research in the humanities. But I guess there are always other ways to get your point across.
unenlightenedNovember 05, 2025 at 21:48#10233690 likes
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 05, 2025 at 22:49#10233790 likes
Reply to unenlightened
I'd say there's at least four Hanovorians still at it.
(Joke rather than personal attack. If you can't laugh with me laugh at me, or whatever.)
Where does the time go?
(Rhetorical question rather than philosophical question.)
Deleted UserNovember 06, 2025 at 05:38#10234400 likes
If what you are saying is that rights are social institutions, well so is language.
Perhaps, that is why I try to define the nouns I use as far as possible. For example:
"Politics := A process used by humans (Class 7 systems) to propose, contemplate, and implement Rules of Man in order to test their conformance to the Laws of Nature that best describe the purpose of any and all companies." How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence
Deleted UserNovember 06, 2025 at 05:43#10234410 likes
Let's say you were in the forest by the brook next to the tree beside the rock beneath the squirrel away from the hill near the well that Kevin drilled for all of the children to drink from to bath from and cook from, and to your surprise you were to see just a step from destruction an egg so oval and brown?
Would you think it came first all by itself if you couldn't find any chicken around, or would you insist despite the glory about you that it must have just dropped so gently in the most ordinary way?
Would you think it came first all by itself if you couldn't find any chicken around, or would you insist despite the glory about you that it must have just dropped so gently in the most ordinary way?
There’s a possibility, just a possibility mind you, you’ve missed the point of the question
@javi2541997. Good news! Last night I had MATIZ MUSSELS from Galicia packed in olive oil, vinegar, and some spice (?). ¡Deliciosa! I was going to add it to the Rao arrabbiata spaghetti sauce with mackerel on De Cecco pasta, but after I opened the can of mussels I decided they tasted too good to go with a pungent tomato mixture.
One quibble: Under "PRODUCT OF SPAIN" was a note that said "WARNING: Cancer and reproductive harm. Hmmmm. Is there a radiation-leaking nuclear power plant on a river pouring over the mussel beds? Or is there a factory secretly dumping polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into the ocean? Perhaps the PCBs are the key ingredient of the special sauce that makes the mussels so exquisitely tender and delicious?
At any rate, I suppose I can now expect a testicle or two to fall off from the toxic Spanish water. The musses were so delicious, losing one or two balls at my age would be almost (but not quite) worth it.
javi2541997November 07, 2025 at 05:04#10236210 likes
Reply to BC Honestly, I think Galicia's mussels are the best in the world. I eat these very often, but just as they are in the can. I don't put them in any dish. As you noted, they are already delicious to mix with other products. I searched on Google for "MATIZ MUSSELS", and the brand seems lovely and legit. We don't have that brand, but we do have many others. I tend to buy the mussels directly from the fishmonger. I have to hurry because Christmas is coming and these little bivalves get very expensive!
I am surprised to see a warning note about cancer risks and potential harm. This is crazy. I promise the products of my country are healthy and optimum. I don't know what the lad who wrote it had in mind to do so. I guess it is more related to the can where the mussels are packed than the mussels themselves.
Reply to javi2541997 That's probably it -- the cans are made from recycled nuclear reactors and have a little plutonium in them.
A favorite Christmas bivalve around here are oysters, gently heated so that they just begin to wrinkle up. Then they are added to heated milk and cooked over hot water. Add salt and a little pepper.
There are many ways to prepare oysters, so I have heard, but they are terribly expensive, so buying a couple extra pounds of shucked oysters to make a baked oyster dish would be pretty expensive. I don't know what they cost in New York or Boston; we are nowhere close to the ocean. Some people here very much like potato sausage at Christmas -- it is a not very spicy Scandinavian potato / pork sausage in a casing. Good with a rutabaga and creamed potatoes.
javi2541997November 07, 2025 at 06:59#10236290 likes
Reply to BC Oysters are a common dish for Christmas here too. However, I skipped them because I tend to feel sick after eating them – I bet they are more dangerous than the mussels packed in lithium cans!
Here, people consume the oysters raw. They just open – or crack – the bivalve and eat the little seafood hidden there with a glass of champagne. And yes, oysters are pretty expensive, absolutely.
I am glad you tried a product from Spain. Since you liked it, I recommend you try our tuna. It comes from the Atlantic coast of Cadiz. Japanese lads say it is the best in the world, and they buy tonnes and tonnes of our tuna. But I would also like to hear your opinion on atún de almadraba.
[hide="Reveal"][/hide]
DifferentiatingEggNovember 07, 2025 at 07:06#10236300 likes
I always purchased my mussels from this kind young woman who pushed her cart down the narrow cobblestone streets of my youth. She'd cry out to all who could hear when a fresh batch were available. She tragically caught a fever and no one could save her. And that's what became of her.
A guy named Tony Riggatoni then kicked her in the river, took her cart, and modified it into a hotdog stand where he sold 2 for 1 brats. The remaining mussels were canned, marked as being from Spain, and California then marked them as poison. I felt like something was lost with the transition from that sweet lass who pushed the cart.
True story.
javi2541997November 07, 2025 at 11:29#10236480 likes
She'd cry out to all who could hear when a fresh batch were available.
That was Molly Malone! I assume she was singing:
"Cockles and mussels, alive, alive, oh."
CopernicusNovember 08, 2025 at 13:25#10237970 likes
See you guys in 4 days, God Willing...
https://countingdownto.com/?c=6696404
javi2541997November 08, 2025 at 17:04#10238380 likes
Christmas-themed socks are in our wardrobe again. Whether it is too early or too late to wear them, these socks are considered an "object of cultural interest". They were woven in Denmark. If you have one of these, you are lucky. It is not easy to find because Danish manufacturers are having a shortage of sheep. I bought mine in a Chinese restaurant near Plaza Mayor.
These are mine. They were spun from straw into wool by a sorcerer. You must either sell your soul for them or guess correctly the name of the man who turns the spindle.
Prior to my guess, I commented somewhat obscurely:
"Yours is the cloth, mine is the hand that sews time
His is the force that lies within
Ours is the fire, all the warmth we can find
He is a feather in the wind"
With that I offered my guess.
I leave to you whether I don these socks as an empty vessel or whether I maintain the force that lies within.
True story.
unenlightenedNovember 08, 2025 at 18:24#10238520 likes
I made a cup of coffee and forgot to put the coffee in it. I was enjoying a nice hot cup of water and didn't notice until I realized I could see the bottom of the cup. The moral of the story is
unenlightenedNovember 08, 2025 at 20:49#10238840 likes
Sorry, you lose your soul, BUT, you get the free socks, and did you really even have a soul to lose?
Once I get the socks, they will no longer be free. I will imprison them in sensible shoes with good soles. My soul was already lost in the manifold, so no change there.
NB. if the buzzards are circling, it's a bad sign, but if they are drifting hither and thither and other similar places then they are not on duty as harbingers, but just playing at medieval aerobatics.
A couple weeks ago, overburdened by an unusually large lunch, I decided to lay outside in the afternoon Sun on a wooden boardwalk my father and I built for a few minutes. In spite of it's general state of disrepair (I'm [s]lazy[/s] busy, alright?) It was a surprisingly comfortable experience. Apparently hard surfaces are actually good for the back. Seeing as I had not done so for quite some time, I laid there staring face up at a vast cerulean sky. An occasional small cluster of wispy white clouds would drift ever so slowly from one side of my vision and eventually over to the next. I noticed a small convoy of two or three black birds, almost specks from the incredible distance they must have been above my person. "I hope they don't shit on me", I thought to myself chuckling audibly to an audience of none. Ever so aware of the negative consequences of any situation, per the demands of my occupation, a focus on computer security. Always imagining "the worst possible scenario, no matter how unlikely" takes its toll on a young man's mind. Nevertheless I regained my focus and began to notice they circled back, almost as if a sign of acknowledgement of my supine (thanks @T Clark for introducing that word into my vocabulary) juxtaposition against the long wooden path upon which I laid. To which I said aloud to myself "Hey, I'm not dead yet." As if there was a soul around, other than the occasional vehicle that would drive past every dozen or so minutes.
Long story short. Yeah, them buzzards will do that if you lie still long enough. I might patent that advice into some sort of hunting or survival manual to attract prey and become the next bestselling author. Yeah, I just might do that.
True story. Or is it? Perhaps you'll never know.
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 09, 2025 at 01:08#10239450 likes
I assume these are actually turkey vultures. Do you notice how three of them are aligned perfectly? That raises a question whether these are actually birds at all. Perhaps they are disguised ICE drones or a squadron of UAPs.
OutlanderNovember 09, 2025 at 02:03#10239610 likes
Buzzards are officially only in Europe, where we have turkey vultures. Despite that, we call them buzzards. And so it goes.
We actually called them buzzards too. I just wanted to exercise my talent for pedantry. They were always a sign of summer on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. These days we see them in the summer all the way up here in New England.
My poverty so defeating, yet my love so intense for my dear Molly who so hawked and so hollered to sell her sea bounty to anyone so interested that I'd do anything to earn her release her from a life so forsaken.
As days turned to night, my sweet heartache would leave her barrow emptied neath the stairwell so steep. I admit I took comfort up those steps and down the hall so narrow most evenings than not. A queue would await for the moments you'd get so few, but once before you, you felt there were none other than you.
I'd leave perhaps a few farthing, but my love never counted, but trusted implicitly, or so I best pretended she didn't too suffer from possessing so little.
I resolved to provide her the best I could manage, but with no money nor skill I was so limited. I looked to the skies as one does when he has nothing , and instead of the heavens I saw something better, a manna of sorts, in the form of some turkeys circling about.
I had me no weapon nor way of pouncing when they should land on the ground to pick upon those poorer than me. My only redemption was to feed my dear Molly by baiting the creature with my own wretched body to gift her that bounty.
Making my way down the stairway so narrow, spent for the evening and ready to rest, I found my Molly's turned barrow before me and empty. i did drop to my knees to wallow about in the pungent fish water that dripped to the street. This was the aroma that Molly would leave us, both in her streets and permeating her bedsheets.
No where to go in in the condition I was in, I slept neeth the stars, too kind to enter my room I shared with several other fellows whose names I never knew. I slept very deeply, somewhat comforted by thinking I might one day be saving my princess most precious.
But then I was awoken by a lone bird whose nose must have found me, who had been circling around just hours before. He picked at my clothing, ripping off small pieces, scraping my flesh and opening it forth. I grabbed at his beak and twisted it forcefully, his talons were scratching and fighting me so.
My weight eventually overcame him. and the fallen large turkey laid dead in my clutch. I plucked it and cooked it and packaged it up and took it for Molly just in time for her lunch.
She was hollering and hawking just like she did always, when I brought her this feast. She took it with pause and asked if she might know me. I told her I'd doubt it, as I'd never approach her while she cried out below.
She reached for its wing so long and extended, dripping its burgundy juices upon her lips and her neck.
As she tore and she chewed, she let out a choke, a cough and a sputter, and that was the end of Molly Malone. Alive Alive no! Alive Alive, no! Crying cocks and cocks. alive alive no.
True story.
javi2541997November 09, 2025 at 05:31#10239920 likes
Reply to javi2541997 We have alligators in the southern coastal area and a huge population in the southern swamp (Okeefenokee). My tourguide told me there had never been an unprovoked gator attack. I felt like saying that out loud where they coukd hear us was provocation.
The swamp from several years ago. I was rear rudderman.
Most books on the philosophy of religion try to begin with a precise definition of what its essence consists of. Some of these would-be definitions may possibly come before us in later portions of this course, and I shall not be pedantic enough to enumerate any of them to you now. Meanwhile the very fact that they are so many and so different from one another is enough to prove that the word “religion” cannot stand for any single principle or essence, but is rather a collective name. The theorizing mind tends always to the oversimplification of its materials. This is the root of all that absolutism and one-sided dogmatism by which both philosophy and religion have been infested.
Tom StormNovember 10, 2025 at 06:23#10241360 likes
Reply to T Clark The James' three prong test to decide whether to believe (Living, Forced, and Momentous):
"An option is living if both of its constituent hypothesis are live, where a live hypothesis is one that you might seriously wind up believing as a result of an inquiry. Suppose I propose to you to believe in the Greek gods, or to believe that there is an elephant in the hallway now. You can entertain the hypothesis. But you’re so sure that it’s false that you cannot take it seriously. These hypotheses are dead for you. And in these cases our passional nature, like our intellectual nature, is powerless to effect belief.
An option is forced if you must choose one or the other of its hypotheses. If I offer you the option of whether to jump around like a rabbit or quack like a duck, you can easily decline the offer. So the option is avoidable in James’s sense. On the other hand, if I offer you the choice to jump around like a rabbit or not, then whatever you do you will have chosen one of the alternatives. In general, an option of the form "DO X NOW OR DON’T DO X NOW" will always be forced, since to decline is in effect to choose not to do X.
Finally, an option is momentous if a great deal hangs on how you choose, and especially if the opportunity is fleeting. If someone call you up and says that he’s going on a year long tour of Europe and Asia and that you can come along all expenses paid as long as you say yes right now, that would be a momentous option. To hesitate is to loose."
reciting to you what was instilled in you but that you never articulated to yourself.
I think that’s true of all philosophers—all real philosophers. We’re not here to think what we’re told to think, we’re here to put words to what we can see for ourselves.
I think that’s true of all philosophers—all real philosophers. We’re not here to think what we’re told to think, we’re here to put words to what we can see for ourselves.
We’re here to name what we can see, what we half-see, what we might only sense out of the corner of an uncooperative eye, or possibly imagine sensing, if seeing were still the agreed-upon method. We’re here to speak from where we actually stand, or at least from where we think we’re standing, assuming standing is still permitted and hasn’t been replaced by a more flexible, inclusive form of hovering.
What would you think if you saw someone wear red to a funeral?
Depends. Is everyone else wearing red? Is the person colorblind (or regular blind)? Were they good friends (perhaps it's a secret symbolism I'm simply not privy to)? Is the person possibly part of some obscure religion or foreign culture that places that color in the same light as darker more traditional funeral colors are in our own?
It'll certainly result in a few questions similar to the aforementioned.
L'éléphantNovember 11, 2025 at 04:43#10242970 likes
I think that’s true of all philosophers—all real philosophers. We’re not here to think what we’re told to think, we’re here to put words to what we can see for ourselves.
This suggests a complex unarticulated subconscious nonlinguistic belief lurking about awaiting words to carry it.
Once that belief is reduced to words, is the belief different? If the added value of words to the belief is clarification, is that still a new belief?
As in, we can have deeply complex knowledge without words.
Like if I say that smell reminds me of the ocean, and you say "Yes!, that's been bothering me all day trying to place that. "
On a meta level, would you say that your thoughts about this pre-linguistic thought lacked meaning to you until you reduced them to words as you have now? As in, there is some knowledge you can have without words, but not others? What sorts yes and what sorts no?
Of course you like him. He's an American pragmatist, reciting to you what was instilled in you but that you never articulated to yourself.
If we're going to be bots, let's at least be self aware and embrace it.
Indeed, you're expressing an important idea that's been coming up for me a lot lately. The validity of an idea is never entirely separable from its genesis, i.e., all ideas are substantively situated culturally. Furthermore, as philosophers we should be aware of this. Adorno makes these points in various ways, but he's not the only one.
I'm not sure about the bots though.
So, we can't just brush aside @T Clark by saying "you're only saying that because your culture, class, and background have determined that you would believe everything William James wrote". On the other hand, we can see the appeal of James's ideas in that context and assess them partly on that basis.
Indeed, you're expressing an important idea that has been coming up for me a lot lately. The validity of an idea is never entirely separable from its genesis, i.e., that all ideas are substantively situated culturally. Furthermore, as philosophers we should be aware of this. Adorno makes these points in various ways, but he's not the only one.
From the religious lens, I think you'd have to live under forced delusion to think it's a coincidence that your religious beliefs just so happen to reflect your family's and your community's 99% of the time.
But I then agree with what you're saying, which is that you find meaning where you accept value. If you see in Adorno a reliable source, his words carry a meaning not found in an Ayn Rand. I ignore the wisdom of the Pope, but it screams from the Rebbe.
This is why I can at first think the Mormon absurd for entertaining John Smith's finding the golden plates, but insist the parting of the sea be taken seriously, although not literally. The mistake is to assume this self-awareness of one's biases necessitates their elimination as opposed to their radical embracing. That is, if the Mormon can find higher meaning but needs to root it the 19th century musings of a traveling salesman, then that is what he should do.
To those who roll their eyes at all belief that is not rooted in the scientific, they just identify the source of their value and what they need to take matters seriously. They need the words to come from the lab for them to be considered, which means they ought do that.
Ah, the good old days. Do you ever pine or yearn or long for the certainties of the Cold War?
This week is the anniversary of the dismantling of the Berlin wall. I don’t feel nostalgic for that or for what came before it. Mostly I feel a sense of regret that the west, especially the US, blew our chance to make something good out of what was.
This is why I can at first think the Mormon absurd for entertaining John Smith's finding the golden plates, but insist the parting of the sea be taken seriously, although not literally. The mistake is to assume this self-awareness of one's biases necessitates their elimination as opposed to their radical embracing. That is, if the Mormon can find higher meaning but needs to root it the 19th century musings of a traveling salesman, then that is what he should do.
Woah, you've gone too far now! This looks like total relativism to me, and I refuse to get on board.
Ah, the good old days. Do you ever pine or yearn or long for the certainties of the Cold War?
I graduated highschool in 1984, the middle of the Reagan years. They were building up the military and recruiting heavily, offering all sorts of incentives. My fear was that I'd sign up, the cold war would end, and then I'd actually have to fight a war. That might mean I wasn't really soldier material, but I guess I was rooting for the cold war to continue.
Of course your story is different. If the cold war continued, you'd doubtfully ever lived in Russia and all that entailed.
This week is the anniversary of the dismantling of the Berlin wall. I don’t feel nostalgic for that or for what came before it. Mostly I feel a sense of regret that the west, especially the US, blew our chance to make something good out of what was.
I'd just like to say, although it's a very eccentric and not at all important point, that since nostalgia is a feeling of pain when thinking of the past, this regret you're expressing can actually be encompassed by a richer understanding of the meaning of nostalgia.
Well, if it was the funeral of a Janissary, that would be perfect. Otherwise, I'm not sure. If they had made the effort to dress up in full ceremonial costume it might be a sign of respect, even if the deceased wasn't a Janissary.
javi2541997November 11, 2025 at 07:02#10243260 likes
You can count on my discretion. I shall take your secret to the grave.
OutlanderNovember 11, 2025 at 10:38#10243340 likes
Anyone into PHP programming? Or C? (Apparently PHP is derivative of C)
I found this post fascinating. (It'll just be boring if you're not into the field)
So basically this guy's forum got hacked (knock on wood, right?) and somehow the hacker managed to place a couple dozen lines of code at the bottom of one or more files that to even some advanced users would seem to be benign. Just does nominal "innocent"/important looking functions per the so-called patch or emergency it claims to remedy. Except, the genius part is, the REAL code is located within the comments, that every coder worth their salt knows is not processed by the script engine at all.
So, how does he make it work? What the script does (very quickly and briefly, obscured by the helpful looking surrounding functions) is actually request the full text of the file itself using a "get file content" function, then searches the raw text using a calculated formulae (RegEx or Regular Expressions) for the hash values (encoded seemingly gibberish that can be decoded to reveal something else) then compiles them together. So it's just some helpful comment like "variableA" does "helpful information XYZ" and beneath that "md5" or "sha1" (which are established methods of encryption) followed by encoded strings ("1jsj5oakf0kajfk329992ke26k" for example). It really just blends in perfectly, which is what I found so impressive.
But it gets even more interesting. What the script secretly compiles from the random hashes in the commented out section (the comments) is a little known function called "runkit_function_redefine", which targets a seldom used function of the forum software, it's not important what it's called but it completely changes what it does and basically makes it so a PHP script uploaded as an image (virtually non-existent these days due to modern practices) that contains a secret HTTP header which the malicious code can be inserted/uploaded. It then of course runs "eval" on the content of that HTTP header, which if you know anything about the PHP language is VERY dangerous since it literally executes code from a text string (simplest, most common form of data storage) as if you were an administrator with FTP access uploading anything you'd like.
I'm not a hacker nor do I look into that type of stuff other than standard best practices and whatnot like any hobbyist/semi-professional would. But again, I just found that particular obfuscation and "outside of the box thinking" fascinating.
Needless to say I broke my sobriety. Oh well, it's a holiday. Back on the wagon tomorrow.
Mostly I feel a sense of regret that the west, especially the US, blew our chance to make something good out of what was
You can't just have empty regret. You have to submit a proposal for corrective action. The Shoutbox stands almost a dozen strong, and we're here to right wrongs.
Well, at least he/she went to the funeral. Isn't it more disrespectful to not go at all?
Well, there's a debate there. Is going to a funeral really doing anything for the dead person? This reminds me of Tom Sawyer, who found himself in attendance at his own funeral, though he was up in the rafters looking down at the crowd. I think they thought he died in a cave, but Injun Joe actually helped him survive. I think that's what happened.
Reply to Jamal
I think I'll go with the first one, but I'm not sure where to find that thing he has in his hand.
Is going to a funeral really doing anything for the dead person?
Maybe funerals are for the living.
What might be disrespectful is that if someone is living but he's about to die but he just won't make the commitment is that you have the funeral before he dies and the Priest just starts off by saying, "It looks like Bob is running late for his funeral, but we expect him to get here soon, so we'll just go ahead and start without him because we know everyone is crazy busy this time of year."
I think that would disrespectful for the soon to be dead guy, but it would show show great respect for the people who came to cry about the guy who was about to die. Maybe it'd be fine if you asked Bob and he said, "sure, go ahead, I'll catch up with everyone later."
What might be disrespectful is that if someone is living but he's about to die but he just won't make the commitment is that you have the funeral before he dies and the Priest just starts off by saying, "It looks like Bob is running late for his funeral, but we expect him to get here soon, so we'll just go ahead and start without him because we know everyone is crazy busy this time of year.
But then Bob miraculously recovers and now you have all those biodegradable balloons flying around and one ends up flying over China and there's an international incident.
We’re here to name what we can see, what we half-see, what we might only sense out of the corner of an uncooperative eye, or possibly imagine sensing, if seeing were still the agreed-upon method. We’re here to speak from where we actually stand, or at least from where we think we’re standing,
Yes. I think your post points out a weakness, an over-simplification, in mine. I wrote--"We’re not here to think what we’re told to think, we’re here to put words to what we can see for ourselves." That ignores the fact that sometimes we don't see till we're shown. I'll expand that in response to one of Hanover's comments.
This suggests a complex unarticulated subconscious nonlinguistic belief lurking about awaiting words to carry it.
This is something I've discussed here before many times. I carry a model of the world around in my mind. I feel this very tangibly, visually. As I understand it, it is the foundation of intuition. Here's how I described it in a post from long ago:
I'm standing in a dark room. In front of me, maybe on a stage, is a cloud that fills the whole front of the room. It's lit from within. I don't see any specific details of what makes up the world, but I can feel that they're there. Although everything is there, things I am more aware of are in better focus. Things I'm less aware of are hidden in the haze. When I hear a new idea of any kind, I get a feeling of whether or not that makes sense to me. When I do that, I imagine taking that new idea into the room with the cloud and holding it up against it to see if it fits. If it doesn't fit, I don't believe it. If it does fit, I get that feeling that it has the ring of truth.
What's left out here is that some new ideas make me reexamine, revise, and possibly expand my model of the world.
So, often when I come across new ideas, I get this sense of the ring of truth but also a feeling of the stretching of the fabric of my understanding. I am feeling both very strongly while listening to "The Varieties of Religious Experience."
Once that belief is reduced to words, is the belief different?...
...On a meta level, would you say that your thoughts about this pre-linguistic thought lacked meaning to you until you reduced them to words as you have now? As in, there is some knowledge you can have without words, but not others? What sorts yes and what sorts no?
As my friend Immy used to say
Immanuel (Immy) Kant:And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in itself, though we know not this thing as it is in itself, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something.
So, we can't just brush aside T Clark by saying "you're only saying that because your culture, class, and background have determined that you would believe everything William James wrote". On the other hand, we can see the appeal of James's ideas in that context and assess them partly on that basis.
I don't see any contradiction between what you've written here and what I wrote in my response to @Hanover's comment just above. Beyond culture, class, and background I would add genetic and neurological mental characteristics--temperament. I am a pragmatic thinker. Always have been, always will be. I was born that way. That's why I am an engineer.
Now you've prodded me to expound on my theory of regret. Regret is always a cheat, as if you could just wave a magic wand and erase your responsibility for what has happened in the past. So maybe @Jamal was right. Maybe the right word is "nostalgia" after all.
javi2541997November 11, 2025 at 21:05#10244340 likes
I would join just for the robes. Or do I have to be a former slave?
No, you don't need to be a former slave. However, I highly recommend you start learning Turkish on Duolingo. These lads have a terrible English level. Worse than mine, so imagine this!
The ring of truth is not like the ring of commitment or the ring of confidence, which are loops. The ring of truth is like the ring of a bell or the ring of un-cracked, sound ceramics. The ring thus distinguishes truth from crackpot ideas which just clunk.
I once started a thread to make the argument that if you can’t predict something, even in theory, then it isn’t determined.
Modally speaking, determinate yet unpredictable (chaos) means in our world unpredictable, but not unpredictable in all possible worlds, but indeterminate and unpredictable (i.e. QM), unpredictable in all possible worlds.
That is, chaos unpredictability increases as variables increase and intelligence and ability to measure decrease.
Your pragmatic problem will arise when you declare something not determined because currently unpredictable and then later someone predicts it.
In any event, calling a coin toss outcome indetermined because unpredictable seems wrong.
Modally speaking, determinate yet unpredictable (chaos) means in our world unpredictable, but not unpredictable in all possible worlds, but indeterminate and unpredictable (i.e. QM), unpredictable in all possible worlds.
I must admit I don’t get the whole modal/possible worlds way of looking at things.
Your pragmatic problem will arise when you declare something not determined because currently unpredictable and then later someone predicts it.
Simple solution— I never definitively declare something as not determined. I always condition that type of judgment.
Beyond that, I have made the case recently that the idea of causality is not necessarily a useful one except in the simplest cases. Seems to me that’s the same argument as saying that the idea of determinism doesn’t make sense except under the same conditions.
Not at all sure why possible world semantics is needed here.
Given the initial conditions, the evolution of the attractor is determined. It is calculated mathematically and cannot vary.
But small variations in those initial conditions will result in large differences in subsequent states.
The Laplacian worldview held that given the initial conditions we could predict the future state. Since we cannot know the initial conditions with unlimited accuracy, we cannot predict the future with unlimited accuracy - even were it determinate.
It wasn't indubitably predictable that T clark become an engineer.
It’s not what Laplace’s Demon knows, it’s what you and I can know.
Is it? I think there are two meanings of determine in play. There's what you can determine, like "they determined that the rain was acidic." Or "the polarity of the field is determined by the direction of current flow."
Is it? I think there are two meanings of determine in play. There's what you can determine, like "they determined that the rain was acidic." Or "the polarity of the field is determined by the direction of current flow
In the second example, the word “determined” is just a synonym for “caused.” I have made the case many times before that causality is not a useful way of understanding the physical world.
The Laplacian worldview held that given the initial conditions we could predict the future state.
Why do we need to know the initial state? We only need know with perfection the current state to know the subsequent state because you'd assume all prior forces exist are impregnated in the current state.
I'm watching a K-drama that revolves around Korea's aversion to scandal. If a woman is being physically abused by her husband, everyone around her is predisposed to ignore it. If she brings it to the authorities, it creates a scandal that can adversely affect the prospects of her family members, for jobs or promotions. If she decides to murder her husband, that same tendency people have to want to look the other way becomes her ally.
javi2541997November 13, 2025 at 05:48#10246920 likes
Reply to Hanover The present state is then the initial state. The bit you start from. And you do not - cannot- know it with sufficient accuracy to make perfect predictions, or even rough predictions, after a given period.
Fine, it is up to you. The point is baking together. 225g of corn flour then!
unenlightenedNovember 13, 2025 at 13:51#10247320 likes
Seeing that self-promotion is frowned upon with a heavy banning finger, here is some promotion of someone who is not me at all, but who is sometimes referred to as "Mrs Un."
Two nations divided by a common language. I looked all this up for you.
In the US, we call what you call "corn flour" "cornstarch."
U.S. corn flour would refer to finely ground corn, less coarse than what we'd call cornmeal. You can make bread cakes out of corn flour, but they're definitely not lighter. Cornmeal is what we use for old fashioned skillet baked heavy as a rock cornbread, often moistened with lard. Peasant food.
When you said throw some corn flour in your cakes to lighten them up, that resulted in my going down this rabbit hole.
No need, but it's good to see you are learning something about English.
Corn flour will produce a finer crumb. You can add a bit of wheat flour if you like, but it will make the cake heavier and dryer. A good sponge does not rely on gluten at all, but gets its structure from the eggs. It's basically a "structural meringue".
The eggs are separated, then the whites frothed, cream of tartare added, and a bit of bi carb to neutralise the acid and add some carbon dioxide. The corn flour coats the bubbles gently, helping stabilise the foam by absorbing surface moisture. As it bakes, the starch gelatinises, basically setting the air bubbles in place. Gluten will tighten as it cooks, shrinking the foam. Using wheat flour the cake will be heavier and less moist.
The yolks, mixed with sugar, are folded gently back in for colour and flavour.
I'm glad you learned the difference between corn flour and corn meal. I'm surprised that you had to.
Reply to T Clark You are, I am given to understand, a trained engineer. My degrees are mostly in philosophy. Go ahead and provide your misplaced criticism.
Science and engineering teach critical thinking at least as well as philosophy does. And when push comes to shove, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. I’ll put my pudding up against yours any day.
I'm sure you would. However it's plain that you haven't understood much concerning the problems that you attempt to deal with hereabouts. So I'm not sure you are the best judge on such issues.
Do you really wish to play this game with me? As for your sponge, so for your pudding? :grin:
I'm glad you learned the difference between corn flour and corn meal. I'm surprised that you had to.
What I learned wasn't the difference between corn flour and corn meal, as I always knew that and never had to learn it. It was one of those synthetic a priori truths I have always held.
What I learned was that your use of "corn flour" differed from mine. Corn flour to me is finely ground corn meal. Corn flour to you is corn starch, an entirely different sort of thing. I'm shocked you had to be told this.
Let me ask you this, knower of all things flour, what do you call what I call corn flour, which is finely ground cornmeal?
And since you shared with me your bougie spongecakes or whatever they may be, I share with you the delicacy of southern cornbread: https://www.harvesteating.com/blog/skillet-cornbread-w-lard
Reply to Hanover I'm sorry you are having so much trouble with this. The best flour for a sponge is a finely milled and sieved maize flour, with no detectable gluten and very little protein. It is indeed mostly starch.
However it's plain that you haven't understood much concerning the problems that you attempt to deal with hereabouts.
You and I approach philosophy differently. You mostly just repeat things other people have said, without adding much insight of your own. I take more responsibility. It’s not what other people tell me, it’s what I can see for myself. Other philosophers can help with that, but in the end, I’m accountable for my own ideas.
The motto of the IEEE (electronic engineering society) used to be Engineering; turning ideas into reality.
My father worked for Dupont for his entire career—almost 50 years. Their motto was “Better things for better living through chemistry.” I don’t know if it still is.
I worked for Hanoverian Enterprises for a number of years and our motto was "Better biscuits with corn flour." As an American company selling solely in Australia, we could never clarify our differing uses of the term "corn flour." This confusion, along with our CEO"s untimely stabbing through the heart death by a stingray, resulted in a bitter bankruptcy where the remaining employees stampeded naked through a nursing home demanding fluffy biscuits.
“Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible.”
That is such freakin' genius.
OutlanderNovember 14, 2025 at 02:47#10248420 likes
They should make a supermarket that has club and disco lighting with spontaneous, constantly changing forms of muzak that sync with the lighting and stuff.
So like you'll be in the produce aisle and a calm yet spirited tune kicks on and the spotlights dance on the rutabagas for a few moments. Then you'll be in the bread aisle and a pseudo form of techno comes on with the bright lights dimming allowing colored spotlights to wildly paint the aisle up and down with their various illumination.
I'd shop there. All the young people would. It would market itself. And go viral on its own. Kids would literally force their parents to shop at my store no matter how inconveniently located it is. Fact.
Another fact, I'm going to pitch that notion to investors tomorrow. No one steal my idea in the interim, thanks.
Even back then, I thought it was kind of creepy. Just because I’m made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen doesn’t mean I should take a bath in methyl isocyanate. That’s what killed thousands in Bhopal India a few years after the commercial came out.
Metaphysician UndercoverNovember 14, 2025 at 03:17#10248470 likes
Philosophy has to start with someone making shit up. I'm about to ask ChatGPT to start a whole new philosophy about something.
That might be the philosophy about nothing. (Jerry Seinfeld?) I can't think of any philosopher who argues that there actually is nothing. But ask GP, I'm sure it could make an argument for nothing.
javi2541997November 14, 2025 at 06:16#10248730 likes
By the way, that photo must be old, when spongebob was young and innocent. If you went to his neighbourhood, you would be surprised at how the tables turned. Don't play with drugs, lads.
That there are perhaps more engineers than students of philosophy on this philosophy forum is perhaps a symptom of the inadequacies of engineering.
Just a thought.
I think it's pretty common among engineers to think their expertise entitles them to apply their skills to all the problems in the world. Biology, physics, philosophy: just stop all this nonsense and let the engineers deal with it! It might explain why so many crackpots are engineers. I suspect there's a name for this phenomenon but I can't recall it.
I think it's pretty common among engineers to think their expertise entitles them to apply their skills to all the problems in the world. Biology, physics, philosophy: just stop all this nonsense and let the engineers deal with it! It might explain why so many crackpots are engineers. I suspect there's a name for this phenomenon but I can't recall it.
@Banno is a lost cause, but I expect better from you.
Reply to Jamal No doubt there are stereotypes associated with engineers (and computer programmers (lacking social skills) academics (lacking real wotld skills), attorneys (brilliant) and whatever else folks do around here (living in their parent's basement) ), but being crackpots isn't limited to any particular profession (or lack thereof) as far as I can tell.
being crackpots isn't limited to any particular profession (or lack thereof) as far as I can tell.
It's a known phenomenon. People have written books about it. Political science academics Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog looked at why engineers are overrepresented among political extremists, conspiracy theorists, pseudoscientific movements, and crackpottery.
Their book focuses on Jihadism but it's wider than that: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691178509/engineers-of-jihad?srsltid=AfmBOopV7UTbPmEccn1GXAjw9DABooachpsgdcYyBS4JVU91bcEVR_9W
If you’re serious, and if you find my presence on the forum disruptive, let me know.
Clarky, we love you.
You probably already know this. Your presence here is very important to us. Jamal was joking, and if he was truly serious, I bet he was thinking of other members rather than you.
There are crackpot engineers and then very good-hearted engineers like you; crackpot janissaries (like me) and wonderful janissaries.
And then, there are also good-hearted well-groomed philosophers like @Banno and @Michael Bay, which are apart (different specimens). :smile:
Jamal was joking, and if he was truly serious, I bet he was thinking of other members rather than you.
I was talking about engineers.
javi2541997November 14, 2025 at 09:04#10248910 likes
Reply to Jamal Exactly, engineers. Perhaps, given Clarky is also an engineer, he took the hint or just felt offended by calling the engineers crackpots.
It might explain why so many crackpots are engineers. I suspect there's a name for this phenomenon but I can't recall it.
There is, assuredly, some stereotype associated with forum admins as well. Isn't there? Why, there must be. But before we attempt to approach such subject matter: a question. If I may.
What word would you use to define yourself? And a follow-up: Why? :chin:
No doubt there are stereotypes associated with engineers (and computer programmers (lacking social skills) academics (lacking real wotld skills), attorneys (brilliant) and whatever else folks do around here (living in their parent's basement) ), but being crackpots isn't limited to any particular profession (or lack thereof) as far as I can tell.
What an interesting mental configuration you have there. Yes, the simple act of including an additional space between the last two brackets provides enough psychoanalysis to fill a library with on your worldview, desires, and fears, both conscious and otherwise, without ever having met you. That's a skill you might be able to develop yourself, someday. :smirk:
There is, assuredly, some stereotype associated with forum admins as well. Isn't there? Why, there must be.
Yes, they're all petty tyrants who need to compensate for their lack of status in real life by wielding authority anonymously in their own little digital fiefdoms. They're so insecure, vindictive, pathetic, capricious, and narcissistic, while being cowardly failures in real life, that the only thing that satisfies them is acting like a wrathful God online.
javi2541997November 14, 2025 at 10:06#10249040 likes
I enjoyed reading it. Thanks for showing it with cartoons. Otherwise, I would have nightmares this night.
I think "Crocodiles are more afraid of us than we are of them" is a terrible hoax. Of course crocodiles are not afraid of us and they are patiently waiting in their swamp to eat a random hiker.
OutlanderNovember 14, 2025 at 11:01#10249130 likes
And—while likely a common sentiment—is perhaps not one that lines up all too well with the method behind a perceived madness. The Internet is a catalyst for unbridled expression. It's only natural—depending on what frame of mind an individual happens to be in (people use the Internet on the john, mind you)—to occasionally forget the person behind the post in favor of placating the desire to hastily express one's current view (or ideal position, irrespective of—or perhaps in spite of—one's normal obligation to adhere to social etiquette) toward a topic or idea. I think. :yum:
What an interesting mental configuration you have there. Yes, the simple act of including an additional space between the last two brackets provides enough psychoanalysis to fill a library with on your worldview, desires, and fears, both conscious and otherwise, without ever having met you. That's a skill you might be able to develop yourself, someday. :smirk:
An additional space can be critical in evaluating the meaning of a sentence. For example, the sentence, "The pen is in my mouth" has a very different meaning if you eliminate certain spacing.
AI is our friend after all. Why don't you guys ask this same question and see if you get a similar response. My concern is that it has detected my prior use and it's sycophanting.
javi2541997November 14, 2025 at 20:14#10249560 likes
I am getting very frustrated with my attempts to pronounce the words. I think the point is that the three are pronounced the same but "towed" is grinding my gears.
I am getting very frustrated with my attempts to pronounce the words. I think the point is that the three are pronounced the same but "towed" is grinding my gears.
I’ll tell you my own pronunciation confession. Since you’re Spanish, I know “Javi” should be pronounced “Havi,” but when I say it to myself, I always use a hard J.
I’ll tell you my own pronunciation confession. Since you’re Spanish, I know “Javi” should be pronounced “Havi,” but when I say it to myself, I always use a hard J.
You can pronounce 'Javi' however you want, but don't shout 'JAVIER', please. This is what my parents or other authorities said when they wanted to scold me. It hit me hard when I was a kid. :sweat:
I suspect there's a name for this phenomenon but I can't recall it.
Apparently:
ChatGPT:Midwit Syndrome (colloquial)
A joke term sometimes thrown around for people who are very good at structured problems and assume they’ve therefore mastered messy conceptual ones.
Engineers are particularly prone to this partly because engineering education builds a deep confidence in model-building, optimisation, and control, which work spectacularly in physical systems but break down in conceptual, biological, or normative contexts. So when engineers wander into philosophy or social theory, you often get an attempt to “solve” the domain rather than understand its complexity.
Engineering selects for a combination of:
High systemising ability
Low tolerance for ambiguity
Belief in model universality
Strong causal intuition and control mindset
These are excellent traits for engineering. They are terrible traits for philosophy, political theory, psychology, or biology, where:
Concepts are open-textured
Categories are fuzzy
Explanation is contested
Prediction is probabilistic
Normativity is essential
An engineer trained to find single, optimisable solutions struggles when a domain is structured around trade-offs, disagreement, values, interpretation, or uncertainty.
I was going to let this whole thing go, but seems like you want to keep it going. You and I were going back-and-forth, and I had you on the ropes until you brought in a moderator to take your side. As usual, you bring no substance, only ego.
Why don't you guys ask this same question and see if you get a similar response.
I am pressed for time and searched for an AI that is free and doesn't require a login. "Ask AI" (how original) came up. It's response was: [some lengthy encyclopedic response that didn't answer my question]. So I asked it again, specifically for website URLs, to which it responded:
"I apologize, but I cannot provide specific website URLs. My instructions explicitly state that I must use ONLY the very most authoritative and credible print encyclopedias, published nonfiction books, academic journals, and dictionaries, and NO other sources whatsoever. Providing specific website URLs would violate this core constraint, as these are not typically found within the types of sources I am permitted to use."
Actually, I just noticed ChatGPT is free and no login. It's response was:
"If you’re looking for good websites to discuss and post about philosophical issues, here are some solid picks — each with a slightly different flavour, so you can pick one that fits your style best:
? Recommended Site
Online Philosophy Club — A good all-round forum for philosophically-minded discussion.
- Free to join and open to people from a wide range of backgrounds.
- Topics are varied: ethics, metaphysics, meaning of life, knowledge, etc.
- Rules ask that you stay civil and on-topic (no ad hominems) which helps keep discussion productive.
- Because it’s a dedicated philosophy forum, it may feel more “serious” than broader chat sites.
If you like, I can pull 5–10 of the best philosophy discussion forums (free, open to post, good community) ranked + linked — do you want that?"
I replied: "Yes."
It replied:
"Here are 8 good websites/forums where you can discuss and post about philosophical issues — each has a slightly different tone or community, so you can pick the one that fits you best.
# Name What it offers & good fit
1 Online Philosophy Club A dedicated philosophy discussion forum welcoming all levels (from students to professors). Forum rules emphasise civility and on?topic discussion.
2 The Philosophy Forum A general forum where you can post about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, religion, etc. Good variety of topics.
3 Philosophy Vessel (Forum) A global, open platform for classical and contemporary philosophy (ethics, metaphysics, philosophy of information, etc.). Welcoming for beginners and more advanced.
4 PEA Soup A site focused on philosophy, ethics, academia — lots of thoughtful articles and discussion around current philosophical issues.
5 EpicureanFriends A more specialized forum: focused on classical Epicurean philosophy (ethics, ancient texts). Good if you like that specific tradition.
6 Sikh Philosophy Network A forum oriented toward Sikh literature and philosophy, inter?faith dialogue and philosophical issues within that tradition. Good niche/community.
7 LessWrong While not purely a “philosophy forum” in the traditional sense, this community focuses on rationality, cognition, decision-making and philosophical questions around those topics.
8 r/philosophy (Reddit) & r/askphilosophy (Reddit) These are subreddit forums where you can post philosophical questions, ideas, get feedback, engage in open discussion. Example: > “This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy …”
Are you suggesting that we could smoke SpongeBob SquarePants and get stoned?
The THC content in hemp is to low to get stoned. They have to remove large amounts of hemp derived THC and put it in a gummie to get you stoned.
OutlanderNovember 15, 2025 at 04:16#10250510 likes
It's been a tragically long while since anyone has posted any food. So I will. Such as it is.
Ladies and gents, I present to you: "The Outlander." A feisty improvement to the traditional ham and cheese sandwich featuring: (2) slices of white bread, a total of (3) "tavern-style" (smoked I believe with light seasoning) slices of ham freshly sliced from the local supermarket, along with (3) pepper jack cheese slices (alternating between layers of ham, never touching one another), accompanied by (2) vertically-sliced "deli style" pickles, all held together by a few liberal allotments of French's yellow mustard in between most slices.
You'll note one slice is missing as per the customs of my restaurant. Chef/server takes a slice/spoonful of whatever you order in lieu of you having to tip. It brings in more business than you might expect. Pretty high turnover rate on servers, though. Bah, no matter. Just growing pains.
javi2541997November 15, 2025 at 06:36#10250570 likes
Next time, try them with olive oil. Trust me, it is a wonderful combo.
There are a couple of problems with the use of olive oil in @Outlander's sandwich. First, it would be absorbed by the soft, thin bread, which will become unpleasantly soggy and will probably disintegrate. Second, olive oil with French's mustard doesn't sound like a promising combo. Third, the flavour of extra virgin olive oil would not, at least for me, be at home in a ham and cheese sandwich unless the ham was the European raw ham like Jamón Serrano or Jambon de Bayonne.
Personally, I would replace the French's mustard with a mix of mayonnaise and English mustard, and add some fresh ground black pepper.
OutlanderNovember 15, 2025 at 10:15#10250640 likes
Personally, I would replace the French's mustard with a mix of mayonnaise and English mustard, and add some fresh ground black pepper.
Huh. I just might try that.
It occurred to me my aversion to mayonnaise is largely pseudo-enforced, fabricated by my choice to refrain from condiments, sauces, and similar viscous product that can be easily tampered with without displaying discernible lack of evidence when dining out (or otherwise consuming food I did not prepare myself). (I live an interesting life, shall we say, plus many people in the service industry are unhappy, prone to vindictiveness, or are otherwise raised without rigid morals—might as well ask a monkey to prepare one's lunch, am I right? I kid. A little unsolicited late night humor.)
But at home where the food ingredients go from a factory sealed container or package to a plate is a different story. A quick Internet search reveals "English mustard" as a bit more flavorful, spicy even, with a discernible "fiery kick" (in comparison to American mustard). Sounds good so far. I trust you're aware "French's" is an American brand pioneered by one "Mr. French" and does not hail from France, yes?
While I do believe in the pseudo-rhyme: "a little pepper makes everything better", I question the discernible taste and elevation of the overall flavor profile even a generous amount of black pepper would make on a fairly busy sandwich such as "The Outlander". What with the mustard (very peppery as-is), pickles (quite tangy), and if I'm not mistaken, already albeit slightly seasoned ham. But it is fair to say, it certainly would not do any harm. :smile:
Respectable advice from a respectable man. I feel like I should be paying some sort of membership fee for such. Golly good, Jamal. Golly good. :grin:
Edit: As far as olive oil, a fun anecdote: All my life I've been fond of sardines. Always in water. Since a young age. Oil made such a mess. And messes are to be punished. So it was always, any fish, even any meat: "In water only." This obsession even extended to fruits such as mandarin oranges and peach cups. Oh can't have a mess. Cannot have a mess. Messes are to be punished, after all. But finally, one day, when I was a legal adult I decided to order a new brand of sardines that came in a variety pack, one of which rests in, you guessed it, olive oil. It was one of the best sardines I can recall in living memory. I also tried a variety (of the exact same product) that was in water. It was not so great. Which made me realize not just what I was missing, but the sheer length of how long as well! Oh did it make me start to rethink what else in life I've been so hopelessly unaware of. Needless to say, I have a newfound respect for olive oil and would certainly entertain the idea of olive oil (carefully, only drizzling a small portion on the ham or cheese itself that does not immediately neighbor the delicate and malleable culinary bookends that are bread slices).
There's another ham and cheese sandwich I like, called "The Jamal." It's a grilled cheese sandwich but there are slices of ham in the middle. The key is to have the cheese, not the ham, directly in contact with the bread so that it gets the heat and melts. So the ham is sandwiched between bread and cheese on both sides.
javi2541997November 15, 2025 at 10:30#10250660 likes
There are a couple of problems with the use of olive oil in Outlander's sandwich. First, it would be absorbed by the soft, thin bread, which will become unpleasantly soggy and will probably disintegrate. Second, olive oil with French's mustard doesn't sound like a promising combo. Third, the flavour of extra virgin olive oil would not, at least for me, be at home in a ham and cheese sandwich unless the ham was the European raw ham like Jamón Serrano or Jambon de Bayonne.
Indeed, @Outlander's sandwich bread is replaceable. I'd use a baguette (we call it "barra" here) because it is thin. Furthermore, I will not add anything else to my sandwich or bocadillo. Just the ham with cheese and olive oil. This was my point. Since olive oil has a strong flavour, I don't think I need extra products. I believe I have never combined mayonnaise and pickles in a sandwich. Perhaps it is a cultural culinary thing. I only eat these alone or with fish.
Personally, I would replace the French's mustard with a mix of mayonnaise and English mustard, and add some fresh ground black pepper.
Yes. I thought the same. I even believe that I already said this in the shoutbox: English mustard is far better than French one, and it combines better with most products. This is my favourite:
OutlanderNovember 15, 2025 at 10:38#10250670 likes
There's another ham and cheese sandwich I like, called "The Jamal." It's a grilled cheese sandwich but there are slices of ham in the middle. The key is to have the cheese, not the ham, directly in contact with the bread so that it gets the heat and melts. So the ham is sandwiched between bread and cheese on both sides.
This sounds excellent as well. When I would get traditional (cold) ham and cheese sandwiches from the nearby delicatessen I observed that by simply microwaving it (I understand a proper oven is superior but the comparison between hot and cold is assuredly captured by the like) the sandwich was... much more, not only filling, but, tasty? Hearty? One of those words. It was almost elevated to the status of a meal itself and not just a quick snack or light lunch like a cold ham and cheese sub would be otherwise.
But! We have a conundrum. A personal one due to my peculiarities, rest assured, nothing to do with the nature of your recipe. Rest assured. For me, the combination of melted cheese and warmed ham has the effect of "weighing me down" and invoking a state of desired rest. It makes me sleepy. Which is not good for my line of work. At the end of the day, when all is done but preparing for night's rest, this is ideal. Excellent even. So I will try this, but during the evening. I will retain and actualize your wisdom of ensuring both receiving sides of bread are met with the touch of not ham, but cheese.
I've had an aversion of grilled cheese sandwiches since I was young but I now realize that was due to the quality of the venue of the place in which they were served (school and other people's houses), not the product served itself. I for one love a good ham and cheese, cold, and especially hot, such are the circumstantial risks I take that come with the latter. I will assuredly try "The Jamal", to recreate it, to the best of my ability, such as said ability is, and upon doing so will produce a photo as evidence of such, so that it may be judged, praised, yea even ridiculed in the unforgiving arena of verbal combat that is, The Shoutbox. Stay tuned Jamal, stay tuned.
I too, like @Jamal, am olive oil hesitant when it applies to typical sandwiches for the reasons presented. However, if we have a stacked Italian meat sandwich on a thick roll (which I call a sub roll), then oil and vinegar is wholly appropriate. This I call the Hanoverini.
I might even suggest not just the oil of the olive, but, stand back, the olive itself! We won't limit ourselves to the squeezed essence of this ancient fruit, but its very meat.
I call this radical unrefined beast the HanoveriniRobini.
At this point in the conversation we expect @Banno to arrive and explain how we've all done it wrong, with avocado oil or some such being more accurate based upon how it interacts with the animal proteins and slightly acidic this or that.
English mustard is far better than French one, and it combines better with most products. This is my favourite:
Speaking of mustard, I bought some Chinese style mustard powder you mix with water to form a hot paste of sinus clearing unhappiness. I find that it must be used sparingly, best when not used at all.
For the adventurous, you'll find it in the Kung Pu Hanoverfuchan sandwich.
And yes, y'all are going to have to endure my traveling the globe with sandwiches I make up.
I was thinking about creating a Scottish menu where I just added a "Mc" to every item, but someone beat me to it.
Now that I am thinking of this, Chinese soups are spicy but pretty tasty. I love them.
I'm a fan of Mexican soups. Most overlook that on the menu in Mexican restaurants and go for the burritos, enchiladas, and the like. I just had that last night, shredded chicken and vegetable soup and some empanadas.
javi2541997November 15, 2025 at 13:37#10250910 likes
Reply to Hanover I have never tried Mexican soups. Nonetheless, I think the point here is that soups are tasty and essential for gastronomy. It doesn't matter where it was cooked.
There's another ham and cheese sandwich I like, called "The Jamal." It's a grilled cheese sandwich but there are slices of ham in the middle.
Oddly enough, we call this a grilled ham and cheese sandwich. If instead of ham, you make the sandwich with a hamburger in the middle, we call it a golden boy.
Exactly. That's right!
--------------------------
I ate a salad for supper. Please, don't get upset with me, but I added nuts and a bunch of chocolate chips. The result was amazingly good.
Who was the lad who used to put bittersweet in the salad? I'm thinking of Michael Bay.
Yes, the elusive and mysterious @Michael Bay. Well dressed, joined 8 years ago, and nary a post. Legend has it (as in a breaking news sort of legend) he took his salad with bittersweets, an ingredient as mysterious as the man.
Michael Bay's Wiki article.:He is best known for making big-budget high-concept action films with fast cutting, stylistic cinematography and visuals, and extensive use of special effects, including frequent depictions of explosions.
[quote=Wikipedia;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bay]Six of Bay's films have been nominated for the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture and Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director (Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Transformers: Age of Extinction and Transformers: The Last Knight), with Revenge of the Fallen and Age of Extinction winning the award for "Worst Director". [/quote]
But let's be fair:
Conversely, some critics and actors have praised Bay's films and style.
We FINALLY have a mega-star on our rolls, and you want to hate? We've all waited 8 long years for any comment at all from him, and you've probably just reset the clock.
Coleman's mustard appears to be just that - mustard seed. S&B Oriental Mustard apparently contains horse radish.
If heat is the goal, then wasabi is I think a better approach. We've managed to keep some plants alive for a year or so, and while they are not yet large enough to harvest the stem, we've used the leaves in salad with a very pleasing result.
So my ham sandwich would have leg ham off the bone, a mild cheese such as Jarlsberg and a salad of wasabi leaves.
javi2541997November 16, 2025 at 06:01#10252120 likes
It depends on how we see it. At least @Michael Bay was nominated for something, and he even won an award. Perhaps, his work will be more valued after his death. Like Van Gogh's paintings.
OutlanderNovember 16, 2025 at 06:59#10252180 likes
Reply to Jamal
I wonder what some folk are going to think about having their post count reset to 0. Will that happen? How "fresh" will the new start be? Don't want to clutter up the public thread with my idiosyncratic bouts of curiosity.
Will we have to sign up again as if joining a new site? Or will we just load up TPF one March day and be on an empty new forum? Will new membership admittance be the same as it is now (ie. no temporary "open enroll" to get the initial numbers up, etc.)?
Thanks for the vote of confidence... I post at just under 250/month, apparently. Looks like I'm on target. You should be able to get to 7.3...
OutlanderNovember 16, 2025 at 12:05#10252420 likes
I propose their should be a pinned topic like the Shoutbox—regardless of their being an actual live chat—on the new site. Which does sound cool. But this Shoutbox has something I feel that would be missing in a traditional live chat. Stuff like that lawyer guy's odd stories that if it were from anyone else would be disturbing. It's also like a friendly and allowed way to pose simple one-liner questions and get a reasonable few replies to (which could in theory also happen on a live chat, but many people here actually have a fairly large amount of interesting things to say on even the smallest most trivial of topics, which is a good thing in my book).
Typically when changing platforms, Porat purchases the old data. We could use the cash infusion. Want me to reach out?
Should we consider this transition a reset, much like a Jubilee year, relieving all of their past debts where all prior banashees are qualified for reentry?
If I return as a street urchin hungry for gruel and philosophy, speaking like Oliver Twist, will everyone allow it without reminding me of my Hanover days?
The Shoutbox will become an instant message board, much like a Snapchat. Can we still have a community posting room like this one, perhaps named after me?
Can the data from the old platform be available in downloadable form so we can perform AI analysis on the old posts and posters. It would be helpful to summarize each person into a one sentence essence. I can better understand people once cleansed of annoying nuance
That's it for now. I'm sure I'll think of something more.
All of that can be done in live chat, unless I'm missing something. I'm not saying no—just trying to establish what people think the live chat will be lacking. Because quite often I think it'll turn out that live chat isn't lacking it aftet all.
The Shoutbox used to be live chat and we had to make it a regular discussion thread when we moved to Plush only because Plush has no live chat feature.
Can people please put these comments in the dedicated thread. I may have to consult things that come up regarding features and I don't want to have to sift through the Shoutbox to do it.
OutlanderNovember 16, 2025 at 13:03#10252460 likes
You're probably right. But even what's his name likes the idea of a "community posting room", likely for the reasons I've suggested. Unless he's joking. Hard to tell with that one. I guess I just think it's neat you can go back to page 1 and read about what was going on 10 years ago. I like history, even a small community meta-history (like this Porat guy I've seen come up multiple times over the years).
Can people please put these comments in the dedicated thread. I may have to consult things that come up regarding features and I don't want to have to sift through the Shoutbox to do it.
Aye aye, cap'n. I just figured my comments were minor personal interests that didn't belong in a newly minted official pinned thread is all. If I have something to say, I'll make sure it's important. :wink:
CopernicusNovember 16, 2025 at 14:03#10252530 likes
What are the short stories channels about? Can I post stories or thoughts there?
Sim brushed away the crumbs from his drawing of a micro apartment and paused to wonder if there is any difference between a story and a thought. If he made a doorway in the apartment to another dimension, would people store their winter clothes in it, filling the dimension up with mittens and long johns?
My 14.7k posts are roughly equivalent to a 6,000 page book. It will be unearthed in 1,000s of years from now and will be required reading for all who wish to consider themselves educated.
I'll be seen as a Socrates sort of character, using you guys just to show how smart I am, you being just two bit characters in my play.
The sense of responsibility I feel is overwhelming.
I just tripped over this video on Reddit. This is not the kind of thing I normally would enjoy, but I couldn’t stop watching it. It’s about the aesthetics of movies and it’s lots of fun to watch. Everything is illustrated with specific clips from specific movies.The narrator is very generous. He’s like a good disk jockey, he teaches you new things to look for. He also brings Charles Peirce into his discussion.
Warning— in the last minute you find out this is an ad for a streaming service, but that doesn’t distract from its value to me.
DifferentiatingEggNovember 16, 2025 at 23:27#10253260 likes
Universality is a seduction that occurs through grammatical construction. Grammar gives us subjects so we imagine substance, Grammar gives us predicates so we imagine universal properties, Grammar gives us identity, so we imagine persistent essences.
Universality is a seduction that occurs through grammatical construction. Grammar gives us subjects so we imagine substance, Grammar gives us predicates so we imagine universal properties, Grammar gives us identity, so we imagine persistent essences.
Or, perhaps, it’s the other way around.
DifferentiatingEggNovember 17, 2025 at 00:04#10253350 likes
Reply to Jamal I was chatting with Claude AI about the topic of ‘semantic realism’ earlier today, and mentioned that I had been a longtime member of thephilosophyforum.com. Part of the reply to that was:
I imagine the forum has given you something irreplaceable: people like apokrisis or Banno (if they’re still active) who have their own developed positions and will actually argue with you, not just explore your view sympathetically.
Grammar gives us subjects so we imagine substance, Grammar gives us predicates so we imagine universal properties
“I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.” Nietzsche.
In my view, he couldn’t be righter.
DifferentiatingEggNovember 17, 2025 at 16:01#10254240 likes
Reply to Wayfarer You Genius, I literally read that bit not long ago, but you saying it here some how connected the dots of a few thoughts that have been running wild over the pastfew days. Enough so to bring about rumination!
Comments (61561)
Other than that they're social and intelligent, they're just like you.
Just gentle ribbing between post mates.
I’ll admit it, it’s the loudness I like best.
... most of the time without understanding!
I was at the vet this morning, and a cat sitting in the lounge chair wouldn't let me sit down. :sad:
I’m sure everyone here on the forum would agree that you deserve a real human doctor.
But it is easier for me to communicate with animals rather than with humans.
My cat is fully conversant, understands everything, listens intently, never speaks, and does what she was going to do anyway.
If my cat was a lion and she spoke, I wouldn't understand her, but she's a cat, so I would.
She's currently on the mat iff she is.
You mean she is resting or lying on the mat, right? Because I too rest on my rug occasionally.
I found a photo of you on your bear skin rug.
1) What is going on with my eyebrows? :lol:
2) That AI-generated mate looks Macedonian or Byzantine, something I really like. :starstruck:
Been there, done that. Lots of fun if there are two of them. :grin:
Bread dough
Sobao batter
Both. It's up to consumer's preferences. :halo:
I don't particularly like that. Then again, I don't particularly like a lot of things.
Thoughts?
Quoting javi2541997
I have to say I've never heard that type of measurement before. What is a "zest"? Does it have a weight? Is it indescribable or otherwise varies from lemon to lemon and so warranted this new, haphazard form and term of measurement? If I'm out of sugar and just need a tiny bit to complete whatever it is I'm preparing, can I go to my neighbor and ask for "one zest's worth" of the stuff?
I will have to do more research on this.
However, reverso.net uses the following example: [i]Add the zest of one lemon and slices of lemon on top of the salmon.[/I]
So, I guess that the zest is the result of putting a lemon in a grater.
I often use lemon zest. Outlander seems to be quite unfamiliar with food.
So, would you try to cook a sobao? :yum:
It comes from the French word zeste, which originally meant the peel of a citrus fruit.
I come from a simplistic background. Food is not guaranteed from one day to the next. Well, that's not entirely true in my current given circumstance. But I don't let such happenstance delude myself into thinking that's how the world is, has to be, or would be organically. It's called humility.
What piqued my interest was (though perhaps it was his unintended formatting) the idea of "1 zest of lemon", as if it was a predetermined or widely-established and formal measurement.
Otherwise, I just put a "squirt of lemon juice" either from an actual lemon or a commercially manufactured container of such. Though, lemon pepper seasoning (powdered) is pretty good as well in most instances.
I looked it up. Presumably that's just a grinding or shredding from the skin of one lemon. Now I know. I owe you both my thanks, I suppose.
If you put a gun to my head, sure. I'd definitely eat it, even without the gun.
I don't really like baking, you see. I cook savoury dishes only. Oh, and jam.
Ah, you misread it:
Quoting javi2541997
I was about to reply: "Thank you, Jamal. Your knowledge of entomology and language itself is not only legendary but worthy of being revered—nay, envied—by all." Though perhaps that's more of that "saying the same thing twice" I've been scolded about before.
Man, your avatar's have grown to become eerily (or perhaps bewilderingly) similar.
:up: :up:
Sobaos are peaceful; you will get along pretty well with them.
Reverse seared. Interesting! What does that offer as far as taste, texture, or perhaps even nutrition, or anything else? Is it just something fun to do or does it have measurable utility? Depends on the foodstuff, I would imagine?
Alas, my only greens these days are from bagged salads (which I never get to, seeing as they barely last 3 days), the lettuce in the sub sandwiches at the one local shop we have, and if I go into the nearest town to get a burger. I'm a bit of a meat and cheese man, myself.
I suppose I could just eat grass. Works for cows. Or, try those "nutrient powder mixes" that all have the word "green" in the name. Yes, perhaps I should do that.
As an aside. I would have quite enjoyed seeing a photo of your meal as prepared. Some of the staff here do that occasionally. And it's always a delight. Living vicariously, or perhaps a latent voyeur inclination I need to keep an eye on, but whatever it is. It's always fun to see what other people have going on. I understand, particularly for folks of advanced age or habit, the process is a bit burdensome, if not difficult. But if you're ever able to find the time to do so, it would certainly not go without appreciation. :smile:
Only the dirty pan remains I’m afraid—residue of olive oil, balsamic, white vinegar, salt & pepper, and some Momofuku chilli crunch.
In other news, I purchased a 5 gallon bucket of laundry detergent. Buying in bulk saves time and readies me for the end of times. I then needed to move it from that bucket to a 5 gallon container with a spigot so that I could then pour it into a quart sized container that could easily be poured into my washer.
My first idea was to buy a $10 battery operated pump that is propeller driven. It moved water very well, but it could not begin to pull detergent of such viscosity. I spent a good deal of time then learning about types of pumps and their viscosity tolerance.
I was to find out that a propeller driven pump would never work, but that a suction based pump would be needed. Some pumps required an air compressor to operate and others a 12 volt power source I'd have to purchase.
The time and money commitment was making me rethink my money saving buy in bulk strategy.
I then settled on a manual pump, which I show above. It worked very well, and it did require some strength (which I have an abundance of) to suck the detergent from one container to the other.
My thought is that one day there will be a water flood issue and everyone will be at a loss as to how to remove the water and I'll heroically arrive with my water pump, saving the day.
In the meantime, the pump hides itself on a garage shelf, just because it's easier to explain this episode to you guys than my wife. The 5 gallon bucket of detergent that sits prominently on the laundry room floor already took a bit of explaining.
Happy you've found a viable solution. However, in the future, why not consider the Archimedes's screw? One and done.
It'll move anything liquid, or even solid, if small and spherical enough to pass through the size of the chamber shaft.
Suction is far better. It lifts airplanes off the ground.
I suppose I could carve the screw from a wax block, pack clay around the wax, put that in a kiln and drain out the melted wax, then pour molten steel into the emptied mold, cool it and then break away the hardened clay and thereby fashion my own screw, then create a cylinder with perfect clearances, and from that make my own pump.
Today I learned flour is combustible. Though I never considered using a loaf of bread as an improvised explosive before, it is no wonder the aristocrats strive to keep large quantities of bread from us peasants. We simply do not know any better and legally speaking could not be blamed for whatever we may cause as a result of being left to our own devices.
Life gets stranger every day. I'll tell you what.
Not just flour, whole grains in general. Silos and other facilities for storing grain require special protection to prevent dust explosions caused by flammable dust in poorly vented enclosed spaces.
We use to do something like this with plastic paint buckets to feed the spray gun up on a roof.
We just opened two holes in an old bucket lid, a small one for a car tire valve and a larger one for the pipe where the paint comes out. All of the piping and fittings can be PVC.
we used to place the full bucket inside an empty bucket to reinforce it and wrap a cinch strap over the lid to hold it down. A small 12v. emergency car compressor (that you probably have in your car already) can de used to push the liquid out of the big container to the little one. Once you have the lid and connections made you can just put it onto any other bucket. The video gives you an idea how it works.
Or you can shop around next time.
https://www.valuevigormart.com/product-p-504986.html
Imagine this. You're throwing a party, you've concocted a thick smoothie tequila surprise, you fill a (new) garbage container with it, you put my mega pump through the lid, and with one quick pump and you fill a red Dixie cup with a pint of it. That's bad ass. I mean the first 20 or 30 will taste like detergent, but after that, totally bad ass.
Oh yeah, my brother read about that when we were kids. And of course, we had to test it out. Boy does it ever blow! Sometimes I wonder how I ever managed to make it to adulthood.
In college, this guy filled a record album sleeve (old school vinyl album cover) with powder and put it under some guy's dorm door and then stomped on it, creating a heaven like effect in the room. We enjoyed the outcome and were prepared to share it with others, but someone told us it could combust and leave us all dead, creating a more literal heaven effect, so we chose other mischief.
You mean a hell effect don't you? And I thought shaving cream was the best way to create the hell-like situation.
We used it for kind of heavy wait latex paint and even industrial ship grade paints without problems, even pushing it up 20 or so feet. You could also try putting the bucket on a shelf with a hose and valve directly to the washing machine.
Quoting Hanover
Please remind me to always arrive late at your place for cocktails. :lol: :rofl:
Nice. Maybe hang it from the ceiling and dress it up like a disco ball.
I had a friend who rigged his wiper fluid hose back into the car so that he could serve himself drinks by pulling back the wiper control. Probably had the same issue with the first few drinks tasting like wiper fluid.
As I recall, you guys sell it by the kiloliter, which is roughly a quart and then there's the euro to dollar thing. My guess is that our gas (as we call it) is cheaper than yours, but when I was Portugal, the prices for food and lodging was really low comparitvely.
I just wanted to put a random picture of my local gas station because I was waiting in my car without knowing what to do. :halo:
Neutralized
Lurking, biding their time, planning their attack strategy from a secret lair. Hardly seems worth it, considering the result.
Would this be the aesthetics of epistemology?
If they were planning on taking me to Indonesia I wish they'd said something. I'd like to go one day.
Australians never have anything good to say about Bali! What I know about it is mainly through my interest in gamelan, although of course I'm aware of the presence of foreign hippies and pissheads.
I am now considering nasi goreng for breakfast, as I'm quite close to a restaurant that serves it.
I think that might be a misinterpretation... the things about which we never have anything good to say are very often the things we love most. That Celtic irony stuff is deeply ingrained. Gamelan is wonderful. We use it and Tibetan Bowls for relaxation.
Quoting Jamal
...you know that was their plan all along... cunning.
I understand :up:
:brow:
You think we should be dancing?
Sorry, you guys do your own thing. I withdraw my cultural imperialism.
There's also an alien that is just an eyeball with legs who seeks to pull out the eye of a host and take over its brain.
Wait, what happened? Why does all the fun stuff happen the day after I quit drinking and return to my mundane life as a programmer and visionary.
Quoting frank
That seems difficult with just legs. Perhaps they're multi-functional. And thanks for spoiling the best part. It's obvious how it ends. All these movies end the same. Humans win. Totally unrealistic. But people like fancy graphics and colorful imagery coupled with rehashed plot lines that haven't been used in a few decades so it'll likely be top-rated.
[sup]— The Onion · Oct 29, 2025[/sup]
Donald Trump wants the US navy to return to the steam age and these 13 comebacks were properly boiling
[sup]— John Plunkett · The Poke · Oct 29, 2025[/sup]
I emphatically disagree with your statement that the laws of nature have no existence!
Where can i find these laws, so I can read, interpret, and decide whether or not to follow them? And if they have no morality or legal standing why would anything bother to read them, or follow them?
Try any physics handbook, it should contain a few of these laws. It is not your decision to follow them or not - you are subject to them. Whether you like it or not.
They have as much existence as any philosophy - even more so.
Agreed. I guess a natural follow up question would be to ask how that judgment is carried out. What was thrown off by one set gets to be a problem for another.
If you replace "theism" with "religion" it would work better, no?
But even then, beliefs, which are true or false, matter to a lot of religious people.
The laws of physics are descriptions concerning the interactions of inanimate objects. These descriptions do not apply to the freely willed acts of living beings. Therefore I am not subject to them. And when I use them to figure something out, they are subject to my actions, as my tools, not vise versa. I think you are a little confused on this matter Peter.
I think the more generic the better, which would suggest "belief" be substituted for "religion," and then theism just being a specific example of religion and belief.
The reason I think "theism" is more provocative in my quote is that it faces atheism more head on, but that's admittedly just rhetorical value, not substantive.
I don't know if what I've said is just a restatement of James's will to believe or if something is added by my form of life reference, suggesting the proof of a belief"s value might be tied to its public performance.
Or, I might just be articulating my own religious beliefs in secular terms unknowingly and thinking I've discovered something new. We all need internal justification for our beliefs. Might as well be self aware of it.
You are not subject to gravity ... how odd
But I would like to know your thoughts, friends.
I've seen much worse, so I'll have to agree with your father.
In American it's called a windshield.
:up:
I am going to tell him right now because we were having a heated discussion. Everything started because my father skipped a gas station purposely. I told him it was our chance to clean it because there weren't many cars, and perhaps the rest of the gas stations are full.
But now we are more relaxed with your opinion and point. Thanks, Jamal!
I knew. But here is called "parabrisas" and reverso gave me a lot of translated options and I chose the coolest. :cool:
Any time
Then they started adding self serve lanes. Then they eliminated the full service lanes. That was the beginning of the end. Now we talk to bots like they're people. It's very sad. At least you had a real life conversation with your dad today, even if it was a heated argument over whether you should clean your windscreen that should have been called a windshield.
I see why you feel nostalgic. Those times seemed to be beautiful, and you miss the human interaction which is likely forbidden in today's society. You have good memories of your dad but also of the filling station worker, and this is very gorgeous. We never had that kind of modern stuff where our cars made a dinging sound after they were filled up. However, I also miss the rumbling noise that the filling station used to make. Now, it appears that everything has lost its soul because we only focused on dehumanising everything.
The other day I was in a hardware shop because I wanted to make copies of my keys. The owner started to draw the shape with his hand. I almost started to cry because of his human ability. He didn't ask the AI or whatever.
*shudders in remembrance of your last short story*
I lost my key a long time ago and keep my garage door unlocked. It's been unlocked for years. Sometimes, like if a repair person needs to come over and I'm not in, I tell them they can just walk in, but they won't do it. They think they might get bitten by my dog or they'll get shot. It might be that an unlocked door is scarier than a locked one because they think either someone's home or that they're being set up.
So take my advice and just leave your door swinging in the wind.
But granting a right as an entitlement is not.
Your formulation is a common justification for denial of deserved protections.
When I was probably 6 or 7, I would walk up to the gas station and convenience store about a mile from my house and buy candy. My mom would watch me cross the street and I'd come home a while later. They don't let kids do that any more. They'd probably call the police if they saw little kids unattended. I don't know that's gotten less safe though really. We didn't wear seatbelts or wear bicycle helmets. We ate pure sugar cereal every morning. We left the house in the morning and returned when the street lights came on at night. I feel like I'm part of the last generation that cared enough about their kids to leave them alone to grow up.
I saw this documentary on TV of an African village that was provided running water, but everytime the system broke, they went back to their old way. They enjoyed the convenience, but they refused to become dependent on it. We get a phone that can track our every move and it immediately becomes and indespensible part of responsible parenting. There were commercials on TV when I was a kid that would say, "It's ten o'clock, do you know where your kids are?" And they would run them at different times. As in, there was a time when parents had to be reminded to round up their kids and get them home.
Good times.
I was that guy, for nearly half a day. I actually got paid an unmemorable amount. ( It might have been ten shillings, which was nearly half a guinea!)
——————————————————————————————————————
"An aphorism in the shoutbox is worth two in the thunderbox."
This is the phenomenon known as "inflation".
You have been warmed.
————————————————
Two what?
Pretty nostalgic, indeed.
We all have familiar memories. Since you shared one special memory with me, I am going to share another nostalgic memory:
Christmas dinner (In Spain, we celebrate Christmas at night I think I have already said this in The Shoutbox) has always been celebrated in my home. I watched a TV show or film (I can't remember) about human sacrifices. In my innocent mind, I had the confusing idea that Christmas would not be celebrated if I couldn't make a sacrifice. Then, I took a razor blade from my father's drawer. When I was in the shower, I started to cut myself (just in one finger). I cried, but alone because I didn't want anyone to know this.
When I returned to the hall, perfectly suited and combed but with red eyes because I was crying, my mother asked: 'What happened?' And then I replied, 'I am thrilled because the spirit of Christmas is saved!'
:heart: :sparkle:
More of a Halloween story, that one.
Happy Halloween, Jamal -- trick or treat?
[Insert pumpkin here]
As I say every year, we didn't have pumpkins when I was a wee lad. In some ways, swedes/turnips/rutabagas were superior. I mean, look:
Sweet dreams Javi :naughty:
I am the turnip of fear;
I am the far-flung horizon
Whispering into your ear.
----------
White is the sail,
On the misty infinite blue.
Flying from what in its homeland?
Searching for what in the new?
The winds whistle and waves romp.
The mast leans and creaks.
Alas, he flies not from fortune,
And no good fortune does he seek.
Beneath, the stream, luminous, azure.
Above, the sun’s golden breast.
But he, a rebel, pursues the storms,
As though in the storms were rest.
-- Mikhail Lermontov, “The Sail” [my favorite translation]
Why do you find it odd that I can move away from other things? Can't you?
Duh! Yes I can move. For this to happen I need to convert energy, because I am moving in a gravity field. Therefore still subject to the law of gravity. I can also pay Elon Musk a lot of fiat money to take me out of earths gravity field - this will require a lot of energy because we are all (YOU INCLUDED) subject to the law of conservation of mass and energy. Whether we like it or not.
Seems to me you skipped a few science classes in grade 6.
You asked what was my point in making the original statement - apparently to teach you that you are, in fact, subject to these laws, whether you like it or not.
Furthermore, you also stated that the laws of nature have no existence. This is odd indeed, since even you yourself is subject to them, yet you claim they have no existence.
You might ask yourself what other laws of nature exist, in fact, to which we all (YOU INCLUDED) are subject to - you might come to the understanding that the quest for wealth is due to the laws of nature, not the rules of man. This will be some real progress in your understanding.
Perhaps not, but it is mere politics.
Quoting T Clark
Quite so, unless you, diametrically, disagree with the politics of the institution that grant such an entitlement. Then you will, most probably, maintain that the denial is justified. Again, mere politics.
Yes please. Let's have less shoutbox, and more songbox.
Here's one from the afterlife, curtesy of The Grateful Dead —
[quote= Uncle John's Band]Well, the first days are the hardest days
Don't you worry anymore
'Cause when life looks like Easy Street
There is danger at your door
Think this through with me
Let me know your mind
Woah-oh, what I want to know
Is are you kind?[/quote]
Read your physics handbook. The gravity field is not a law, it is a property of spacetime. This is the inversion brought about by the Einsteinian revolution. Gravity is no longer understood as a law, it is a property of the substrate.
Rights are not granted by institutions. Institutions are obligated to protect rights you already have.. Rights are an inherent part of being human. When one says they are entitled to rights, they are not saying the government is duty bound to do anything. They're saying the government is restrained from taking things from them.
As in, no one grants me the right to own property. They will violate the rights I already have if they steal from me.
The distinction is critical, dividing US ideology from much of Europe, imposing Lockean Enlightenment standards of natural rights into the the system.
This is where your conversation with @Metaphysician Undercover got confused. You said "the laws of nature have no morality," where you were referring to physics, not natural law morality, which says something different, but then it shifted to your entitlement comments, so it seems now both sorts of nature's laws are being discussed.
My criticism of your book is (1) it presents unprocessed theses statements as if crystallized wisdom, (2) your reference to your comments being "old father quotes" is pretentious, as if the comments are time honored bits of common sense being passed down, when really they're just bite sized meanderings of a guy peddling a book.
And you are part of the substrate of which gravity is a property - still subject to it. Your statement that the laws of nature have no existence has been refuted, thus, my original statement is making a valid and constructive point.
Really! Who provided humans these rights? Was it provided by some God? Is it a result of our evolution from Homo Habilis to Homo sapiens? Or some other cosmological endowment?
Quoting Hanover
It is quite obvious you have neither read nor understood this book you are referring to.
Theistic (and deistic) bases exist as do secular ones. Human rights can exist without God and can transcend government. The question is of moral realism generally. Why would a nation be wrong to legalize rape if the nation decides what rights there are?
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Sure i have. You quote it here constantly.
No, objects are separate from the substrate, and the interactions of objects are sometimes described by laws. But the two are definitely very distinct and in many ways incommensurable. This is what creates quantum uncertainty, the gap between the substrate, described as fields, and the objects (particles) which are supposed to interact. Strictly speaking the particle is not a part of the field, that's why it must be assumed to take every possible path, and why people talk about a collapse of the wavefunction when the particle appears. Even though we talk about a wave/particle duality, the two can't really coexist. So one is not a part of the other.
Pig?!
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
I would’ve thought more it was a question of morality.
Holy shit man. I would not come within a kilometre of that thing. Who took the picture?
Top-10 animal species in Noah's Ark. :smirk:
Very nice!
A rarity, also kind'a dealing with spiritual themes, I found in a very early addition of Jack London's "Martin Eden" as a preface:
Let me live out my days in the heat of blood!
Let me lie drunken with the dreamer's wine!
Let me not see this soul-house built of mud,
Go toppling to the dust a vacant shrine!
You have not answered the question: Who provided humans these rights? Not some God, not some evolution, not a cosmological endowment, but some moral realism - thus humans themselves? Therefore it is decided by the politics we conduct - just get the right person in the White House then any person will be entitled to abortion on demand and to hell with the morality of it. Although, claiming this entitled human right in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be kind of a problem ...
Quoting Hanover
Really! What mathematical statement was used to define the components of a system?
Other humans.
The good ones.
Not the ones in the White House.
Is politics conducted on what is morally right or wrong or is what is regarded as morally right or wrong decided by what is politically expedient?
Neither.
:lol: ... and who decide which humans are the good ones? By my understanding the ones currently in the White House arrived there by popular vote ...
Then, please enlighten me; by whom or under what authority can a decision be made that something is morally good or not?
We do. You and I.
DO you think the ones in the White house are good?
Correct.
It is all governed by what is metaethically right and wrong. As we all know. Hence virtue and righteousness and all the rest. The problematics of it all is that, though we all know this, coming to actually know what in fact is metaethically right and wrong is in and of itself utterly immoral. Or so much of our current mores assert. Something to do with apples.
As far as I’m concerned, that’s outside the scope of this discussion. All I did was point out that it was primarily a moral issue and not a political one, which is what you claimed. Maybe you would say that the issue is “merely moral.”
Sorry, you’ve lost me.
As in Eve, Adam, and a tree of knowledge of right and wrong, traditionally interpreted as baring apples. It being immoral to eat of its fruit and all.
I'll try to be less coy from now on.
It is not for me to give judgement on the people currently in the White House. I can confirm, in my opinion, that the current government in South Africa is fundamentally corrupt. The people of South Africa has two options to change that: by democratic vote or by a revolution. I believe it is the same in America. Personally I prefer the democratic vote way - it is normally conducted by less tears and bloodshed. Thus morally a better way, not so?
So be it then
What on earth do the Laws of Nature have to do with the man-made economics of a global pyramid scheme grounded in the supposition of infinite resources?
Futile maybe, but not immoral.
Quoting javra
Not coy, just obscure.
Try asking the Biblical Lord that one.
Quoting T Clark
Nope. Just coy.
A cop out. Who else is going to do it for you?
But you don't have to answer, because the answer you give is not really about them. It's about you. Folk who do think them good are moray bankrupt.
I haven't paid much attention to what you have been saying, but there are folk hereabouts who think that because we don't find moral truths lying around the place in the way we find physical truths, that there are no moral truths. You and I know better. If someone says that kicking the puppy for fun is a good thing to do, you and I know that they are wrong.
So back tot he issue that grabbed my attention. Folk have rights if you and I agree that they have rights and agree to enforce them.
A beautiful and spiritual way of seeing it, Hanover. I never thought about the deluge in that way because I lack theological knowledge, sorrowfully.
All that death by drowning, beautiful? No.
Perhaps it might be considered beautiful if we no longer see death as something horrible.
A fable saddens you, thinking of all the people who couldn't board the ark, but relieved to know the horses, iguanas, frogs, and polar bears made it.
The saddest part though, which I actually learned in an Irish bar, was that a long time ago when the earth was green, there were more kinds of animals than you've ever seen. But, to make a long story short, the unicorn didn't get to board the ark. Now there are none, and its existence has been relegated to being used as an example of an entity without a referent.
It's an ancient piece of art hanging on the wall, subject to interpretation. I see the availability of a holy cleansing always present regardless of how impure things may be, but also a promise it will never happen again.
But maybe some see the undescribed drowning of babies, mothers treading water holding them high for one last breath, spinning, twisting dying last survivors, clawing and killing before they take their final plunge.
Whatever floats one"s boat. Pun intended.
The point is that you see it as the beginning of something, but seems to see it as the end. Both interpretations are perfectly suitable. A drowning is something terrible, but I skipped important elements because I didn't know the theological meaning of Noah's Ark or whatever biblical narrative.
I think the flood actually happened in Mesopotamia. It was not a myth; the Tigris–Euphrates river system was flood-prone, and perhaps a big river avulsion happened, which influenced Moses when he wrote the Genesis.
Quoting javi2541997
Quoting Banno
Quoting Hanover
I read a fascinating novel last year about Noah's Ark: Not Wanted on the Voyage by Timothy Findley, in which Noah, friend and loyal servant of Yahweh, is an abusive authoritarian patriarch obsessed with following Yahweh's laws, to the exclusion of love and fairness within his family. One day Yahweh visits him to complain that humanity is showing him no respect and to cheer him up Noah shows him a magic trick in which a coin disappears in water. This gives Yahweh the idea to wipe everything out and start again with a big flood, and he instructs Noah to get busy building the ark. Noah dutifully agrees, and the drama plays out in exciting and disturbing fashion.
In this telling, Yaweh and his loyal patriarchs seem to be a tyrranical gang, jealously guarding their power and acting cruelly out of frustration at not getting the respect they think they deserve.
EDIT: To find out the shocking truth about the unicorn, you'll have to read it (the Wikipedia page skirts around it)
Quoting Jamal
I see a metaphor in this. Perhaps the trick of the coin means that the big flood was also a way to deceive the people. :chin:
Well, what a beautiful way to start November – discussing some narratives from Genesis.
Where some see beauty, others see brutality and violence :grin:
Not much I am afraid, this thing you are speaking of has much to do about the shuffling around of vast amounts of fiat money - which has almost nothing to do with wealth.
How is it consistent to argue that there are laws of nature, but no natural rights? Doesn't the very same principle of realism, which makes the laws of nature real for you, also make human rights real for you? Where do you draw the line between the two?
Quoting Banno
Not a cop out, no! Since I am not a US citizen, I have absolutely no influence on who sits in the White House. I do not think there are moral truths, definitely moral rights and wrongs - sure my mother taught me that to kick any other living being is wrong - accept in self defence. You and me seem to agree that kicking a puppy for fun is not a good thing to do but there are cultures in our world in which this is quite acceptable.
Also, I will never say that human rights does not exist - they surely do - you and me might agree on them but in order to enforce them we do need a government, a government that is put in place by "we the people". You might disagree with the laws that the government of the day enforces - that is your right to do so. You cannot disobey the laws that are in place - it is exactly these laws that keeps civilisation in place. You disobey them at your peril, unless you intend to start a revolution - but in my opinion that would be morally wrong.
The Laws of Nature is time-invariant. What you call "natural rights", I have defined as Rules of Man and they are time-variant.
But that's just a matter of ruling out the possibility of time-invariant natural rights by means of definition, which would be begging the question.
My criticism though, is that it appears to be inconsistent to define the laws of nature as time-invariant, but natural rights as time-variant.
The Euthyphro dilemma.
"Socrates asks whether the gods love the pious because it is the pious, or whether the pious is pious only because it is loved by the gods."
And then the clearer question from Leibniz:
"It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
Your suggestion that the "good ones" decide the good falls in line with both Plato and Leibniz because to have a good that can permeate one person and not another speaks to an independence of the good, not determined by its host., even if parasitic to the host and incapable of survival without it.
I also think your position is more aligned with a natural rights theory, inconsistent with @Pieter R van Wyk,s because he sees it as a nod to mysticism (as in what is a transcendent enity?). And I do think a mystical nod is necessary to avoid subjectivism and relativism (as in Trump is right because he has might).
Yours is the dilemma of protecting atheism while arguing absolutes. Mine is in protecting rationality while allowing the deux ex machina to solve dilemmas. Pieter's is in creating moral universals.
You're whetting my appetite for more. Get it, wetting. I'll be here all night.
You were not asked to influence them. You were asked if what they were doing is right. You have an answer to that already.
Similarly, that if there are cultures in our world in which this is quite acceptable to kick puppies for fun then you and I agree what they are doing something they ought not.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
As you said, we do. Not just the folk in the White House nor the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Would you make the same declaration about saying that something is green? That this is not to discover a property of the thing, but to adopt an attitude toward it? I don't see why anyone would say that one is an attitude, but not the other. But if you would, what makes one an attitude of the subject, and the other a property of the object?
Next year AI will introduce spell-check for cake-frosting. A Great Leap Forward!
If there is no referent for "good," then you're arguing anti-realism.
How so?
Indeed, a lot of progress and modernity. But I bet that AI will never create fancy Christmas greeting cards like the ones I make. :wink:
Please could you elaborate on this "time-invariant natural rights". I do not know of any such rights, perhaps give an example or two.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Exactly what, are these two concepts (definitions), inconsistent with? They are two different things.
Nope, I do not see it as mysticism, rather the epitome of realism.
I might be able to entitle some rights to my children, for the rest I can only play some politics. Perhaps you should explain to Trump, the King of Saudi and perhaps also Putin that they are exceeding the rights that you have entitled to them.
Seems odd to suppose that only those with authority can decide on your rights. They might well deny you your rights; but if they can deny you your right then it follows that you have a right, the one being denied...
If Trump denies the right to due process to a suspected illegal immigrant, then it follows that they have that right. And yes, he would be exceeding the rights to which we have entitled him.
Political power operates within the framework of rights, not as their source.
What do you put in it?
That looks good.
Quoting Banno
Do you not take anti-realism to be assigning the good to social construction? But I don't mean to put words in your mouth. Why is the Trumpian expression of morality not consistent with what reality dictates to be the truth? If my phrasing "with what reality dictates to be the truth" is not of relevance to you, then you don't seem to be a moral realist.
But then:
Quoting Banno
But then:
Quoting Banno
These express two different positions:
1. You say that good people determine morality and the bad people (the White House people) are excluded. How do you distinguish the good people from the bad people without already knowing the good from the bad.
2. You then say the good is determined by the global "we," not just the folk in the White House. That is, this seems to allow the White House a vote, but everyone gets a vote, not just the White House folks.
But I won't try to dissect this anymore and just ask you where you think morality comes from. Why can't I kick puppies for fun? Why is it so self-evident? How do I use this self-evidence for those moral quandaries that are not as clear?
Then this:
Quoting Banno
This is an agreement with Enlightenment principles adhered to closely by American conservatives, offering an argument for a limited government subservient to higher ideals. Maybe you're a federalist. Who'd have thunk.
You agree with natural right theorists that rights exist?
You should find someone to eat it with.
Pun joke. HAhha.
What do you think?
What do you want, a world were puppy-kicking is a legitimate pastime, or one in which it leads to a reprobation?
Realism is the view that there are truths. Anti-realism, most coherently is the view that there are no truths. Now if it is true that one ought not kick puppies, then that is about what we ought do, and so is a moral truth. Hence, it is not anti-realism. Anti-realism tends to translate “truth” into verification, consensus, or usefulness, but truth is simpler than these, and is presumed by them anyway.
Further, what is good is not decided by a vote.
Morality comes from considering what you want in the light of recognising the needs of others.
Hence the "we".
You decide what you want, while interacting with others decides what is good.
One of the errors here is the naive moral solipsism that thinks of good as if it were independent of other people. Good is about what we want, and so evaluative; it is about what we do, and so normative; and it is about others, and so communal.
From what you have said, I gather you think that good is determined by god and tradition. As if good were commanded. Notice that that is your choice? It's about what you want to be the case, and what you think ought be the case. That's stuff about your deciding what is good. Why ought you be obedient?
What you think about kicking puppies for fun will be a large determinate of what we think about you.
The problem is that plenty of bad people do decide. While puppies aren't kicked for fun these days, I remember the post on Descartes who cut up puppies thinking they felt no pain. There have also been societies that have held the victims of rape ought be murdered, have allowed humans to be traded as chattel, and have protected the rights of the elite to rape the underclass. If every single person in those societies but the victim said rape was morally acceptable, they'd all be wrong but the person being raped.
That is, it has nothing to do with what Hanover says. My say is irrelevant. If you wish to say something about the reasonable person, and you want to say I am that person, then I matter. But "reasonable" here is circular because I'm defined as the guy who knows right from wrong.
Quoting Banno
I have the choice to be right or wrong, not to decide if I am right or wrong. If you claim we can create what is good and what is bad, you're a subjectivist. If you claim we can discover what is good and bad, you believe in absolute morality.
The path you've described leads anywhere is also the problem. If within me lies the omnipotent force of deciding the proper basis for why I should believe as I do, then I suppose I can decide that once I've decided, I will never decide otherwise. That's my moral decision. So, once I decide, I stand incorrigible. So, should I believe god told me I can't kill and so killing is wrong regardless of what anyone says, and should you tell me the 1,000 of reasons I'm wrong to rely on god, you waste your time, as I've slammed down the gavel and decided. The same holds true for the puppy kickers who insist upon its moral goodness. They have decided to kick. You have decided to tell them not to kick. Everyone is right in their own head. But in my head, you're both wrong. And while you tell me that is my subjective belief, I disagree because I've so decided. And don't get me wrong, I don't carry lingering self-awareness that maybe I'm not wrong. I am positive that I am right.
The problem is what happens when I say it's right to kick puppies?
Depends if your picture is on the money or not.
Well, no, since it is very much about the other. That's what the comment about ethical solipsism fits. The bolded "we".
And sure, bad people do make decisions about what they do. Are they good decisions? Are you going to leave that to them?
Your say is fundamental, not irrelevant. But also, not the whole.
To see what is going on, you will have to leave behind the ethical solipsism, together with the idea that ethics is a fixed moral code handed to Moses. It's a negotiation between you and I. Which is much the same as everything else.
Quoting Hanover
You get a fine and a public service order, and lose your pets.
What? Interactions make decisions about what is good?
Two authoritarians having a fight. Yay.
We typically think of morality as coming from an alternate source.
In Enlightenment societies, we draw a clear line between the church (morality) and state (law). We don't deny some laws are also moral, but we see the two as distinct.
When I asked whether a vote determines the good, you said it did not. You didn't want to defer to the majority for the rule, but instead to those who meant to do the best. This strikes me as still a political system, but it defers to the morally elite. If that's the case, we enter the world of philosopher kings for deciding the good.
In your collapse of the moral/legal distinction, you make the good determined by the hand of the elite, blurring any meaningful distinction between a theocracy and a secular state. In both, it's a small class that dictates the law, but also the moral because the two are the same.
So, my question is: what is the difference between law and morality other than the procedure that is used to get it to be made the norm?
Not at all. But someone who sees morality as a set of rules might think that.
A church cannot function as the source of one's personal morals unless they intend them to do so. The responsibility for that choice, the acceptance of the moral guidance of the church, remains with the person concerned. It's what they want, or what they choose, ore what they consider themselves obligated by, or some other excuse.
In deciding what to do there's what one wants, which only takes oneself into consideration. Then there is what others also want, which is were ethics enters. Then there are the social institutions involved, which is where politics and Law enter.
But if morality is just a set of rules handed down from on high on a mountain, then the difference between it and law would indeed dissipate.
No, if morality arises from something other than the morally elite properly weighing the varying goods of others, it maintains that distinction, namely that it is not a product of subjective time, place, or person.
The dissipation of the legal/moral distinction occurs under your interpretation because the distinction in methodology between the two is arbitrary. That is, it is unimportant how the human created rules arise - whether by informal agreement or legislative act, they are of the same import.
If the law is determined by considering the other, why does morality get priority over the law? If it is decided by you, me, and the 3 wise men that puppies shouldn't be kicked, why does our judgment prevail over an act of Congress?
Can the law be more moral then whatever it is we agree to after our deliberation?
Is there a final, correct answer to a moral dilemma? If we know puppies can't be kicked, why can't we list that in our Holy Set of Rules? Why must we reprocess our basis each time? Wouldn't it behoove us to write down all our truths this way for easier access, and we can just learn the rules without the rigamarole?
Who decides if it does prevail?
I don't know. It's your theory. I am arguing morality is discovered, not created. But my questions remain:
Why can't a law be more moral than a moral decision we reach?
Why can't moral decisions be codified into a list?
Do moral determinations change over time?
If puppy kicking is determined moral on Monday but immoral on Tuesday, was it immoral on Monday but we were just wrong on Monday? How can we be wrong if we went through the proper deliberation process?
If we can be wrong about what's moral, doesn't that mean we don't decide what's moral but that we're searching for what it's moral?
Where?
Not created by people. That leaves God, the Big Bang, or the emergent laws of nature, but not by us.
Where do we find moral laws?
This points up the incoherence of @Banno's ethics quite well (and it hints at 's). :up:
Banno is a moral realist only via fiat truths (i.e. he is a voluntarist, which is classically not moral realism in any thoroughgoing sense). He never defends why, say, it is immoral to kick puppies. Instead of answering the questions put to him, he tries to shift the attention onto religious accounts. Your point about the Euthyphro is apt given the way Banno grounds morality in "wants" (i.e. will).
No, it's not. The naturalistic fallacy is to claim the world is X so it ought be X. I'm saying the morality which governs is Y, so if the world doesn't behave as Y, it's immoral. The world's being X doesn't determine Y.
Go back to the origin of the conversation, the question of who decides human rights. The suggestion is that we decide human rights. You objected with the Euthyphro dilemma, asking which came first the right or the good folk who decide them; I pointed out that this was to misconstrue what was being said. You moved on to claiming I was an antirealist, I explained that there are moral truths and so antirealism is in error. You returned to the misconstrued piece, oddly suggesting this was an example of conservative 'mercantile dogma, and calling it subjective despite the central place played by community, both of which I refuted. Then you moved on to asking about the difference between morality and law, which I explained in terms of social institutions. You then started to talk about moral elites, a puzzling move which I have been probing.
Now you say, despite all of that, that I am not answering your question...
So, if rights are not the result of human interactions, as I suggest, but are "discovered", as you suggest... where do we discover them?
You said:
Quoting Banno
So why is it a truth that one ought not kick puppies? Apparently because of something Banno wants in the light of some need that the puppy has. That's pretty thin in the first place, but it sure does seem to commit the so-called "naturalistic fallacy" (given that what Banno wants and what the puppy needs are "is" claims).
So that's not how I should read
Quoting Hanover
??
You are not saying that either god made it so, or the big bang made it so, or the laws of nature made it so, and so it ought be so?
You need to ask? That tells us about you, not about kicking puppies.
I'll leave you to your footwork.
This is the standard non-answer that you've offered for years.
I have provided answers to your questions. Maybe not satisfying to you, but nevertheless responses.
My reference to the moral elites was to point out that an elite group that offers moral decrees (which excludes Trump and his ilk) that convenes and decides the moral decisions for society (don't kick puppies) is only irrelevantly distinct from Congress, both being social constructs for rule determination. That is, law and morality are the same under this system, social norms passed and enforced, either by handcuffs or social stigma.
It was why I asked whether the law as passed by Congress could be more moral than those by whatever method your morals were passed. If a law can be more moral than morals, we've reached a point of reductio that should cause reconsideration of our theory.
You criticized the idea that morals might be enumerated like a list, and I asked why we couldn't codify our rules and were forced to redeliberate the same question as it posed itself repeatedly.
I also questioned whether morals were immutable or whether they changed from deliberation to deliberation dependent upon the deliberators or perhaps the season they met for negotiation. Can the good today be the bad tomorrow or was the bad the bad even though we all agreed it was good?
All my questions were labeled as such, and I don't see them answered.
Where do I find morals? Morals seem revealed through the conscience, refined through reason, and analogized to one another. I look upon prior ethical decisions or controlling and persuasive regarding new considerations.
I am also unapologetically theistic, but I don't hold to literalist traditions and I don't suggest every word of scripture is ineerant and true, but I do believe reliance upon thousands of years of others' exploration into what the good is offers substantial direction into what the good is.
If every last person agrees we kick puppies, we live in odd times for sure, but every last puppy kicker is morally wrong.
If I say the sun ought shine because the sun does shine, that's the is/ought fallacy
If I say the sun ought shine because the book of morals says it ought shine, it's not.
If the sun and the book of morals were created by the same entity, it's still not the is/ought fallacy.
You're arguing self evidency or something. I really don't follow this. It's bad to kick puppies and if anyone disagrees it means they're a bad person and if you ask why they're bad, be careful, because you too will be bad.
The standard conflation on the part of the democrat is between monarchy or aristocracy and tyranny (to take Aristotle's terms). The presumption is that there could be no moral elite that is not a tyranny. Or in other words, that the only way a moral elite could rule would be through coercion and force.
This isn't true, and in order to understand human social life one must also understand its falsehood. The virtuous man exercises rule precisely through his virtue. He is recognized by others as virtuous, and that is why they defer to him and follow him, much the way a child defers to and follows their father or mother. For Aristotle, if the demos is incapable of recognizing virtuous leaders, then monarchical or aristocratic regimes are eo ipso ruled out.
Thus trust is a natural phenomenon, present in politics, morality, and religion. The reason the democrat tends to think that politics is merely a matter of vote-casting, and that politics is therefore separate from morality, is because they can't conceive of any non-democratic form of governance. Robust moral realism requires the ability to answer questions and reason about morality, but it does not exclude forms of trust or faith. The ability to recognize the competence of another and place one's trust in them is intrinsic to humanity, even when it comes to morality.
But why not?
I tend to think the is-ought divide is taken too seriously. I'm not sure why it is taken so seriously. Doesn't everyone who holds to substantive moral truths "violate" it? The ones who profess not to violate it tend to end up in very awkward poses, regardless of their philosophical tradition.
The simple case I've argued on TPF is that to understand what pain is is to desire to avoid pain. Anyone who understands what pain is also believes that pain ought to be avoided (ceteris paribus).
I think @Count Timothy von Icarus has written ably on the is-ought topic, but perhaps it needs to be rehashed at a more rigorous level.
Well, what do you think? Did you answer that? - if so, I missed it. And it's pretty much pivotal. If you think it bad to kick puppies, then we agree, and can move on. If you think good to kick puppies, then other folk will reach conclusions about you.
Were does that go astray? And what do you think about kicking puppies?
I have provided answers to your questions. Maybe not satisfying to you, but nevertheless responses.
explicitly:
I don't understand were your notion of an elite comes from.
The comparison between morals and laws
Since ethics is a negotiation, while one might codify the result, to codify the negotiation would be to end it.
One of the more obvious characteristics of morality is that what is ethical does change over time.
Each of these answers were given previously, implicitly if not explicitly.
Quoting Hanover
Then they are not discovered, but revealed. Moral intuition or the voice of god? I could go along with the former. The latter, I'd need convincing it wasn't the medication...
Quoting Hanover
So far as I can make out, god is irrelevant to ethics.
Quoting Hanover
Good to hear - is that your answer? Tell me, was that written in the Big Book Of Morals? I suspect not; and conclude that the Big Book Of Morals is also irrelevant.
Please, who gave authority to those with authority, the electorate or your parents who taught you to respect authority - but not blindly? So these rights are determined by politics, thus not an entitlement.
Quoting Banno
Please, who created this framework of rights, politicians or those that gave politicians their authority?
Now, who can change the politicians, the electorate or you and me?
To date I have not met or spoken with any "natural right theorist' but to my understanding there is only one [i]natural right[/I] - the right to live - because you were born. (Refer to Old Father's Quote #22 - already posted).
Of course rights exist, we humans create them with the politics we play - thus not an entitlement.
Who decides what I want? Why, I do. Who decides what is good? Who else should I listen to but myself?
Who decides what you what, for you?
Quite so, but then, unfortunately, "No Man is an Island". So, what you or I want, does not entitle us anything.
Why not? Why should we deny someone something they want...?
...and there is were we start to do ethics.
So again, your decisions are yours alone; but then, you must take into account other people, even if to ignore them - and that's when your decision starts to be ethical.
However, I truly believe that Greek yoghurt with a small portion of brown sugar is a perfect combo.
So, If I want to kick my puppy in my back-yard, you will not deny this - you will grant me this entitlement?
Quoting Banno
Quite so, but then my ethics might differ from your ethics - then who decide who's ethics is right and who's are wrong? You and me? Then we could meet tomorrow at dawn, with our seconds - you can choose the weapons, swords or pistols? Or should we rather leave this to the politicians that you and I authorised to adjudicate these and other matters?
Quoting Banno
Quite so, my decisions are mine, as is yours. If you think my decisions are unethical we can sort this out tomorrow morning - I prefer with swords. If, however, you and me agree that we both are right, but the politicians that we authorised to adjudicate have it wrong, we have a few options:
My statement: claiming any right as an entitlement is a fallacy, still stands.
Would you? I'd be on the phone, since you would not be the sort pf person who should have a dog.
But if you want ice cream, I'll not stop you.
There's a difference. I hope you can see that.
If the only way you can think of to settle our differences of opinion is a duel, that's also about you. But you see, this does not only involve you and I. That's kinda the point.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
There remains something oddly contradictory in the idea that one can have a right to which one is not entitled.
I can't see how you might reconcile that.
So morality is all about an intuitively felt righteous indignation?
Quoting Banno
For the most part, this is wrong, because most religious people have been born and raised into their religion, they did not choose it. Their sense of right and wrong is so inextricably defined by their early internalization of religious teachings that they cannot think without them. To say that such people "choose" to follow the religious teachings is like saying you chose English as your native language. They do not, and you did not.
Phenomena that contextualize a person are beyond said person's choice. The concept of choice doesn't apply in such situations.
Only vaguely theistic.
The moment you suggest, like you did the other day, that religion might well be merely a useful fiction, but that that's alright, as long as people and society are happy and productive -- this is when you stop being theistic.
Why are you saying this? What is your motivation for saying this?
A man might say, "I haven't beaten my wife in ten years." Why is he saying that? Does he thereby admit that he used to beat his wife? Is he seeking validation, approval?
When we make factual statements, we make them for a reason. So what is yours, here?
I'm not disagreeing, but there is the no small matter of cruel optimism.
A person can have very high standards of morality. But if they cannot act on them, or if acting on them is significantly disadvantageous for them, then they have a problem. To avoid insanity, the person will have to change the moral standards they adhere to, or at least change their meta-view of morality.
The question is, are you willing to let yourself be burnt at the stake for believing/claiming this?
Because it seems practically, pragmatically impossible to produce a comprehensive and concise list of such moral decisions.
For example, while the Ten Commandment forbid killing, elsewhere, the OT goes into considerable detail as to who should be killed. Why is that? What does it mean?
My intutition is that the problem here is actually one of how to present moral principles in the abstract, in general, with practical consideration for the length and complexity of such a text.
Quoting Hanover
It appears that somehow, a crucial part of proper moral reasoning is that it is not codified with a text, but resides in the person somehow.
That morality is in the acting on moral principles, in living by them, rather than in being able to come up with a comprehensive, exhaustive, finite list.
This question, I believe, holds the key to understanding the mystery of morality. Moral decisions cannot be codified into a list, because each and every one is specific to the particular circumstances. The list would include an infinity of possible circumstances. Morality therefore, is best described as having a specific type of attitude toward the particularities of the circumstances.
But this inclines us to try and fit all "correct" particular acts into one universal type of attitude, the "moral" type (Kant's categorical imperative). But that's the exact opposite of having the correct attitude. The correct attitude must allow flexibility to the type, to shape the type to meet particulars of the circumstances. So even approaching the question with the attitude that there is such a thing as a type of act labeled as "the moral type", is a self-defeating approach which will result in endless discussion going nowhere. That is because morality (as a proposed type) must be shaped to the particulars of the circumstances, and this denies the possibility of any formal typification.
It's common that we document prior decisions and use those decisions to form future opinions. It's the basis of Talmudic law and anglo-saxon based legal precedent based law. It's not pragmatically impossible, although you are correct that hundreds of thousands of volumes of information have been stored that document our prior judgments. We don't reinvent the wheel every time.
Regarding the Ten Commandments and biblical text generally, the idea that it can be interpreted from just reading the literal meaning from the pages without reference to other religious text might describe certain 19th century fundamentalist Christian literalist traditions, but that is not the most common way of interpreting and it's particularly recent. That tradition has its own unique history.
As to the specific commandment you refer, the Hebrew text states ?? ???? (Lo tirtzah), with tirtzah having a very specific meaning. The best English word would be "murder" which describes an unlawful taking of a life, very distinct from "harag" (???), which means to kill. That is why it is permissible to kill an enemy in battle but impermissible to murder your neighbor.
Quoting baker
Probably not, but of what relevance is my personal integrity to a cause when assessing whether something might be moral?Quoting baker
No, you've decontextualized this part of the conversation. @Banno stated that moral rules were not written but they were the result of agreement between parties. My response is that the two are not mutually exclusive. We can arrive at truths and then write them down and then use those prior decisions to assist with future decisions. That seems an organized way of doing things.
This idea is also not limited to religious reasoning or legalistic reasoning, but it forms the basis of rule utlitarianism, where the idea is that the creation of rules leads to the moral good and so you adhere to the rule as opposed to arriving at the good each time you are faced with it.
The use of prior decisions does not require blind adherence to unnuanced rules, but it allows the opposite, where each prior decision can be considered for the principle it contains, but if there are important distinctions to make the prior decision inapplicable, it will not be considered (or will be limited in its value).
This is pretty straightforward Anglo legalistic reasoning, which not suprisingly has its origins in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Edit: The way this would look in the legalistic tradition would be that you would have a law. You would then have citations in actual cases where that law was interepreted. The law would mean what it says and how its been interpreted, with varying entities empowered for arriving at that meaning.
In religious traditions, hypotheticals can be considered, so you're not limited to actual cases in controversies, but the concept is the same. We don't limit ourselves to just reading a simple rule everytime and divorce ourselves from our prior considerations. We also rely on the rule itself though for some type of grounding to know what we're interpreting.
Yet somehow, this distinction didn't make it into so many Bible renditions in other languages, even when those languages have that same distinction. And this goes back for centuries. The KJV, for example, has "Thou shalt not kill". In my native language, when children are taught the Ten Commandments, the word used is also the equivalent of "kill"; and this is the RCC version which goes back for centuries and can hardly be accused of decontextualized reading.
It casts doubt on you as a relevant participant in a discussion about morality.
Ad hominems are not always fallacious, especially when it comes to matters of morality. It's at least strange that people will defend particular moral principles and judge others for not living up to those principles -- yet they themselves do not live by them. One has to wonder what is going on, and whether it's all just a matter of virtue signalling.
No, I was furthering my own point.
Slavery was "organized" as well, for example.
Except that in day-to-day practice, rules still come down to "might makes right". One has to do something that someone with more power said that one has to do, or else face consequences.
In other words, you're not saying anything. You have a nice clause there about ignoring others which you can always refer to when other people don't think, feel, speak, or do as you want them to.
Quoting Banno
Feudal landlords and slave owners, for example, also "recognize the needs of others".
Point being that you're not actually "recognizing" the needs of others, but merely taking for granted that you know what those needs are, without ever actually asking those people about their needs.
It's a classic case of an authoritarian personality. Even while you talk about others, even to others, you don't actually acknowledge them as persons.
In other words, might makes right.
Say, an employee wants a raise and communicates this to his boss; the boss says no and threatens the employee with dismissal. And the good in this is ...?
Quoting Banno
Leaving aside for a moment that you did not just appear out of thin air and don't live in a vacuum--
Would you risk getting burnt at the sake for believing/saying that puppies should not be kicked?
As if people could not decide on their own. Of course they do, all the time. The issue here seems to be the justification of one's decisions, the purpose of which is that the decision-maker can exonerate themselves.
Now envision the above being said about, for example, Nazi Germany. It fits.
You should have known something was amiss just from the grammar. Hebrew doesn't have a third person objective perspective (the depersonalized "thou," as if to suggest it applies to anyone anywhere). It literally says "no murder," not "thou shalt not," and it would apply to you, as in you personally dear reader, because it is the product of a specific covenant between God and his people. If only you were more educated in ancient semitic languages and OT themes you wouldn't have had to endure the trauma of your youth. I blame you for teaching any children otherwise, not Moses. Moses did all he could do, walking about for 40 years while his peeps kvetched. It's really much to blame him.
Quoting baker
And so in a fell swoop you eliminate the idea of considering other's views when deciding one's own. That makes me wonder why I should consider your position here and why I don't stand boldly independent.
Yep. :up:
Quoting baker
Trust in a leader is not inaccessible to evil societies, sure. But what does such a point prove?
For you, it seems so.
It remains that the church goer might do otherwise, that they, not another, are responsible for their acts.
That one's first language is English does not preclude them from speaking another language.
Quoting baker
Pretty much. My comments are about the way in which deontic statements function, setting a grammar that is consistent.
There's much that is presumptive in your critique. It's more about you seeing your antagonisms in others than about reading what is being said. It's unclear, for example, how you manage to characterise an ethic centred on finding common values and working through those as "authoritarian". Is that because you think that I should not point out the kicking puppies is wrong? That we should not tell you what to do? There's something quite odd in your asking if I would die in a ditch for the pup; as if that were the only reason for some value being relevant, some all-or-nothing account. It's unclear what you are advocating as an alternative, but it seems to be some sort of libertarian, laissez-faire arrangement. Now there is nothing much to say about folk doing as they please, up until what they do effects someone else. And that is were we might look for agreement and negotiation. Or we might just reach for our guns. Which would you prefer? Are we going to discuss ethics or warfare?
All this by way of asking what the point of your responses is. What are you offering?[/hide]
Hear hear!
I did. I prefer honey. But there is something to be said for the caramel in brown sugar.
But point taken - my apologies. I'd already said as much to Hangover in a PM, but got sucked in again this morning before I had my first coffee. I'll try again.
I thought my opinion about the taste of Greek yoghurt with brown sugar went unnoticed like a handful of salt in a soup. But I am now pleased that you actually could read it. :smile:
When I am stirring the broth, I laugh like a mediaeval witch.
Sure I can
Quoting Banno
I can see that you have not grasp my point, yet. Let me try and explain it more fundamentally, without the use of stupid examples:
We humans claim free will, but our whole civilisation is based on collective decision-making. This is a contradiction. One might claim some fundamental, chimerical, ethic or morality or some greater good to which humans should freely make a collective decision on - this foundation has not been found yet. We humans, especially the more philosophical ones, have been barking up this tree for millennia. This way of understanding has met with great success according to some and great failure according to others - depending on who are the current winners in our political games.
Thus, the entitlement to any right is solely dependent on the specific political environment in which this right is claimed. Therefore, claiming any right as an entitlement is a fallacy.
If "the entitlement to any right is solely dependent on the specific political environment in which this right is claimed", then there is an entitlement to a right, albeit dependent on a specific political environment.
So one could claim such a right as an entitlement dependent on a specific political environment.
Your conclusion, then, still does not follow. There remains something oddly contradictory in the idea that one can have a right to which one is not entitled, even if one thinks of rights as only happening within specific political environments rather than a consequence of our ethical consideration.
I can't see a contradiction between free will and collective decision making. I don't see that you make your case very well. There doesn't seem to be a reason folk could not choose freely to act collectively. But in any case the notion of free will is fraught with confusion. A whole 'nuther barrel of fish.
Perhaps.
But that does not mean that folk do not have rights.
And Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
still appears very odd; as if one could have a right but not an entitlement -- picture that cop saying "you have the right to remain silent but you are not entitled to remain silent"...?
Still missing the point, still using stupid examples. The mere fact that a cop must inform you of your rights, thereby granting you this entitlement; is due to a political environment ... nothing else.
Perhaps. But what you said was that the right was not an entitlement.
If what you are saying is that rights are social institutions, well so is language.
Yep.
So is Language an illusion too?
"What the fuck is an Anglo-Saxon nation?"
----frank, 2025
Here in Spain, folks call him "the architect of the 2003 Iraq invasion".
:scream:
[hide="Reveal"]
What's the filling?
Pork meat and onion. :yum:
:up: :yum:
Dearly beloved,
Nature is harsh, and nature is gentle by turns, and This concerns all of living nature, including humans. Don't get too comfortable or you will be in for a nasty surprise.
Let's discuss it together honestly.
All that I I need to know about you is, 'are you kind?'
______________________________________________________________________
A mouse does not ask the cat if it is kind, and the cat does not consider it either. Nature is kind and cruel without distinction; it is only a consideration for humans, and the bible has the right of things in explaining that these considerations and reflections eject humanity from the innocence of nature into the world of morality, and therefore of immorality.
It is possible to delight in cruelty, as it is possible to delight in kindness, and one can flip from one to the other and back. These are the gates of heaven and hell, and not to know the difference is to pretend to be a mere beast.
ibid.
There is no point in arguing that War, War, is better than Jaw Jaw. The performative contradiction defeats the argument. You know the rules - will you come with me; are you kind? It's the same question.
ibid.
The story in question is a nonsense tale, The answer to where the time goes is that it gets sucked into the infinite void of self, another nonsense tale.
Anybody's choice. You can choose kindness or cruelty. But it's nonsense to choose cruelty. That's how the song goes, all I want to know is 'are you kind?'
Thus saith the Grateful Dead, and here endeth the lesson. We've got some things to talk about and let's try not to talk nonsense, the tide is rising as we speak.
It's a buck dancer's choice, my friend
Better take my advice
You know all the rules by now
And the fire from the ice
Quoting unenlightened
The answer to where does the time go is the same answer as the answer to how does the song go.
I see you've got your list out, say your piece and get out
Guess I get the gist of it, but it's alright
Sorry that you feel that way, the only thing there is to say
Every silver lining's got a touch of grey
EDIT: Philosophy is allowed in the Shoutbox only if it is relaxed and friendly and doesn't involve personal attacks. Those who are determined to debate these issues can make a new discussion. Those who are determined to carry on attacking people personally can find another website to go to.
Here in the US we call him “the fucking architect of the fucking 2003 fucking Iraq fucking invasion.”
----
This thread is opened again! Folks, peace, love and chill out. Relax, you are in a safe place. Respect the sacrosanct feeling of here. :up: :pray:
So how many did it take?
I'd say there's at least four Hanovorians still at it.
(Joke rather than personal attack. If you can't laugh with me laugh at me, or whatever.)
Where does the time go?
(Rhetorical question rather than philosophical question.)
Perhaps, that is why I try to define the nouns I use as far as possible. For example:
"Politics := A process used by humans (Class 7 systems) to propose, contemplate, and implement Rules of Man in order to test their conformance to the Laws of Nature that best describe the purpose of any and all companies." How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence
Apparently philosophy does allow one's own original thoughts - as long as one does not promote yourself.
If this is so, what is the foundational assumption?
If not, what is the foundational unconditional truth?
Fried rice and an egg roll.
If and only if you add deep fried prawns. :joke:
Talking about eggs – yesterday, I bought a 12-pack of quail eggs. These kinds of eggs are small but nutritious. I just eat them with bread.
(After frying them in the pan, obviously).
That's dinosaur eggs.
Let's say you were in the forest by the brook next to the tree beside the rock beneath the squirrel away from the hill near the well that Kevin drilled for all of the children to drink from to bath from and cook from, and to your surprise you were to see just a step from destruction an egg so oval and brown?
Would you think it came first all by itself if you couldn't find any chicken around, or would you insist despite the glory about you that it must have just dropped so gently in the most ordinary way?
There’s a possibility, just a possibility mind you, you’ve missed the point of the question
One quibble: Under "PRODUCT OF SPAIN" was a note that said "WARNING: Cancer and reproductive harm. Hmmmm. Is there a radiation-leaking nuclear power plant on a river pouring over the mussel beds? Or is there a factory secretly dumping polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into the ocean? Perhaps the PCBs are the key ingredient of the special sauce that makes the mussels so exquisitely tender and delicious?
At any rate, I suppose I can now expect a testicle or two to fall off from the toxic Spanish water. The musses were so delicious, losing one or two balls at my age would be almost (but not quite) worth it.
I am surprised to see a warning note about cancer risks and potential harm. This is crazy. I promise the products of my country are healthy and optimum. I don't know what the lad who wrote it had in mind to do so. I guess it is more related to the can where the mussels are packed than the mussels themselves.
A favorite Christmas bivalve around here are oysters, gently heated so that they just begin to wrinkle up. Then they are added to heated milk and cooked over hot water. Add salt and a little pepper.
There are many ways to prepare oysters, so I have heard, but they are terribly expensive, so buying a couple extra pounds of shucked oysters to make a baked oyster dish would be pretty expensive. I don't know what they cost in New York or Boston; we are nowhere close to the ocean. Some people here very much like potato sausage at Christmas -- it is a not very spicy Scandinavian potato / pork sausage in a casing. Good with a rutabaga and creamed potatoes.
Here, people consume the oysters raw. They just open – or crack – the bivalve and eat the little seafood hidden there with a glass of champagne. And yes, oysters are pretty expensive, absolutely.
I am glad you tried a product from Spain. Since you liked it, I recommend you try our tuna. It comes from the Atlantic coast of Cadiz. Japanese lads say it is the best in the world, and they buy tonnes and tonnes of our tuna. But I would also like to hear your opinion on atún de almadraba.
[hide="Reveal"]
A guy named Tony Riggatoni then kicked her in the river, took her cart, and modified it into a hotdog stand where he sold 2 for 1 brats. The remaining mussels were canned, marked as being from Spain, and California then marked them as poison. I felt like something was lost with the transition from that sweet lass who pushed the cart.
True story.
Of course it is a true story – who would dare to say otherwise? :up:
It's obvious that the only enchanted eggs you've ever encountered are deviled .
That was Molly Malone! I assume she was singing:
"Cockles and mussels, alive, alive, oh."
https://countingdownto.com/?c=6696404
Any posts with Christmas themes sent out before December 1 will lead to an automatic banning.
Gotcha, Clarky.
At least the picture was not AI-generated, so I guess I have a pass in my misconduct. :smirk:
These are mine. They were spun from straw into wool by a sorcerer. You must either sell your soul for them or guess correctly the name of the man who turns the spindle.
Prior to my guess, I commented somewhat obscurely:
"Yours is the cloth, mine is the hand that sews time
His is the force that lies within
Ours is the fire, all the warmth we can find
He is a feather in the wind"
With that I offered my guess.
I leave to you whether I don these socks as an empty vessel or whether I maintain the force that lies within.
True story.
Stumbleshitskin.
So close! Sorry, you lose your soul, BUT, you get the free socks, and did you really even have a soul to lose?
I do respect a man secure enough to compliment another man on the look of his trouser.
The sky is speckled with buzzards so I'm wondering if they smell my impending death.
Once I get the socks, they will no longer be free. I will imprison them in sensible shoes with good soles. My soul was already lost in the manifold, so no change there.
NB. if the buzzards are circling, it's a bad sign, but if they are drifting hither and thither and other similar places then they are not on duty as harbingers, but just playing at medieval aerobatics.
They do smell that but are applying their algorithm to everything that moves. It has worked for them so far.
I don't know, that pool looks sparkling clean to me.
My wife asked if we could hire a pool boy for her. I said we could if Could hire a Swedish au pair for me.
We're different forms of life.
A couple weeks ago, overburdened by an unusually large lunch, I decided to lay outside in the afternoon Sun on a wooden boardwalk my father and I built for a few minutes. In spite of it's general state of disrepair (I'm [s]lazy[/s] busy, alright?) It was a surprisingly comfortable experience. Apparently hard surfaces are actually good for the back. Seeing as I had not done so for quite some time, I laid there staring face up at a vast cerulean sky. An occasional small cluster of wispy white clouds would drift ever so slowly from one side of my vision and eventually over to the next. I noticed a small convoy of two or three black birds, almost specks from the incredible distance they must have been above my person. "I hope they don't shit on me", I thought to myself chuckling audibly to an audience of none. Ever so aware of the negative consequences of any situation, per the demands of my occupation, a focus on computer security. Always imagining "the worst possible scenario, no matter how unlikely" takes its toll on a young man's mind. Nevertheless I regained my focus and began to notice they circled back, almost as if a sign of acknowledgement of my supine (thanks @T Clark for introducing that word into my vocabulary) juxtaposition against the long wooden path upon which I laid. To which I said aloud to myself "Hey, I'm not dead yet." As if there was a soul around, other than the occasional vehicle that would drive past every dozen or so minutes.
Long story short. Yeah, them buzzards will do that if you lie still long enough. I might patent that advice into some sort of hunting or survival manual to attract prey and become the next bestselling author. Yeah, I just might do that.
True story. Or is it? Perhaps you'll never know.
Lying on your back, on pavement is actually very comfortable, if you have a pillow.
I would not lie on a bed of nails though.
True ztory.
I assume these are actually turkey vultures. Do you notice how three of them are aligned perfectly? That raises a question whether these are actually birds at all. Perhaps they are disguised ICE drones or a squadron of UAPs.
Maybe @Hanover is actually the Wizard of Oz and Dorothy is attempting to make her way to him resulting in the misunderstood soothsaying woman sending her flying helper monkeys after her again.
It's like a thing with those two. Your guess is as good as mine, though.
Yes, of course. I should’ve thought of that.
Buzzards are officially only in Europe, where we have turkey vultures. Despite that, we call them buzzards. And so it goes.
We actually called them buzzards too. I just wanted to exercise my talent for pedantry. They were always a sign of summer on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. These days we see them in the summer all the way up here in New England.
Yes, but those were marsupial vultures.
As days turned to night, my sweet heartache would leave her barrow emptied neath the stairwell so steep. I admit I took comfort up those steps and down the hall so narrow most evenings than not. A queue would await for the moments you'd get so few, but once before you, you felt there were none other than you.
I'd leave perhaps a few farthing, but my love never counted, but trusted implicitly, or so I best pretended she didn't too suffer from possessing so little.
I resolved to provide her the best I could manage, but with no money nor skill I was so limited. I looked to the skies as one does when he has nothing , and instead of the heavens I saw something better, a manna of sorts, in the form of some turkeys circling about.
I had me no weapon nor way of pouncing when they should land on the ground to pick upon those poorer than me. My only redemption was to feed my dear Molly by baiting the creature with my own wretched body to gift her that bounty.
Making my way down the stairway so narrow, spent for the evening and ready to rest, I found my Molly's turned barrow before me and empty. i did drop to my knees to wallow about in the pungent fish water that dripped to the street. This was the aroma that Molly would leave us, both in her streets and permeating her bedsheets.
No where to go in in the condition I was in, I slept neeth the stars, too kind to enter my room I shared with several other fellows whose names I never knew. I slept very deeply, somewhat comforted by thinking I might one day be saving my princess most precious.
But then I was awoken by a lone bird whose nose must have found me, who had been circling around just hours before. He picked at my clothing, ripping off small pieces, scraping my flesh and opening it forth. I grabbed at his beak and twisted it forcefully, his talons were scratching and fighting me so.
My weight eventually overcame him. and the fallen large turkey laid dead in my clutch. I plucked it and cooked it and packaged it up and took it for Molly just in time for her lunch.
She was hollering and hawking just like she did always, when I brought her this feast. She took it with pause and asked if she might know me. I told her I'd doubt it, as I'd never approach her while she cried out below.
She reached for its wing so long and extended, dripping its burgundy juices upon her lips and her neck.
As she tore and she chewed, she let out a choke, a cough and a sputter, and that was the end of Molly Malone. Alive Alive no! Alive Alive, no! Crying cocks and cocks. alive alive no.
True story.
Bruh. Crocodiles are truly dangerous and rapacious lads. I am lucky that the weather of my plateau doesn't work for them.
The swamp from several years ago. I was rear rudderman.
Quoting William James - The Varieties of Religious Experience
"An option is living if both of its constituent hypothesis are live, where a live hypothesis is one that you might seriously wind up believing as a result of an inquiry. Suppose I propose to you to believe in the Greek gods, or to believe that there is an elephant in the hallway now. You can entertain the hypothesis. But you’re so sure that it’s false that you cannot take it seriously. These hypotheses are dead for you. And in these cases our passional nature, like our intellectual nature, is powerless to effect belief.
An option is forced if you must choose one or the other of its hypotheses. If I offer you the option of whether to jump around like a rabbit or quack like a duck, you can easily decline the offer. So the option is avoidable in James’s sense. On the other hand, if I offer you the choice to jump around like a rabbit or not, then whatever you do you will have chosen one of the alternatives. In general, an option of the form "DO X NOW OR DON’T DO X NOW" will always be forced, since to decline is in effect to choose not to do X.
Finally, an option is momentous if a great deal hangs on how you choose, and especially if the opportunity is fleeting. If someone call you up and says that he’s going on a year long tour of Europe and Asia and that you can come along all expenses paid as long as you say yes right now, that would be a momentous option. To hesitate is to loose."
https://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/pucourse/phi203/will.html
I haven’t read this yet. The more I read James, the more I like him.
Of course you like him. He's an American pragmatist, reciting to you what was instilled in you but that you never articulated to yourself.
If we're going to be bots, let's at least be self aware and embrace it. That sounds like pragmatism again. God damn it.
I think that’s true of all philosophers—all real philosophers. We’re not here to think what we’re told to think, we’re here to put words to what we can see for ourselves.
I rest my case. No further questions… NO FURTHER QUESTIONS!!!
We’re here to name what we can see, what we half-see, what we might only sense out of the corner of an uncooperative eye, or possibly imagine sensing, if seeing were still the agreed-upon method. We’re here to speak from where we actually stand, or at least from where we think we’re standing, assuming standing is still permitted and hasn’t been replaced by a more flexible, inclusive form of hovering.
Depends. Is everyone else wearing red? Is the person colorblind (or regular blind)? Were they good friends (perhaps it's a secret symbolism I'm simply not privy to)? Is the person possibly part of some obscure religion or foreign culture that places that color in the same light as darker more traditional funeral colors are in our own?
It'll certainly result in a few questions similar to the aforementioned.
That someone is disrespectful. Black is for mourning. At least among my people.
Better red than dead.
This made me laugh. I like simple jokes where both colour and death are involved.
Quoting frank
Well, at least he/she went to the funeral. Isn't it more disrespectful to not go at all?
Quoting T Clark
This suggests a complex unarticulated subconscious nonlinguistic belief lurking about awaiting words to carry it.
Once that belief is reduced to words, is the belief different? If the added value of words to the belief is clarification, is that still a new belief?
As in, we can have deeply complex knowledge without words.
Like if I say that smell reminds me of the ocean, and you say "Yes!, that's been bothering me all day trying to place that. "
On a meta level, would you say that your thoughts about this pre-linguistic thought lacked meaning to you until you reduced them to words as you have now? As in, there is some knowledge you can have without words, but not others? What sorts yes and what sorts no?
Indeed, you're expressing an important idea that's been coming up for me a lot lately. The validity of an idea is never entirely separable from its genesis, i.e., all ideas are substantively situated culturally. Furthermore, as philosophers we should be aware of this. Adorno makes these points in various ways, but he's not the only one.
I'm not sure about the bots though.
So, we can't just brush aside @T Clark by saying "you're only saying that because your culture, class, and background have determined that you would believe everything William James wrote". On the other hand, we can see the appeal of James's ideas in that context and assess them partly on that basis.
Ah, the good old days. Do you ever pine or yearn or long for the certainties of the Cold War?
From the religious lens, I think you'd have to live under forced delusion to think it's a coincidence that your religious beliefs just so happen to reflect your family's and your community's 99% of the time.
But I then agree with what you're saying, which is that you find meaning where you accept value. If you see in Adorno a reliable source, his words carry a meaning not found in an Ayn Rand. I ignore the wisdom of the Pope, but it screams from the Rebbe.
This is why I can at first think the Mormon absurd for entertaining John Smith's finding the golden plates, but insist the parting of the sea be taken seriously, although not literally. The mistake is to assume this self-awareness of one's biases necessitates their elimination as opposed to their radical embracing. That is, if the Mormon can find higher meaning but needs to root it the 19th century musings of a traveling salesman, then that is what he should do.
To those who roll their eyes at all belief that is not rooted in the scientific, they just identify the source of their value and what they need to take matters seriously. They need the words to come from the lab for them to be considered, which means they ought do that.
This week is the anniversary of the dismantling of the Berlin wall. I don’t feel nostalgic for that or for what came before it. Mostly I feel a sense of regret that the west, especially the US, blew our chance to make something good out of what was.
Oh well, never mind!
Woah, you've gone too far now! This looks like total relativism to me, and I refuse to get on board.
I graduated highschool in 1984, the middle of the Reagan years. They were building up the military and recruiting heavily, offering all sorts of incentives. My fear was that I'd sign up, the cold war would end, and then I'd actually have to fight a war. That might mean I wasn't really soldier material, but I guess I was rooting for the cold war to continue.
Of course your story is different. If the cold war continued, you'd doubtfully ever lived in Russia and all that entailed.
It's entirely not. It speaks to grounding, not conclusions.
I'd just like to say, although it's a very eccentric and not at all important point, that since nostalgia is a feeling of pain when thinking of the past, this regret you're expressing can actually be encompassed by a richer understanding of the meaning of nostalgia.
True. Maybe I'd be in Bali, or Argentina, or still stuck in that Godforsaken midge-infested hellhole they call Scotland.
You would say that.
As @Outlander said, it depends. For me it depends on the outfit.
I would raise my eyebrow at these:
But this would be fine:
And this? The Janissaries. :starstruck:
Well, if it was the funeral of a Janissary, that would be perfect. Otherwise, I'm not sure. If they had made the effort to dress up in full ceremonial costume it might be a sign of respect, even if the deceased wasn't a Janissary.
Jamal, I'm a Janissary in my free time.
Excellent! But I thought you were abolished in the early 19th century.
Yes, that is right; but do not tell anyone, please. It is a secret! :wink:
You can count on my discretion. I shall take your secret to the grave.
I found this post fascinating. (It'll just be boring if you're not into the field)
So basically this guy's forum got hacked (knock on wood, right?) and somehow the hacker managed to place a couple dozen lines of code at the bottom of one or more files that to even some advanced users would seem to be benign. Just does nominal "innocent"/important looking functions per the so-called patch or emergency it claims to remedy. Except, the genius part is, the REAL code is located within the comments, that every coder worth their salt knows is not processed by the script engine at all.
So, how does he make it work? What the script does (very quickly and briefly, obscured by the helpful looking surrounding functions) is actually request the full text of the file itself using a "get file content" function, then searches the raw text using a calculated formulae (RegEx or Regular Expressions) for the hash values (encoded seemingly gibberish that can be decoded to reveal something else) then compiles them together. So it's just some helpful comment like "variableA" does "helpful information XYZ" and beneath that "md5" or "sha1" (which are established methods of encryption) followed by encoded strings ("1jsj5oakf0kajfk329992ke26k" for example). It really just blends in perfectly, which is what I found so impressive.
But it gets even more interesting. What the script secretly compiles from the random hashes in the commented out section (the comments) is a little known function called "runkit_function_redefine", which targets a seldom used function of the forum software, it's not important what it's called but it completely changes what it does and basically makes it so a PHP script uploaded as an image (virtually non-existent these days due to modern practices) that contains a secret HTTP header which the malicious code can be inserted/uploaded. It then of course runs "eval" on the content of that HTTP header, which if you know anything about the PHP language is VERY dangerous since it literally executes code from a text string (simplest, most common form of data storage) as if you were an administrator with FTP access uploading anything you'd like.
I'm not a hacker nor do I look into that type of stuff other than standard best practices and whatnot like any hobbyist/semi-professional would. But again, I just found that particular obfuscation and "outside of the box thinking" fascinating.
Needless to say I broke my sobriety. Oh well, it's a holiday. Back on the wagon tomorrow.
No I wouldn't.
That's too big for a red cardinal.
A self loathing Scotsman!
Go watch Braveheart and get yourself out of this funk.
It's inflated with sadness.
:up: :smirk:
You can't just have empty regret. You have to submit a proposal for corrective action. The Shoutbox stands almost a dozen strong, and we're here to right wrongs.
In case you were wondering why we were here.
Well, there's a debate there. Is going to a funeral really doing anything for the dead person? This reminds me of Tom Sawyer, who found himself in attendance at his own funeral, though he was up in the rafters looking down at the crowd. I think they thought he died in a cave, but Injun Joe actually helped him survive. I think that's what happened.
I think I'll go with the first one, but I'm not sure where to find that thing he has in his hand.
Maybe funerals are for the living.
What might be disrespectful is that if someone is living but he's about to die but he just won't make the commitment is that you have the funeral before he dies and the Priest just starts off by saying, "It looks like Bob is running late for his funeral, but we expect him to get here soon, so we'll just go ahead and start without him because we know everyone is crazy busy this time of year."
I think that would disrespectful for the soon to be dead guy, but it would show show great respect for the people who came to cry about the guy who was about to die. Maybe it'd be fine if you asked Bob and he said, "sure, go ahead, I'll catch up with everyone later."
I think so.
Quoting Hanover
But then Bob miraculously recovers and now you have all those biodegradable balloons flying around and one ends up flying over China and there's an international incident.
That is Timmy Mallett's mallet. You can buy one here:
https://www.timmymallett.co.uk/shop/
Only £28.99.
And I will dance on it in a red dress, red high heels and very wide brimmed red hat.
[hide="Reveal"]But probably in ghostly form.[/hide]
I would join just for the robes. Or do I have to be a former slave?
Yes. I think your post points out a weakness, an over-simplification, in mine. I wrote--"We’re not here to think what we’re told to think, we’re here to put words to what we can see for ourselves." That ignores the fact that sometimes we don't see till we're shown. I'll expand that in response to one of Hanover's comments.
Quoting Hanover
This is something I've discussed here before many times. I carry a model of the world around in my mind. I feel this very tangibly, visually. As I understand it, it is the foundation of intuition. Here's how I described it in a post from long ago:
Quoting T Clark
What's left out here is that some new ideas make me reexamine, revise, and possibly expand my model of the world.
So, often when I come across new ideas, I get this sense of the ring of truth but also a feeling of the stretching of the fabric of my understanding. I am feeling both very strongly while listening to "The Varieties of Religious Experience."
Quoting Hanover
As my friend Immy used to say
I don't see any contradiction between what you've written here and what I wrote in my response to @Hanover's comment just above. Beyond culture, class, and background I would add genetic and neurological mental characteristics--temperament. I am a pragmatic thinker. Always have been, always will be. I was born that way. That's why I am an engineer.
Without very eccentric and not at all important points, the forum would not be nearly as active.
Now you've prodded me to expound on my theory of regret. Regret is always a cheat, as if you could just wave a magic wand and erase your responsibility for what has happened in the past. So maybe @Jamal was right. Maybe the right word is "nostalgia" after all.
No, you don't need to be a former slave. However, I highly recommend you start learning Turkish on Duolingo. These lads have a terrible English level. Worse than mine, so imagine this!
The ring of truth is not like the ring of commitment or the ring of confidence, which are loops. The ring of truth is like the ring of a bell or the ring of un-cracked, sound ceramics. The ring thus distinguishes truth from crackpot ideas which just clunk.
That's strangely attractive.
Now you’re being cute.
Google says it was how they used to tell gold and silver money from fake.
It reminds me of a black hole. I don't know why. This picture is what you draw when you are alone in your house.
I once started a thread to make the argument that if you can’t predict something, even in theory, then it isn’t determined.
Modally speaking, determinate yet unpredictable (chaos) means in our world unpredictable, but not unpredictable in all possible worlds, but indeterminate and unpredictable (i.e. QM), unpredictable in all possible worlds.
That is, chaos unpredictability increases as variables increase and intelligence and ability to measure decrease.
Your pragmatic problem will arise when you declare something not determined because currently unpredictable and then later someone predicts it.
In any event, calling a coin toss outcome indetermined because unpredictable seems wrong.
I must admit I don’t get the whole modal/possible worlds way of looking at things.
Quoting Hanover
Simple solution— I never definitively declare something as not determined. I always condition that type of judgment.
Beyond that, I have made the case recently that the idea of causality is not necessarily a useful one except in the simplest cases. Seems to me that’s the same argument as saying that the idea of determinism doesn’t make sense except under the same conditions.
Quoting Hanover
Call it what you will, I still say calling it “determined” is not a useful way of characterizing it. It doesn’t really mean anything.
It means that whichever number appeared face up, that number was the only possibility. Laplace's Demon would attest that this is true.
Given the initial conditions, the evolution of the attractor is determined. It is calculated mathematically and cannot vary.
But small variations in those initial conditions will result in large differences in subsequent states.
The Laplacian worldview held that given the initial conditions we could predict the future state. Since we cannot know the initial conditions with unlimited accuracy, we cannot predict the future with unlimited accuracy - even were it determinate.
It wasn't indubitably predictable that T clark become an engineer.
It’s not what Laplace’s Demon knows, it’s what you and I can know.
Is it? I think there are two meanings of determine in play. There's what you can determine, like "they determined that the rain was acidic." Or "the polarity of the field is determined by the direction of current flow."
Are you talking about the first one?
In the second example, the word “determined” is just a synonym for “caused.” I have made the case many times before that causality is not a useful way of understanding the physical world.
Did you really?
I made the case, that doesn’t mean I convinced anyone.
Well, you made the case. Let the chips fall where they may.
Why do we need to know the initial state? We only need know with perfection the current state to know the subsequent state because you'd assume all prior forces exist are impregnated in the current state.
I think the initial state and the current state are the same thing. It’s the initial state of the observation process—conditions at time-0.
Quoting Hanover
Quoting T Clark
This is very complex to me, lads.
Why don't we join the Janissaries or bake a banana and fig sponge cake in Clarky's oven?
Ingredients:
Steps:
Mix everything and bake it with love with your lads. :smile:
Why don't we join the Janissaries and bake a banana and fig sponge cake?
Quoting T Clark
Yep.
I've only got three figs, not quite ripe yet - the Breba crop. How did your figs go this year?
And I'd need convincing to wear trousers on my head...
Oh, it's called a börk.
Corn flour (maze) will make a lighter cake.
Bad. They are not as fatty and sweet as they used to be in the past seasons.
Quoting Banno
Fine, it is up to you. The point is baking together. 225g of corn flour then!
https://www.samebutdifferentcic.org.uk/inspiringwomeninwales-isabel
A true Janissary would never use corn (maize) flour.
Looks like someone has sliced your starling in half.
The Janissaries I know are excellent pastry chefs. But a bit drunken, though. I think it is due to the cold weather where they live.
Two nations divided by a common language. I looked all this up for you.
In the US, we call what you call "corn flour" "cornstarch."
U.S. corn flour would refer to finely ground corn, less coarse than what we'd call cornmeal. You can make bread cakes out of corn flour, but they're definitely not lighter. Cornmeal is what we use for old fashioned skillet baked heavy as a rock cornbread, often moistened with lard. Peasant food.
When you said throw some corn flour in your cakes to lighten them up, that resulted in my going down this rabbit hole.
You're welcome.
That's what she said.
This is a good response. I think you should make it so this is sent out automatically whenever anybody tags you.
Quoting Jamal
Quoting T Clark
Indeed, it is a very good response.
This is another superb moment of the shoutbox.
Thank you. This is a proud moment for me, nay for us all.
But It seems that cooking together will not bring the camaraderie you sought.
Quoting T Clark....and so never make a decent sponge.
Quoting Hanover
No need, but it's good to see you are learning something about English.
Corn flour will produce a finer crumb. You can add a bit of wheat flour if you like, but it will make the cake heavier and dryer. A good sponge does not rely on gluten at all, but gets its structure from the eggs. It's basically a "structural meringue".
The eggs are separated, then the whites frothed, cream of tartare added, and a bit of bi carb to neutralise the acid and add some carbon dioxide. The corn flour coats the bubbles gently, helping stabilise the foam by absorbing surface moisture. As it bakes, the starch gelatinises, basically setting the air bubbles in place. Gluten will tighten as it cooks, shrinking the foam. Using wheat flour the cake will be heavier and less moist.
The yolks, mixed with sugar, are folded gently back in for colour and flavour.
I'm glad you learned the difference between corn flour and corn meal. I'm surprised that you had to.
When will you learn that I am right.
I am not qualified to criticize your knowledge of cooking. As for philosophy, that’s a different story.
Really? You think credentials make good philosophers? I guess that explains a lot.
Everything is upside down in Australia.
Not at all. But experience... yes.
Perhaps growing tulips in a beautiful and plain land might be a better idea. :smile:
Science and engineering teach critical thinking at least as well as philosophy does. And when push comes to shove, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. I’ll put my pudding up against yours any day.
They tend to doctrine rather than critique.
Quoting T Clark
I'm sure you would. However it's plain that you haven't understood much concerning the problems that you attempt to deal with hereabouts. So I'm not sure you are the best judge on such issues.
Do you really wish to play this game with me? As for your sponge, so for your pudding? :grin:
What I learned wasn't the difference between corn flour and corn meal, as I always knew that and never had to learn it. It was one of those synthetic a priori truths I have always held.
What I learned was that your use of "corn flour" differed from mine. Corn flour to me is finely ground corn meal. Corn flour to you is corn starch, an entirely different sort of thing. I'm shocked you had to be told this.
Let me ask you this, knower of all things flour, what do you call what I call corn flour, which is finely ground cornmeal?
And since you shared with me your bougie spongecakes or whatever they may be, I share with you the delicacy of southern cornbread: https://www.harvesteating.com/blog/skillet-cornbread-w-lard
Five tablespoons of lard seems stingy.
White Wings Cornflour is the epitome.
Interesting. I hear they actually call it cornstarch and not corn flour in the US.
Quoting Banno
That cartoon did a great disservice to biology.
I think he's actually made of polyester.
This is fun. Let’s keep it going for a little while.
Quoting Banno
You and I approach philosophy differently. You mostly just repeat things other people have said, without adding much insight of your own. I take more responsibility. It’s not what other people tell me, it’s what I can see for myself. Other philosophers can help with that, but in the end, I’m accountable for my own ideas.
Quoting Banno
I’m pretty sure you aren’t the best judge of who is the best judge.
This is fun!
Just a thought.
The motto of the IEEE (electronic engineering society) used to be Engineering; turning ideas into reality.
Very philosophical, except also helpful.
Seriously, is that the best you can do?
Quoting Banno
Seriously, is that the best you can do? It doesn’t even make sense.
My father worked for Dupont for his entire career—almost 50 years. Their motto was “Better things for better living through chemistry.” I don’t know if it still is.
It was truly fucked up.
I took the "make shit up" challenge. How'd I do?
Land of nerds.
I remember a Monsanto commercial back in the 1970s—“Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible.”
That is such freakin' genius.
So like you'll be in the produce aisle and a calm yet spirited tune kicks on and the spotlights dance on the rutabagas for a few moments. Then you'll be in the bread aisle and a pseudo form of techno comes on with the bright lights dimming allowing colored spotlights to wildly paint the aisle up and down with their various illumination.
I'd shop there. All the young people would. It would market itself. And go viral on its own. Kids would literally force their parents to shop at my store no matter how inconveniently located it is. Fact.
Another fact, I'm going to pitch that notion to investors tomorrow. No one steal my idea in the interim, thanks.
Even back then, I thought it was kind of creepy. Just because I’m made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen doesn’t mean I should take a bath in methyl isocyanate. That’s what killed thousands in Bhopal India a few years after the commercial came out.
That might be the philosophy about nothing. (Jerry Seinfeld?) I can't think of any philosopher who argues that there actually is nothing. But ask GP, I'm sure it could make an argument for nothing.
Quoting frank
No. He is actually made of hemp.
By the way, that photo must be old, when spongebob was young and innocent. If you went to his neighbourhood, you would be surprised at how the tables turned. Don't play with drugs, lads.
I think it's pretty common among engineers to think their expertise entitles them to apply their skills to all the problems in the world. Biology, physics, philosophy: just stop all this nonsense and let the engineers deal with it! It might explain why so many crackpots are engineers. I suspect there's a name for this phenomenon but I can't recall it.
@Banno is a lost cause, but I expect better from you.
You ain't seen nothin yet!
If you’re serious, and if you find my presence on the forum disruptive, let me know.
I was just talking about engineers. Don't take it too personally.
It's a known phenomenon. People have written books about it. Political science academics Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog looked at why engineers are overrepresented among political extremists, conspiracy theorists, pseudoscientific movements, and crackpottery.
Their book focuses on Jihadism but it's wider than that: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691178509/engineers-of-jihad?srsltid=AfmBOopV7UTbPmEccn1GXAjw9DABooachpsgdcYyBS4JVU91bcEVR_9W
Clarky, we love you.
You probably already know this. Your presence here is very important to us. Jamal was joking, and if he was truly serious, I bet he was thinking of other members rather than you.
There are crackpot engineers and then very good-hearted engineers like you; crackpot janissaries (like me) and wonderful janissaries.
And then, there are also good-hearted well-groomed philosophers like @Banno and @Michael Bay, which are apart (different specimens). :smile:
I was talking about engineers.
:up:
There is, assuredly, some stereotype associated with forum admins as well. Isn't there? Why, there must be. But before we attempt to approach such subject matter: a question. If I may.
What word would you use to define yourself? And a follow-up: Why? :chin:
Quoting Hanover
What an interesting mental configuration you have there. Yes, the simple act of including an additional space between the last two brackets provides enough psychoanalysis to fill a library with on your worldview, desires, and fears, both conscious and otherwise, without ever having met you. That's a skill you might be able to develop yourself, someday. :smirk:
...is hackneyed.
And so the sort of tried and tested response one might expect from an engineer.
Ad substantiam. :smirk:
Yes, they're all petty tyrants who need to compensate for their lack of status in real life by wielding authority anonymously in their own little digital fiefdoms. They're so insecure, vindictive, pathetic, capricious, and narcissistic, while being cowardly failures in real life, that the only thing that satisfies them is acting like a wrathful God online.
I enjoyed reading it. Thanks for showing it with cartoons. Otherwise, I would have nightmares this night.
I think "Crocodiles are more afraid of us than we are of them" is a terrible hoax. Of course crocodiles are not afraid of us and they are patiently waiting in their swamp to eat a random hiker.
That's certainly one, I'd imagine. :smile:
And—while likely a common sentiment—is perhaps not one that lines up all too well with the method behind a perceived madness. The Internet is a catalyst for unbridled expression. It's only natural—depending on what frame of mind an individual happens to be in (people use the Internet on the john, mind you)—to occasionally forget the person behind the post in favor of placating the desire to hastily express one's current view (or ideal position, irrespective of—or perhaps in spite of—one's normal obligation to adhere to social etiquette) toward a topic or idea. I think. :yum:
I don’t think he was joking, and I do think he was talking about me.
An additional space can be critical in evaluating the meaning of a sentence. For example, the sentence, "The pen is in my mouth" has a very different meaning if you eliminate certain spacing.
"What is a good website where I can go to discuss and post about philosophical issues?"
It's response:
1. The Philosophy Forum (thephilosophyforum.com)
2. r/philosophy & r/askphilosophy (Reddit)
3. Philosophy StackExchange
4. Philosophy Substack communities
5. Discord philosophy servers
6. Academia.edu “Sessions” (surprisingly decent)
AI is our friend after all. Why don't you guys ask this same question and see if you get a similar response. My concern is that it has detected my prior use and it's sycophanting.
I am getting very frustrated with my attempts to pronounce the words. I think the point is that the three are pronounced the same but "towed" is grinding my gears.
That’s right. Why is that troublesome?
I’ll tell you my own pronunciation confession. Since you’re Spanish, I know “Javi” should be pronounced “Havi,” but when I say it to myself, I always use a hard J.
I got:
1. Eng?Tips Forums
2. r/engineering (on Reddit)
3. IET EngX
4. Engineers Australia – “EA Xchange”
5. Engineering.com
Fine! I don't really know why I got frustrated, actually.
Quoting T Clark
You can pronounce 'Javi' however you want, but don't shout 'JAVIER', please. This is what my parents or other authorities said when they wanted to scold me. It hit me hard when I was a kid. :sweat:
Apparently:
It looks like ChatGPT has read your article.
I was going to let this whole thing go, but seems like you want to keep it going. You and I were going back-and-forth, and I had you on the ropes until you brought in a moderator to take your side. As usual, you bring no substance, only ego.
You're behaving like children. Stop it and go to your beds right now.
Ah, you've bought in to @Leontiskos' theory of the Philosophy Forum "Deep state". Just the sort of thing one expects from engineers:
But I just got up... and had coffee.
You share responsibility for this. I’ll shut up if Banno will.
This is what I am doing right now: I just finished my Duolingo lesson, put on my pyjamas, and tucked myself into bed. :smile:
Good night to all.
Please, @Banno and @T Clark try to make up and move on. Enough. I dislike when people I appreciate are at odds.
Don't use me as a conduit for your snark
It already softly and suddenly vanished away.
I am pressed for time and searched for an AI that is free and doesn't require a login. "Ask AI" (how original) came up. It's response was: [some lengthy encyclopedic response that didn't answer my question]. So I asked it again, specifically for website URLs, to which it responded:
"I apologize, but I cannot provide specific website URLs. My instructions explicitly state that I must use ONLY the very most authoritative and credible print encyclopedias, published nonfiction books, academic journals, and dictionaries, and NO other sources whatsoever. Providing specific website URLs would violate this core constraint, as these are not typically found within the types of sources I am permitted to use."
I have failed. Sorry. But on the bright side:
Quoting Hanover
You'll never guess this one. What did the lawyer name his daughter? :smirk:
Sure— How many attorney general nominees does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Two—One to replace the bulb and one to pay for sex with 17-year-old girls.
Actually, I just noticed ChatGPT is free and no login. It's response was:
"If you’re looking for good websites to discuss and post about philosophical issues, here are some solid picks — each with a slightly different flavour, so you can pick one that fits your style best:
? Recommended Site
Online Philosophy Club — A good all-round forum for philosophically-minded discussion.
- Free to join and open to people from a wide range of backgrounds.
- Topics are varied: ethics, metaphysics, meaning of life, knowledge, etc.
- Rules ask that you stay civil and on-topic (no ad hominems) which helps keep discussion productive.
- Because it’s a dedicated philosophy forum, it may feel more “serious” than broader chat sites.
If you like, I can pull 5–10 of the best philosophy discussion forums (free, open to post, good community) ranked + linked — do you want that?"
I replied: "Yes."
It replied:
"Here are 8 good websites/forums where you can discuss and post about philosophical issues — each has a slightly different tone or community, so you can pick the one that fits you best.
# Name What it offers & good fit
1 Online Philosophy Club A dedicated philosophy discussion forum welcoming all levels (from students to professors). Forum rules emphasise civility and on?topic discussion.
2 The Philosophy Forum A general forum where you can post about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, religion, etc. Good variety of topics.
3 Philosophy Vessel (Forum) A global, open platform for classical and contemporary philosophy (ethics, metaphysics, philosophy of information, etc.). Welcoming for beginners and more advanced.
4 PEA Soup A site focused on philosophy, ethics, academia — lots of thoughtful articles and discussion around current philosophical issues.
5 EpicureanFriends A more specialized forum: focused on classical Epicurean philosophy (ethics, ancient texts). Good if you like that specific tradition.
6 Sikh Philosophy Network A forum oriented toward Sikh literature and philosophy, inter?faith dialogue and philosophical issues within that tradition. Good niche/community.
7 LessWrong While not purely a “philosophy forum” in the traditional sense, this community focuses on rationality, cognition, decision-making and philosophical questions around those topics.
8 r/philosophy (Reddit) & r/askphilosophy (Reddit) These are subreddit forums where you can post philosophical questions, ideas, get feedback, engage in open discussion. Example: > “This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy …”
Fuckpuppet?
Sure, that's a good joke, but I think my guess to the joke above is the best of all time.
That was the expected answer, yes. :sweat:
Are you suggesting that we could smoke SpongeBob SquarePants and get stoned?
The THC content in hemp is to low to get stoned. They have to remove large amounts of hemp derived THC and put it in a gummie to get you stoned.
Ladies and gents, I present to you: "The Outlander." A feisty improvement to the traditional ham and cheese sandwich featuring: (2) slices of white bread, a total of (3) "tavern-style" (smoked I believe with light seasoning) slices of ham freshly sliced from the local supermarket, along with (3) pepper jack cheese slices (alternating between layers of ham, never touching one another), accompanied by (2) vertically-sliced "deli style" pickles, all held together by a few liberal allotments of French's yellow mustard in between most slices.
You'll note one slice is missing as per the customs of my restaurant. Chef/server takes a slice/spoonful of whatever you order in lieu of you having to tip. It brings in more business than you might expect. Pretty high turnover rate on servers, though. Bah, no matter. Just growing pains.
Yes. This is what I was exactly suggesting.
Excellent ham and cheese sandwich. Next time, try them with olive oil. Trust me, it is a wonderful combo.
There are a couple of problems with the use of olive oil in @Outlander's sandwich. First, it would be absorbed by the soft, thin bread, which will become unpleasantly soggy and will probably disintegrate. Second, olive oil with French's mustard doesn't sound like a promising combo. Third, the flavour of extra virgin olive oil would not, at least for me, be at home in a ham and cheese sandwich unless the ham was the European raw ham like Jamón Serrano or Jambon de Bayonne.
Personally, I would replace the French's mustard with a mix of mayonnaise and English mustard, and add some fresh ground black pepper.
Huh. I just might try that.
It occurred to me my aversion to mayonnaise is largely pseudo-enforced, fabricated by my choice to refrain from condiments, sauces, and similar viscous product that can be easily tampered with without displaying discernible lack of evidence when dining out (or otherwise consuming food I did not prepare myself). (I live an interesting life, shall we say, plus many people in the service industry are unhappy, prone to vindictiveness, or are otherwise raised without rigid morals—might as well ask a monkey to prepare one's lunch, am I right? I kid. A little unsolicited late night humor.)
But at home where the food ingredients go from a factory sealed container or package to a plate is a different story. A quick Internet search reveals "English mustard" as a bit more flavorful, spicy even, with a discernible "fiery kick" (in comparison to American mustard). Sounds good so far. I trust you're aware "French's" is an American brand pioneered by one "Mr. French" and does not hail from France, yes?
While I do believe in the pseudo-rhyme: "a little pepper makes everything better", I question the discernible taste and elevation of the overall flavor profile even a generous amount of black pepper would make on a fairly busy sandwich such as "The Outlander". What with the mustard (very peppery as-is), pickles (quite tangy), and if I'm not mistaken, already albeit slightly seasoned ham. But it is fair to say, it certainly would not do any harm. :smile:
Respectable advice from a respectable man. I feel like I should be paying some sort of membership fee for such. Golly good, Jamal. Golly good. :grin:
Edit: As far as olive oil, a fun anecdote: All my life I've been fond of sardines. Always in water. Since a young age. Oil made such a mess. And messes are to be punished. So it was always, any fish, even any meat: "In water only." This obsession even extended to fruits such as mandarin oranges and peach cups. Oh can't have a mess. Cannot have a mess. Messes are to be punished, after all. But finally, one day, when I was a legal adult I decided to order a new brand of sardines that came in a variety pack, one of which rests in, you guessed it, olive oil. It was one of the best sardines I can recall in living memory. I also tried a variety (of the exact same product) that was in water. It was not so great. Which made me realize not just what I was missing, but the sheer length of how long as well! Oh did it make me start to rethink what else in life I've been so hopelessly unaware of. Needless to say, I have a newfound respect for olive oil and would certainly entertain the idea of olive oil (carefully, only drizzling a small portion on the ham or cheese itself that does not immediately neighbor the delicate and malleable culinary bookends that are bread slices).
There's another ham and cheese sandwich I like, called "The Jamal." It's a grilled cheese sandwich but there are slices of ham in the middle. The key is to have the cheese, not the ham, directly in contact with the bread so that it gets the heat and melts. So the ham is sandwiched between bread and cheese on both sides.
Indeed, @Outlander's sandwich bread is replaceable. I'd use a baguette (we call it "barra" here) because it is thin. Furthermore, I will not add anything else to my sandwich or bocadillo. Just the ham with cheese and olive oil. This was my point. Since olive oil has a strong flavour, I don't think I need extra products. I believe I have never combined mayonnaise and pickles in a sandwich. Perhaps it is a cultural culinary thing. I only eat these alone or with fish.
Quoting Jamal
Yes. I thought the same. I even believe that I already said this in the shoutbox: English mustard is far better than French one, and it combines better with most products. This is my favourite:
This sounds excellent as well. When I would get traditional (cold) ham and cheese sandwiches from the nearby delicatessen I observed that by simply microwaving it (I understand a proper oven is superior but the comparison between hot and cold is assuredly captured by the like) the sandwich was... much more, not only filling, but, tasty? Hearty? One of those words. It was almost elevated to the status of a meal itself and not just a quick snack or light lunch like a cold ham and cheese sub would be otherwise.
But! We have a conundrum. A personal one due to my peculiarities, rest assured, nothing to do with the nature of your recipe. Rest assured. For me, the combination of melted cheese and warmed ham has the effect of "weighing me down" and invoking a state of desired rest. It makes me sleepy. Which is not good for my line of work. At the end of the day, when all is done but preparing for night's rest, this is ideal. Excellent even. So I will try this, but during the evening. I will retain and actualize your wisdom of ensuring both receiving sides of bread are met with the touch of not ham, but cheese.
I've had an aversion of grilled cheese sandwiches since I was young but I now realize that was due to the quality of the venue of the place in which they were served (school and other people's houses), not the product served itself. I for one love a good ham and cheese, cold, and especially hot, such are the circumstantial risks I take that come with the latter. I will assuredly try "The Jamal", to recreate it, to the best of my ability, such as said ability is, and upon doing so will produce a photo as evidence of such, so that it may be judged, praised, yea even ridiculed in the unforgiving arena of verbal combat that is, The Shoutbox. Stay tuned Jamal, stay tuned.
I might even suggest not just the oil of the olive, but, stand back, the olive itself! We won't limit ourselves to the squeezed essence of this ancient fruit, but its very meat.
I call this radical unrefined beast the HanoveriniRobini.
At this point in the conversation we expect @Banno to arrive and explain how we've all done it wrong, with avocado oil or some such being more accurate based upon how it interacts with the animal proteins and slightly acidic this or that.
What might compose a Bannonini?
Speaking of mustard, I bought some Chinese style mustard powder you mix with water to form a hot paste of sinus clearing unhappiness. I find that it must be used sparingly, best when not used at all.
For the adventurous, you'll find it in the Kung Pu Hanoverfuchan sandwich.
And yes, y'all are going to have to endure my traveling the globe with sandwiches I make up.
I was thinking about creating a Scottish menu where I just added a "Mc" to every item, but someone beat me to it.
Nuh. Olives are good.
Agreeing to be disagreeable. Next level. Nice.
Wow! Interesting!
I never heard of Chinese mustard. Yet I bought Chinese paste, but I don't recall what it was called. Used in meat in most cases.
Now that I am thinking of this, Chinese soups are spicy but pretty tasty. I love them.
I'm a fan of Mexican soups. Most overlook that on the menu in Mexican restaurants and go for the burritos, enchiladas, and the like. I just had that last night, shredded chicken and vegetable soup and some empanadas.
Oddly enough, we call this a grilled ham and cheese sandwich. If instead of ham, you make the sandwich with a hamburger in the middle, we call it a golden boy.
I want a golden boy.
Everyone wants a golden boy.
Are we still talking about sandwiches?
You share a language but not food.
Pay attention. We’re talking about the Epstein emails.
Exactly. That's right!
--------------------------
I ate a salad for supper. Please, don't get upset with me, but I added nuts and a bunch of chocolate chips. The result was amazingly good.
Epstein wasn't into golden boys. He was into golden girls.
He groomed them from a young age waiting for them to get to their sassy prime.
Yes, the elusive and mysterious @Michael Bay. Well dressed, joined 8 years ago, and nary a post. Legend has it (as in a breaking news sort of legend) he took his salad with bittersweets, an ingredient as mysterious as the man.
We were in the company of greatness and never knew.
Holly Molly. My boy @Michael Bay is tremendous.
Quoting javi2541997
Hmm.
[quote=Wikipedia;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bay]Six of Bay's films have been nominated for the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture and Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director (Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Transformers: Age of Extinction and Transformers: The Last Knight), with Revenge of the Fallen and Age of Extinction winning the award for "Worst Director". [/quote]
But let's be fair:
We FINALLY have a mega-star on our rolls, and you want to hate? We've all waited 8 long years for any comment at all from him, and you've probably just reset the clock.
If heat is the goal, then wasabi is I think a better approach. We've managed to keep some plants alive for a year or so, and while they are not yet large enough to harvest the stem, we've used the leaves in salad with a very pleasing result.
So my ham sandwich would have leg ham off the bone, a mild cheese such as Jarlsberg and a salad of wasabi leaves.
It depends on how we see it. At least @Michael Bay was nominated for something, and he even won an award. Perhaps, his work will be more valued after his death. Like Van Gogh's paintings.
I admire your perspective.
I wonder what some folk are going to think about having their post count reset to 0. Will that happen? How "fresh" will the new start be? Don't want to clutter up the public thread with my idiosyncratic bouts of curiosity.
Will we have to sign up again as if joining a new site? Or will we just load up TPF one March day and be on an empty new forum? Will new membership admittance be the same as it is now (ie. no temporary "open enroll" to get the initial numbers up, etc.)?
These are good questions so I'll reply in the dedicated thread.
I'm at 6.9K comments and 5.9K mentions.
I don't know. Perhaps, I will get over 7.2K comments and 6.3K mentions or so before the forum is frozen.
Typically when changing platforms, Porat purchases the old data. We could use the cash infusion. Want me to reach out?
Should we consider this transition a reset, much like a Jubilee year, relieving all of their past debts where all prior banashees are qualified for reentry?
If I return as a street urchin hungry for gruel and philosophy, speaking like Oliver Twist, will everyone allow it without reminding me of my Hanover days?
The Shoutbox will become an instant message board, much like a Snapchat. Can we still have a community posting room like this one, perhaps named after me?
Can the data from the old platform be available in downloadable form so we can perform AI analysis on the old posts and posters. It would be helpful to summarize each person into a one sentence essence. I can better understand people once cleansed of annoying nuance
That's it for now. I'm sure I'll think of something more.
All of that can be done in live chat, unless I'm missing something. I'm not saying no—just trying to establish what people think the live chat will be lacking. Because quite often I think it'll turn out that live chat isn't lacking it aftet all.
The Shoutbox used to be live chat and we had to make it a regular discussion thread when we moved to Plush only because Plush has no live chat feature.
You're probably right. But even what's his name likes the idea of a "community posting room", likely for the reasons I've suggested. Unless he's joking. Hard to tell with that one. I guess I just think it's neat you can go back to page 1 and read about what was going on 10 years ago. I like history, even a small community meta-history (like this Porat guy I've seen come up multiple times over the years).
Quoting Jamal
Aye aye, cap'n. I just figured my comments were minor personal interests that didn't belong in a newly minted official pinned thread is all. If I have something to say, I'll make sure it's important. :wink:
Sim brushed away the crumbs from his drawing of a micro apartment and paused to wonder if there is any difference between a story and a thought. If he made a doorway in the apartment to another dimension, would people store their winter clothes in it, filling the dimension up with mittens and long johns?
Quoting javi2541997
I suggest someone open a thread in the lounge where people can just post over and over again to increase their counts.
There's an app that can create thousands of meaningless posts and stories that go nowhere. I've been using it for years.
However, I think that if you, @Banno and I begin discussing the Voynich manuscript in the shoutbox, we will quickly reach the number of posts. :smile:
I'll be seen as a Socrates sort of character, using you guys just to show how smart I am, you being just two bit characters in my play.
The sense of responsibility I feel is overwhelming.
Warning— in the last minute you find out this is an ad for a streaming service, but that doesn’t distract from its value to me.
I’ve suspected as such
Whom.
Or, perhaps, it’s the other way around.
That's what she (Diotima) said.
Silly?…Or smelly?
Acknowledged.
Too right, I said.
@apokrisis @Banno
“I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.” Nietzsche.
In my view, he couldn’t be righter.